AMCA News and Discussions

Locked
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

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: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Cosmo_R »

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: 374
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by ragupta »

Why bother with F-414 EPE, when you can use General Electric F110-GE-129 if F-16 is selected.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

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: 374
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by ragupta »

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: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by shiv »

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
Posts: 114
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by enaiel »

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: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

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: 374
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by ragupta »

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: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

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: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

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: 374
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by ragupta »

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: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

^^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: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

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: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Khalsa »

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: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by shiv »

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
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by JayS »

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
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by JayS »

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: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

K-11 might well just blindly copy 414s
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

..............................
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
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by JayS »

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: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

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: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

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: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

jumping on the gun on CMC could solve issues related to high temp/pressure. lot of research is needed
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by JayS »

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/militar ... 0717b.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
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by JayS »

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: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

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
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by JayS »

^^ 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/artic ... st-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: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

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: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Khalsa »

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: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

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.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by JayS »

brar_w wrote: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.
I am looking for more info but there isn't much independent info - copies of a few same sources. From GE site - 2003:http://www.geaviation.com/press/militar ... 3616b.html
The EDE package includes a three-dimensional aerodynamic (3-D aero) high-pressure compressor, high-pressure turbine and exhaust frame, and lower-emissions combustor. The new compressor improves airflow and efficiency, and time between overhauls is increased from 4000 hours to 6000 hours. The 3-D aero turbine is more efficient, with higher temperature capability, while increasing fatigue life from 2000 hours to 6000 hours. These enhancements could be available for production F414 engines in 2009.
BTW @NRao - note that this link mentions possibility of F414 for LCA growth version - in 2003. Also do you know that RM12 was very seriously considered for LCA?? Volvo chickened out, due to GE pressure perhaps. Just a tidbit.

2012: http://www.geaviation.com/press/militar ... 21204.html
GE is also on an ambitious path to incorporate new designs and hardware to equip the F414 with increased thrust and improved durability. An F414 Enhanced Durability Engine (EDE) features both a new high-pressure turbine and new six-stage, high-pressure compressor to offer significant maintenance and fuel savings. The F414 Enhanced Performance Engine (EPE) will generate up to 20% more thrust by increasing fan airflow with the EDE hardware configuration.
Another more recent article 2015-16:
https://www.scribd.com/document/220955742/F414-400-EDE
.
.
The F414 EDE is billed as an upgrade – not a new centreline engine – but it promises sig-nificant performance improvement. The con-figuration changes are exclusively hardware, but how the performance improvement is realised depends entirely on the software.
The navy can programme the full authority digital engine control system to upgrade the power output of the F414 EDE engine to around 26,400lb-thrust. The same changes can dramatically im-prove the engine’s durability if thrust output is maintained at the 22,000lb-thrust baseline
.
.
The trade-off with upgrading the engine to produce 26,400lb-thrust is a consid-erable hike in maintenance costs. Running the F414 EDE at the higher thrust setting reduces turbine life to 2,000h (comment - same as original F414), Caplan says. This is just one-third of the current 6,000h interval.
.
.In the end, the new passive cooling system integrated into the turbine blades was sufficient to meet the requirements of the engine. GE confirms that the F414 EDE turbine is equipped to survive despite a 66˚C (150˚F) increase in turbine inlet temperature.That increase in temperature margin is the key metric in achieving either increased durability of the overall engine at the baseline thrust level, or the higher-power, less-durable performance at higher thrust setting.
.
.

From above sources my assessment is:

So EDE = Vanilla F414 + Improved HPC (3D aero, 6stg) + Improved HPT (better cooling, increased TIT by ~60degC)
EPE = EDE + new fan (3 stage fan with all 3 blisk stages)

EDE HW changes improve Durability at same thrust - from 2000h to 6000h life for HPT. For HTP the main reason is improved cooling (+66deg more TIT limit) apart from small contribution from 3D Aero. Now EPE will bring down this life to 2000h for HPT again at ~20% thrust increase - due to increased TIT to new max limit. But this increase in thrust is also due to new fan i.e. increased Mass flow rate. Since we know the Thrust can be increased easily (at the expense of life) just by tweaking FADEC, GE can easily come up with a thrust setting where EDE uses the increased TIT limit to boost the thrust, even without new fan. Life will be same (F414 level) - thrust will be more - I am betting it would be around 10% - to ~110kN (Because the mass flow rate increase is ~10% which should give ~10% increase in thrust on its own account - linear variation of thrust with mass flow rate, rest 10% due to increased TIT). I have seen mentions of 110kN F414 version that India is interested in (some forums and reports such as one by Ajai Shukla, but they are not very reliable so not posting here - but if smoke is there, fire might as well exist somewhere, who knows). And I think GE can very well provide it with same life numbers as original F414.

Looks like down the line GE simply combined EDE and EPE in EE. Same engine will be giving both options - just choose thrust setting through FADEC. The currently open contract which was supposed to be signed last year but USG didn't provided for in its budget - for sure has all 3-stage blisk which means it has EPE changes.

But now it looks like even if India buys F414, it will be the EE version, and may be India will get to participate in new Fan design. GE would not share hot tech, but Fan can be done easily, as GE was anyway going to out source it.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

Is there any operational advantage in side-by-side seating against tandems? [re: su-34].

Should we develop a variant?

- improved space for LRUs
- larger radar modules t/r real estate
- better views and useful for WVRs
- better man/machine interface

?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

JayS wrote:
brar_w wrote: 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/
I don't think anyone will out and out pay GE to develop something. The cost for the very high end of the R&D program required for the EPE or EE will not be trivial. South Korea is probably the only customer that could do it but we have no indication that they have committed to a higher rated variant. India has yet to finalize the initial F414 order from what I understand so I'm not holding my breath nor wanting the MOD to subsidize GE's R&D effort. The only hope is the USN and for them, given their FYDP the only way this comes before 2025 is if it lowers life cycle cost and ups engine on times. No fancy, higher thrust variant will be approved by the Congress until the sequestration lifts. They have depot headaches staring at them mid next decade and can't invest in these upgrades. NAVAIR has its hands full with newer weapons, the F-35C FOD and the new jammer.

Keep in mind the USAF and USN haven't gotten a 'service's budget' for close to 5 years and aren't likely to get it for another 5-6. What you see is the 'Congress's budget' where Congress is micro-managing Obama/Carter's budget down to program-line items. Its a consequence of the BCA and is unlikely to change as long as the BCA is in place.

Given GE is leading the thrust category they aren't going to take IRAD $$s away from their future programs where the investment is going to go hard. P&W has nearly matched their government funded efforts (ADVENT) through internal funding and are showing up for AETD and AETP at the same readiness levels despite getting a pass on ADVENT contracts. In the overall next GEW context the F414 variants are rather irrelevant.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by JayS »

^ Sure no one would like to bankroll the RnD cost. I agree USN is the only hope perhaps. India might be willing to do that only in case of some significant ToT, which again is far-fetched. EPE may never come to reality (I recently heard something about the new all blisk Fan module for F414 from a guy in the know, he's one of the top management in one of the biggest GE supliers, but I need to ask him some more details to be sure what's happening).

But tell me something which of the techs which increase endurance are yet to be developed?? I thought all of them are already demonstrated and would need relatively less efforts to incorporate in operational engine. If at all India wants 110kN, IMO EDE with tweaked FADEC is sufficient - no new Fan needed.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

EDE technology is mostly developed but you are still looking at a 1/2 to 1 Billion or so to complete what is remaining and then run an operational test program. GE has said 4-5 years from contract to operational flight so even time wise its not something that can be done very quickly. 5-6 years of stable investment and dedicated test infrastructure requires a level of commitment that won't come from anyone outside of the USN. As I said, the Indian F414 order is likely incomplete so anything to mass procure that and then follow up with a more capable variant is at this point of time a far fetched idea. The ROKAF and DAPA has already moved on their KF-X and will probably look to shore up a contract before the AdA or HAL. They could potentially look for investments but we don't know what their plans are (GE had offered the EPE to them but we don't know whether the EPE, EDE or EE configurations were selected or if they just chose the existing F414).
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Indranil »

It looks like ADA is close to finalization of the external shaping of the AMCA. It has now put out an EOI for 6 qualified men who can take care of the structural design based on the above layout in about 24 months.
JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3118
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by JTull »

Indranil wrote:It looks like ADA is close to finalization of the external shaping of the AMCA. It has now put out an EOI for 6 qualified men who can take care of the structural design based on the above layout in about 24 months.
What happened to the staff who worked on LCA design?
Zynda
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Zynda »

^^6 qualified men or organizations?
Zynda
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Zynda »

I have to say that AMCA's design management seems to be progressing in a haphazard way. I can't name the org, but they (a GoI lab) are in to structural design optimization phase of AMCA's very crucial component. On the other hand, I am reading the above news. Totally confused onlee...
Locked