Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

[brar_w]

No, just the nozzle. I remember back when GE offered to modify the AVEN (3d) for the F404 (Gripen circa mid-90s) they said that it would cut nozzle life in half. Perhaps with time they can better that since the AVEN design itself goes back to GE's offerings of the late 80s. In fact its a pity that no one took the AVEN and added it to the 404, or 414 ( GE's roadmap has offered such an enhancement for well over 15 years now) given the multiple operators, its performance in terms of vectoring is still class leading for a multi axis 3D system.

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFA ... 200015.PDF

[Austin]

A Russian assisted effort for Tejas?
How choices get made: Develop indigenous Vs. lisc.produce

Another such but slightly different, decision may soon be on MOD’s table. It involves the jet power plant for Tejas. The original General Electric F-404 capable of 80-85 KiloNewtons of thrust equipping Tejas is to be replaced by the GE 414-INS6 engine capable of 98KN or 22,000 lbs of thrust, turbofan, with afterburner. This was an indent for the navalised version. IAF, always the laggard fetched up later to demand the same engine. In 2010, India contracted to buy 99 of the 414s for the Tejas Mk-2 program, with the delivery begun in 2013. With the total requirement of 500-600 engines for the Tejas (with each 414 engine estimated to pull 3,000 hours of flying, and 3.5 engines for the lifetime of each aircraft), HAL is seeking to license produce them in Banglaore, in its well-honed SKD-CKD assembly mode that guarantees HAL continues to learn nothing about ingesting and innovating technology, and even less about designing and making aircraft engines.

The incorrigible IAF, meanwhile, reconsidered the up-powered engine for the Tejas, and decided that because the heavier S6 power plant would require a heavier rear fuselage and hence a redesigned Tejas, it was in too much of a hurry and couldn’t wait for this modification to be engineered into Tejas. So, could it have 44 more Rafales (beyond the 36 of these French items PM Modi so kindly, and w/o much forethought, approved for purchase) please!

Russia, after being disappointed with India turning down offer to co-produce the FGFA Su-PAF FA engine, is now offering to collaborate with the GTRE (with experience of designing and developing the indigenous Kaveri engine for Tejas that attained the 81KN on its testbed before it was abruptly ended) to design and develop an engine exactly to fit the redesigned Tejas Mk-2 to accommodate the larger 414 engine to meet the heightened performance standard of the GE 414 EPE (enhanced performance engine) able to produce 26,400 tons or 120 KN of thrust and a 11:1 thrust-weight ratio. Incidentally, the 414 EPE is powering the Super Hornet F-18 and the advanced Gripen the US and Sweden respectively offering to India in lieu of the French Rafale. Thus, powered Tejas would be an extraordinary all-INDIAN combat aircraft. In fact, the imported old 414s (in the 99 unit lot) could exclusively equip the export version of the LCA for which many countries are already lining up as potential customers, among them Sri Lanka and Egypt (both friendly states dropped their interest in the Chinese-Pakistani JF-17 Thunderbird after their representatives saw the Tejas put on a show in Bahrain a few months back). Neighbours and friendly states such as Vietnam, Philippines, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and states in Africa will not need much persuasion to buy it.

So the GE 414 EPE equivalent is what Russia is offering to design and build from scratch in India at GTRE, and get Indian jet engine designers and engineers in on its development from the start. The choice is then between a Russian-assisted Indian advanced engine or HAL license-manufacturing an American engine that is already 25 years old. Russian-assisted projects — Arihant SSBN, for instance, have not turned out badly, have they? It would be preferable to GE even permitting HAL to screwdriver the EPE, which’s the likely offer the American company will make to counter the Russian proposal. Because, insofar as one is able to confirm, the combat aircraft engine parameters the US has offered to co-develop with India (one of the projects on DTTI’s “doable” list the recently visiting US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter mulled over with the Defmin Parrikar), is below 414 EPE level.

BK should know changing the engine is not a Walk in the Garden , That would involved certifying the engine and will involve many hundred of hours of flight test program to qualify the Tejas for the new engine , that is like few year of flight test program depending on the pace of test and how thing goes , its all Time Consuming , Money Consuming and Risky Affair

For better or worst Tejas will Live and Die with GE engine be it 404 or 414 , There is little hope of even our Kaveri replacing that much less some unknown Russian engine.

For other program like AMCA they can tied with any vendor that offers the best deal in terms of TOT and Cost , better to go for Open Bidding

[vishvak]

Well here's a bit of work for them if they browse these forums

GE-F414-400



EDE bumps certain modules to 6000 hours, while EPE reduces some to 2000 hours. TVC Nozzle would probably cut the life to half.

For GE-414-400, it cost about 3.021 million$, so what is the problem in having an indigenous engine produced in India? That such a capability is not available and now on offer seems to be missing. By the way, Something similar was also said about PAK-FA when prototypes were not ready that Russia does not have a Gen 6 fighter that can fly. Well, all the hours gonna come and go and such an attitude can surely do one thing which is deny the capability.

[brar_w]

For GE-414-400, it cost about 3.021 million$, so what is the problem in having an indigenous engine produced in India?

There is no problem, as long as the timelines are acceptable and the risk justifiable by the operator. Also, that 'indigenous engine' is already being worked upon in the Kaveri and its offshoots and Russia (or anyone else for that matter) can obviously offer up its generous assistance and access to technology to improve those engines to a point where they are much ahead of the competition. A brand new clean sheet engine takes a long time to go from a 'paper' offering, to an in-service product. However, to suggest a path that does away with the 404/414 for a paper product, without also suggesting the risk, time, and cost involved in a brand new clean sheet design is rather disingenuous and can't really be taken seriously. Let me give you an example of the P&W F135, the initial contracts went out in the early 2000's, and that engine is unlikely to achieve the F414 level of maturity (as measured in standard metrics) before 2020. And note that the F135 builds on the proven P&W F119. ADVENT-AETD-AETP-FINAL EMD ENGINE ON A FIGHTER - would have taken close to 20-25 years once everything is said and done.

It takes time and lots of resources to develop a new engine, and having committed to GE F404/414 on one end and the Kaveri on the other, a new clean sheet engine in the same class seems a rather poor allocation of resources . These are just the engine issues, there are aircraft design issues as well, and aircraft designers love propulsion requirements freeze much early on in the design process and plenty of aircraft have suffered immensely over the years because of risk in propulsion. The easiest and most logical way to replace the F404/414 on the LCA and possibly AMCA is to bring up the Kaveri

[vishvak]

Rather have the tech first. I would rather complain about next gen of the engine on issues of timelines/risks once the engine tech is obtained - clean sheet and even if apparently not achievable before 2020.

Also consider that the 404/414/P&W-F135 are all American and USA will not sell its tech anytime, but that will not stop 2020 from arriving. Having a redundant tech in hand is not really a negative from any angle.

[ShauryaT]

Austin: Again, missing the entire point, IMO. We know that our Kaveri engine needs material, technology and production technology help to be able to produce an engine that can power crafts like LCA 2, AMCA. We could go into a high stakes gamble and do by ourselves or find someone who will actually work with us and reduce risks. The only other alternative is to import and do screw driver production. The US is not known for sharing technology and that too advanced military technology.

Russia has done this with us in our strategic programs and this may be a better way to hedge our risks and get the indigenous program on track. Maybe the initial production for LCA 2/AMCA still has to be 414 and its derivatives. So, yes, it will take time and money but the question is what is the level of risk that can be mitigated by involving a partner. Is anyone saying, Russia does not have the capability to produce an engine such a 414 and its derivatives then that is a separate issue.

[vishvak]

Alternately, let me put it this way. On the lines of PAK-FA/FGFA, once Russia develops such an engine THEN will it be beneficial to look at the tech as useful?! It is kind of amazing how people talk big about the engine tech that can be very useful as it is planned, simply because another option is available with burden of alphabet soup treaties.

[brar_w]

Again, missing the entire point, IMO. We know that our Kaveri engine needs material, technology and production technology help to be able to produce an engine that can power crafts like LCA 2, AMCA. We could go into a high stakes gamble and do by ourselves or find someone who will actually work with us and reduce risks. The only other alternative is to import and do screw driver production. The US is not known for sharing technology and that too advanced military technology.

Russia has done this with us in our strategic programs and this may be a better way to hedge our risks and get the indigenous program on track. Maybe the initial production for LCA 2/AMCA still has to be 414 and its derivatives. So, yes, it will take time and money but the question is what is the level of risk that can be mitigated by involving a partner. Is anyone saying, Russia does not have the capability to produce an engine such a 414 and its derivatives then that is a separate issue.

Is there any indication that the Russians have agreed to work on the Kaveri, and supply a technologies to make it better? The way I read with it is that they are offering GTRE participation on a new clean sheet engine at the upper end, or perhaps an upgraded RD-33 at the lower end of the deal. Also, what is the LCA Mk1, Mk2, AMCA to do while the new clean sheet engine is being developed?

Regarding co-development, how much of the PAKFA is being developed in India and therefore being utilized to enhance other high-technology areas in say Low-Observables, Embedded arrays, PGM's, EW etc? Any clear indication on the level of TOT and Indian participation during the development phase?

Alternately, let me put it this way. On the lines of PAK-FA/FGFA, once Russia develops such an engine THEN will it be beneficial to look at the tech as useful?! It is kind of amazing how people talk big about the engine tech that can be very useful as it is planned, simply because another option is available with burden of alphabet soup treaties.

So in order to improve the Kaveri, the MOD should embark on a new clean sheet Russian engine, with the hope that technology developed, hopefully jointly, on that could then be ported on to the Kaveri that could then end the F404/414 reliance. The Russians would obviously get themselves a new engine, and also a new competitor in that same engine class, with the Kaveri now being at the same level as the Russian engine thanks to the infusion of technology from it. Seems like a half baked, hail marry idea to me since ADA and HAL have repeatedly chosen western engines over Russian ones.

Why not just ask the Russians to sell the PAKFA engine technology if porting over is so easy? It would probably save a decade or so of lead time given how long engines take from going from paper projects to operationalization. The new PAKFA engine should be deployable by the middle of next decade..

[Indranil]

I think we should seriously consider this Russian proposal to accelerate our path to working engine. But we should not try the LCA/AMCA to it till it is proven. It serves no purpose.

[brar_w]

Well in that case identify what is that 1/3 that is remaining in the Kaveri and other propulsion technology and seek technology and expertise on those aspects. A potential 2 decade engine program, that essentially creates another Kaveri class engine is rather redundant especially if you can acquire key technology through the PAKFA. The problem is that we are not privy to what the offer actually is, and what it involves. No one is going to enter into a co-design and development program where they essentially pass on technology that kills the very same product in one of their largest markets. It would be quite unusual.

[NRao]

India needs to seriously fund this one area. If India cannot fund three separate, independent engine teams, then the next best alternative is to engage both the US and Russia to whatever extent possible with the clear intent to solve BOTH the ability to support air crafts (LCA and AMCA) *and* at the same time absorb serious technologies.

Cannot do just one of those.

So let the US help with an engine for at least the AMCA, which is what seems to be the aim of the DTTI process. And let Russia do it's stuff with maturing and Indian engine.

It should not be one baking of against the other.

[srai]

As nature of JVs and ToTs come to light, they are something to be beware of generally. Sure, they provide an avenue to a functional product sooner but critical know-hows are not shared. The parts India is struggling with in Kaveri are those components that will most likely be wholesale imported like the Snecma proposal to use its core instead.

Parallel efforts are required--some JV, some ToT, high indigenous. Redundant yes but it's the only way to deliver and catchup with the leaders.

[SaiK]

whatever support we take from external helpers, it doesn't matter whosoever it may be.. but we need to keep tomorrows tech like in the CFM Leap or GE variable cycle adaptive engines that uses ceramic matrix composites.

heck, what could go wrong? anyway IAF is on slow mode to pressurize us. We can only leap from behind the scenes and adapt to next gen precision politics. our own babooze needs inputs from tech focus.

make it so! reorg GTRE with youngistan!

[brar_w]

India needs to seriously fund this one area. If India cannot fund three separate, independent engine teams, then the next best alternative is to engage both the US and Russia to whatever extent possible with the clear intent to solve BOTH the ability to support air crafts (LCA and AMCA) *and* at the same time absorb serious technologies.

Cannot do just one of those.

So let the US help with an engine for at least the AMCA, which is what seems to be the aim of the DTTI process. And let Russia do it's stuff with maturing and Indian engine.

It should not be one baking of against the other.

Precisely the current plan as I see it is :

- Purchase the F404 for the LCA, and the F414 for the MK2, N-LCA and the initial AMCA's
- Continue to develop the Kaveri and its offshoots to ultimately take over LCA and AMCA programs with other applications along the way as required (UAV's)

For the second portion there are three paths:

- Brute force approach : Steal what you can from the engines you have, or simply invest in basic S&T in GTE's and Kaveri specific R&D in the short-medium term

- Make technology transfer contingent on the AMCA propulsion knowing full well that not all technology will be transfered, but whatever bit comes in could help in certain areas

- Buy technology, or seek design and development expertise to cover the remaining 1/3 that is required to completely finish the Kaveri and to scale it for various applications.

What now seems to be happening is, at least from the BK article that the Russians who apparently aren't transferring significant technology from the PAKFA engine (to offset the need for outside help on fastrack ing Kaveri) [ for reasons BK claims is due to India not wanting to avail such a golden opportunity (actual data is still rather obscure) ] but instead of offering to help India complete the Kaveri are instead asking India to co-fund a new clean sheet project, which incidentally is in the same class as the F414, Higher version of the Kaveri in an apparent effort to have that engine replace the F414. Apparently the benefits that some see in this is that India through this effort can spin the technology on to the Kaveri and rid itself of reliance on the Russian engine it helped co-develop. Russia gets an engine, gets a market in India's LCA and AMCA but forgoes it as soon as India spins its expertise acquired from the engine-project into the Kaveri. Complicated enough? How about, co-developing the engine with Russia, then enlisting the help of Snecma to develop another engine to rid the dependence on the russian engine, and then look to spin the technology acquired off it into an adaptive Kaveri and kill the Snecma product?

Bottom line is that there are limits to what you can learn and what others are willing to share. There are few alternatives to putting your head down and making the sort of strategic investments in developing the capability in house especially since a lot has already been achieved. GE, RR, Snecma, or a Russian OEM will at best give you assembly or technology assistance provided you open up the check book and help pay for their unfunded priority. This was the reason why the F414, and EDE/EPE changes are so tempting, since a lot of this has been funded by someone else already since there is an alignment of requirements. That too should be treated only as an interim solution realizing the end goal is to get the Kaveri to take over...If not with the LCA, then AMCA Mk2, or AURA.

[Gyan]

Gyan ji,

Experience in what?

In Getting cheated! We paid Rs 3000 crore for AL-55 and deal for Shakti engine is worth Rs 40,000 crore over 30 years but technology absorption is nil. On the other hand budget for HTSE-1200, dry thrust Kaveri engine and 25kn engine is only around Rs. 400 crore each.

[srai]

^^^

Basically, India is funding to keep alive skilled manpower and maintain technology lead of those countries. They will use that money to design & develop next generation technology while trickle feeding old tech to India. Why not fund indigenous efforts in parity to what is being spent abroad on imports? All the shrill by DDMs about how indigenous efforts are failing but not much on how indigenous efforts are being short-changed without adequate resources. It seems elements in India expect indigenous efforts to deliver "world-class" products on a shoe-string budget, resources and facilities.

[Gyan]

Inspite of lot of talkie talkie our DM has not funded any major series of indigenous programmes.

[brar_w]

Well here's a bit of work for them if they browse these forums

GE-F414-400

Just to add to this, the EDE changes bump the HPC module (the most expensive component on the engine) from 4000 hours EOT, to 6000 hours EOT. Other hot section components are likely to see a durability bump as well. The EPE adds a new fan to the EDE changes that themselves (EDE) are retrofittable on to existing engines.

On AVEN [1990] for the family (404/414): Axisymmetric Vectoring Exhaust Nozzle (AVEN) . A final example of advanced system technology under development at GEAE is the AVEN. The GEAE concept design features pitch/yaw vectoring capability around a 360 degree arc and independent A8 and A9 variability. Studies including aircraft simulator work have demonstrated significant operational performance benefits of vectoring in addition to the added benefit of improved overall engine performance of independent A8/A9. The configuration of this nozzle design also lends itself to retrofit on current aircraft installations because of its similarity to the current F404 nozzle design.

http://docdro.id/9fTEvMq

[brar_w]

^^^

Basically, India is funding to keep alive skilled manpower and maintain technology lead of those countries. They will use that money to design & develop next generation technology while trickle feeding old tech to India. Why not fund indigenous efforts in parity to what is being spent abroad on imports? All the shrill by DDMs about how indigenous efforts are failing but not much on how indigenous efforts are being short-changed without adequate resources. It seems elements in India expect indigenous efforts to deliver "world-class" products on a shoe-string budget, resources and facilities.

EXACTLY! The deal is like them saying : sorry the kaveri isn't to the level you want at the moment and requires additional resources, and we are sad that we weren't selected to power the LCA, or the LCA-MK2/N ,too bad, however, we have a really great paper project, same class as the F414 enhanced, and guess what, we'll teach you engine tech, just help us design, and build this engine (Decoded to : FUND) and in 20 years you'll rid yourself of the dependency on the 404/414 and with the expertise acquired, you can improve the kaveri, and then you can kill the reliance on our engine as well so that you will never need Russian assistance with an engine again. I guess its believable if one also believes that by co-developing the PAKFA/FGFA India will acquire the know-how to develop something similar without any assistance, or how working on the MKI gave that capability.

The best approach is still imho to let GE and the USN develop EDE/EPE on their own with at most India involving some of its engineering teams with very very little investment. The USN needs, and will eventually have the EDE changes since once production winds down there will be resources to improve the Shornet/Growler fleets. The timeframe to go from a GO to fielding the upgraded engines is 5 or so years, so even if they decide by FY18 or 19 the engines will be ready before the middle of next decade well in time for the AMCA. In the interim all GTE R&D resources should concentrate on the Kaveri and getting its offshoots into less demanding aircraft (UAV's/UCAV's) and gradually maturing it. If someone is generous enough to offer assistance, do so on that project not try to sell a completely brand new engine. Engines are tough to master, and there are few shortcuts with the best approach being to put the head down and trea them as a strategic investment and keeping teams well resourced.

Plus side is obviously that if the news story is legit and there is a new clean sheet engine, at least the IAF won't end up in the same situation as the Chinese and comrade phillip can claim India gets exclusive access to the 'smokeless kind'.



Just my 2 cents !!

[ShauryaT]

^^^

Basically, India is funding to keep alive skilled manpower and maintain technology lead of those countries. They will use that money to design & develop next generation technology while trickle feeding old tech to India. Why not fund indigenous efforts in parity to what is being spent abroad on imports? All the shrill by DDMs about how indigenous efforts are failing but not much on how indigenous efforts are being short-changed without adequate resources. It seems elements in India expect indigenous efforts to deliver "world-class" products on a shoe-string budget, resources and facilities.

The question is if money is the cost to acquire a certain capability which will minimize the risk of building that capability in our country, is it a good deal for India? Will it cost more? sure. Will they give us their very best? of course not. Will it provide to us a capability that allows us to innovate from that point on? Hope so. Will it provide us with a fairly advanced engine that can be used for our needs? Expected. Will it minimize our risks for more costs? Expected.

There are some other questions that still need addressing. Mostly in terms of building indigenous capabilities and which is the best organization to do so. My preferred model would be to get an Indian private player come into GTRE through disinvestment to ensure that this venture takes a commercial route and the management ethics of private industry with government disinvesting over a period of a couple of decades, progressively. This will address the one key issue you have raised. Funding!

[vishvak]

Considering that USA is the top dog in the field of engine development as far as GE-414 series relevant here, it is but a good bet to have options open. How many countries in the world would have such options by 2020?

Plus there might be certain Russia specific features available- rugged, well tested for cold climate, etc.

By 2020, lets see what certain scenarios would be:
* Clean slate design available from Russia, prototypes tested and prolly in production too. IP available and open for modification per Indian requirements in next iteration. - close to the best case.
* IP not totally available yet like Su-30MKI several features as required can be tested on independent test bed. - worst case scenario.

The worst case scenario here seems to be not bad at all. Especially in case that some independent testing is needed in future. 2020 is just a reference date, may vary but capabilities won't vary onwards anymore.

[brar_w]

Considering that USA is the top dog in the field of engine development as far as GE-414 series relevant here, it is but a good bet to have options open.

The alternative is the Kaveri, and the IAF/MOD/ADA/HAL have access to proposals from Eurojet, Snecma, and of course Russia on similar existing engines that be brought up. The point is, that all those altenratives are iterative developmental projects of existing engines. With the F414 EDE/EPE, GE has invested its own money for over a decade, and the USN has poured in a little over $100 Million so far. Each and every component level change has been tested on the ground and in the lab and then some. Even then you are looking at a 5-6 year test and evaluation program to get the thing cleared for frontline usage. Iteratively improved 25K lb thrust engines from other less powerful engines will take more time, and there is no reason to believe that a totally new clean sheet will take anything south of 15 years if not more.

On top of all this, it is not easy to completely switch OEM on an engine from an aircraft design perspective let alone the re-testing and certification program length, resource and duration. You are looking at a significant addition to the LCA, and or AMCA programs if that is to be the case. The Kaveri should be R&D priority number 1 and not a hail marry proposal from Russia in the 11th hour after their engines have twice lost out on the LCA and LCA MK2 and could possibly loose out again on the AMCA. If they want to provide India with advanced engine tech, they can do through the Kaveri however, what this reeks off is them trying to stay relevant in the market and trying to fund themselves an engine. The more India invests in something totally new, and largely irrelevant the more resources will be diverted from the Kaveri, this is even true for more full fledged involvement with the 414..Treat it like an interim solution, even though the 'interim' may extend to 15 years, but that's the time the S&T community has to make sure that the GTE technology catches up.

Plus there might be certain Russia specific features available- rugged, well tested for cold climate, etc.

How is any of that result in a product better than the F414? Was the 404/414 found deficient in any such metric? We can compare component life and reliability for the RD and the 414 if the data on the former is available. There is quite a decent amount of 414 fleet data available through research papers published by USN officers.

There is already a single engine aircraft using the family, the primary operator of which routinely uses the aircraft during cold winters, even on non-runway detachments. Plus the IN is happy enough to put it on a single engine naval fighter, where an engine out has consequences..

http://airheadsfly.com/wp-content/uploa ... vinfvm.jpg

By 2020, lets see what certain scenarios would be:
* Clean slate design available from Russia, prototypes tested and prolly in production too. IP available and open for modification per Indian requirements in next iteration. - close to the best case.

So Russia can go from a paper offering to an available engine in 5 years? That would set new global standard in engine development and would really mean that Russian OEM's have found something that the rest of the world would take decades to catch up to. If they start now 2030 will look very attractive perhaps give it a couple of more years of cushion if cutting edge technology is chosen. The EPE/EDE iterative changes alone will take 5--6 years for GE given theirs and USN's pooled resources, and in that engine the technology is developed, mature and proven only the flight testing and validation is left.

[Gyan]

We can do two things with Kaveri even within its current output:-

LCA AJT

UCAV

If only DRDO could pay 15%, this idea would spread like wildfire.

[SaiK]

http://www.cfmaeroengines.com/press/cfm ... cation/842

CFM LEAP-1B achieves joint EASA / FAA certification

[JayS]

Just to add to this, the EDE changes bump the HPC module (the most expensive component on the engine) from 4000 hours EOT, to 6000 hours EOT. Other hot section components are likely to see a durability bump as well. The EPE adds a new fan to the EDE changes that themselves (EDE) are retrofittable on to existing engines.

Brar_w. Nice info. Thanks.

About EPE: Is the rise in wet thrust only or both dry and wet thrust?? If you want to bump up the thrust, either increase MFR or increase energy added to the existing MFR i.e. increased TET and/or more fuel burnt in AB. If only the nozzle life is getting curtailed, I suppose it indicates some tweaking in AB. But that's for wet thrust. If the dry thrust also to be increased you need to increase MFR and/or TET. New fan is for bumping up the mass flow rate I suppose. Is there any increase in TET as well?? My guesstimate is there is a increase in TET and that reduces life of Turbines significantly. (I am not sure if GE is going to use CMC in the HPT inlet nozzles, are they?).

I suppose there is a possibility of running EPE engine on EDE mode in normal daily workload and only use the EPE mode when needed. This will increase the life of EPE as well. This should not be to hard to implement from FADEC. Basically EDE be the de-rated cycle version of EPE.

[Will]

Inspite of lot of talkie talkie our DM has not funded any major series of indigenous programmes.

Well frankly two years of this govt has not made much of a difference. There has been no movement of note. Its the same as the "good old days". Don't lets even go down the "better than Anthony" path. That period was a disaster . Had expected much more from this govt but nothing much has been done. Its as much of a disaster as the previous regime.

All this hype about Make in India is a load of bull. What does it bring to the country other then screwdriver tech and filling the pockets of foreign partners? Its the design, develop and build in India part that's going to make a difference to the country in the long run.

As you pointed out its been all talkie talkie and no action on the ground. Nothing of note either on the indigenous front or even purchases of equipment that is needed have been made.

[Raveen]

Inspite of lot of talkie talkie our DM has not funded any major series of indigenous programmes.

Well frankly two years of this govt has not made much of a difference. There has been no movement of note. Its the same as the "good old days". Don't lets even go down the "better than Anthony" path. That period was a disaster . Had expected much more from this govt but nothing much has been done. Its as much of a disaster as the previous regime.

All this hype about Make in India is a load of bull. What does it bring to the country other then screwdriver tech and filling the pockets of foreign partners? Its the design, develop and build in India part that's going to make a difference to the country in the long run.

As you pointed out its been all talkie talkie and no action on the ground. Nothing of note either on the indigenous front or even purchases of equipment that is needed have been made.

With empty coffers you should be glad you're getting talkie talkie - first fix the economy, then fix the crap you need to protect the country.
The first term is centered around economics, the second term will be centered around profound strategic moves. That's the same path every two term president takes in the US as well, Modi is a self-professed two-term PM.

[brar_w]

Just to add to this, the EDE changes bump the HPC module (the most expensive component on the engine) from 4000 hours EOT, to 6000 hours EOT. Other hot section components are likely to see a durability bump as well. The EPE adds a new fan to the EDE changes that themselves (EDE) are retrofittable on to existing engines.

Brar_w. Nice info. Thanks.

About EPE: Is the rise in wet thrust only or both dry and wet thrust?? If you want to bump up the thrust, either increase MFR or increase energy added to the existing MFR i.e. increased TET and/or more fuel burnt in AB. If only the nozzle life is getting curtailed, I suppose it indicates some tweaking in AB. But that's for wet thrust. If the dry thrust also to be increased you need to increase MFR and/or TET. New fan is for bumping up the mass flow rate I suppose. Is there any increase in TET as well?? My guesstimate is there is a increase in TET and that reduces life of Turbines significantly. (I am not sure if GE is going to use CMC in the HPT inlet nozzles, are they?).

I suppose there is a possibility of running EPE engine on EDE mode in normal daily workload and only use the EPE mode when needed. This will increase the life of EPE as well. This should not be to hard to implement from FADEC. Basically EDE be the de-rated cycle version of EPE.

I'll try to see if I have some old saved documents where design details were shared. From memory, the most known on these changes were actually revealed when GE was preparing for the funding that the USN provided them way back. Following those demonstrations, GE has invested its own funds and as such hasn't really been very forthcoming about its plans for strategic business reasons I suppose. The enhanced GE engine is going to be competing with quite a few players for 5th generation programs in India, Turkey, and South Korea so they probably won't reveal what they could offer until those programs have narrowed down on a propulsion decisions. For the USN the path is likely to be driven by cost savings so they'll probably be willing to adopt newer technologies to the point where there is a business case of upgrading the fleet.

EPE to EDE is obviously a FADEC thing if you are buying into all of the EPE changes so I suppose you could operate them differently during training to prolong the fleet life. GE's CMC plans are also completely their own investments since it was something they planned on using the F414 as a platform before taking CMC in a big way on to the AETP. They are most likely talking to their customers about what is possible within the timeframes they may be interested in. I think what the P&W choice is for the Long Range Bomber will be a key decider in how open GE is about the future path of the F414. P&W has been hinting at competing in the category.

[NRao]

May 4, 2016 :: Engine of indigenisation

The date on this article and the content do not seem to match. ?????

The defence ministry estimates that India will buy foreign military aero engines worth Rs 350,000 crore over the next two decades. While indigenising our military fleet, successive governments have neglected the development and manufacture of aero engines, which account for one-third the cost of a new military aircraft. Unless we build a significant percentage of our own engines, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar cannot succeed in his stated ambition to increase defence indigenisation from the current 40 per cent to 70 per cent within a decade.

Take the expense on engines for India’s on-going helicopter programmes. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) will build at least 400 Dhruv helicopters and about 180 light combat helicopters (LCH), with both twin-engine choppers. Another 400 light utility helicopters (LUH), with single engines, will replace the current fleet of Chetaks and Cheetahs. Each LUH will consume three to three-and-a-half engines over its service life, while the twin-engine choppers will each require six to seven engines, adding up to some 5,000 Shakti engines over their service lives. At the Shakti’s current price of Rs 8 crore, this adds up to Rs 40,000 crore. Add inflation and the cost of replacing components that fail, and the consumption of gaskets and bearings, and the figure would exceed Rs 50,000 crore.

India’s defence industry has done well to master aeronautical design, flight dynamics, control laws, avionics and other skills needed for building modern aircraft. Yet, for a variety of reasons, mostly relating to poor technical-strategic vision and planning, every aero engine flying in India is, and will continue to be, purchased from abroad.

The world’s big engine vendors – America’s General Electric, Honeywell and Pratt & Whitney; Europe’s Rolls-Royce and Snecma; and Russia’s Klimov and NPO Saturn – are happy to sell India aero engines. There are seldom technology-protection aspects to engine sales, because reverse-engineering them is very difficult. Key aero engine technologies relate to materials (high-temperature composites and alloys); and precision engineering, which are difficult to copy. Tellingly China, that master of reverse engineering, has not succeeded in developing a high-performance aero engine. The Guizhou Aircraft Industry Corporation has spent two decades working on the Taishan turbofan engine for the JF-17 Thunder fighter that Pakistan has inducted into its air force with a Russian Klimov RD-93 engine. Even after spending a reported $10 billion, the Taishan’s performance has satisfied neither the Chinese, nor the Pakistanis. Now Beijing is scaling up the effort, investing a reported $40 billion and training thousands of engine designers.

Yet, India has never prioritised aero engine development, and put vision, money and manpower into this. There was irony last week, when Mr Parrikar visited Bengaluru to inaugurate a new 25 kiloNewton (kN) engine built by HAL for its trainer aircraft. Overlooked was the fact that, three decades ago, HAL had developed a 25kN engine for upgrading its successful Kiran trainer into the Kiran Mark II. When that engine was nearing completion, the defence ministry decided to ground the (also indigenous) HF-24 Marut fighter. This made available the (slightly used) engines of 174 Marut fighters – the Orpheus 703 engine, built by Bristol-Siddeley. Those 30 kN engines were de-rated to 25 kN and put into the Kiran Mark II. HAL’s indigenous engine went to the scrap heap.

Over succeeding decades, the engine development fiasco continued similarly, with the DRDO making only limited headway in developing the Kaveri engine for the Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA). While the Tejas needs an engine with 82-90 kN of peak thrust, the Kaveri has only managed 72 kN during flight testing in Russia. This is inadequate for a modern fighter, but the DRDO is still seeking a technological breakthrough with very limited resources. The total budget for the Kaveri, including on engineering and test facilities, has been limited to Rs 2,839 crore (defence minister to Parliament in December 2012).

True, India cannot throw money at the problem the way Beijing can. But it does not need to, since it has a model to replicate – India’s successful missile development problem. This involved clearly identifying an aim, allocating technological manpower and leadership, and spending about enough to keep the projects going. Even with a frugal approach, which is all we can afford anyway, a high-performance jet fighter engine project would require at least Rs 4,000-15,000 crore.

The defence ministry already has a working proposal for this. Prepared by the DRDO, it includes a detailed breakdown of the technological requirements; identifies the specific materials and technologies that must be developed or obtained from abroad through partnerships; identifies the production technologies needed and essential test facilities.

Currently, when the DRDO needs to test the Kaveri, it is flown to Russia, along with a flight test team, to the Gromov Flight Research Institute outside Moscow. Here, it is fitted onto a Russian IL-76 aircraft and its performance evaluated in flight. Before flight tests, it must undergo ground checks at Moscow’s Central Institute of Aviation Motors, in simulated altitudes up to 15 kilometers (49,200 feet). Creating such flight-testing facilities in India would save hundreds of crores and a great deal of time.

Sadly, the defence ministry is not fast-tracking the proposal. It has been discussed internally, and with private sector representatives. It was decided that roles and responsibilities should be allocated to individual organisations and firms. And there the matter stands.

Mr Parrikar must move with alacrity to institute a strong management structure, like the “LCA Empowered Committee” that overseas the Tejas project. Chaired by the defence minister, this team would monitor and coordinate. Under this apex council should be an executive body, headed by DRDO’s aerospace director, with representation from all stakeholders, including private industry. This should oversee development, creation of test facilities and training of technological manpower.

The time is propitious. Earlier this month, during Mr Parrikar’s visit to the US, Washington conveyed its willingness to “expand cooperation in production and design of jet engine components.” This will open the doors to joint development between US engine-makers, particularly General Electric, and Indian entities like the DRDO. Tapping into America’s vast experience in this field would help the DRDO overcome some of the hurdles that have bedevilled the Kaveri programme.

[AbhiJ]

Interview: GE CEO

Immelt: We're valuable because we make really difficult things. If you could make something with 60 people in a garage, GE shouldn't be doing it. But if you make a jet engine, there's only like one and a half people in the world that can make a jet engine. And we are really good at that. If you want to compete with that, you've got to put yourself on a wayback machine and go back 25 years and invest $1 billion here for 25 years and then maybe, just maybe, you're going to be able to compete with us.

Chinaman has taken him seriously.

There is no shortcuts no frugality, only hard cash on the table for decades.

[NRao]

Interview: GE CEO

Immelt: We're valuable because we make really difficult things. If you could make something with 60 people in a garage, GE shouldn't be doing it. But if you make a jet engine, there's only like one and a half people in the world that can make a jet engine. And we are really good at that. If you want to compete with that, you've got to put yourself on a wayback machine and go back 25 years and invest $1 billion here for 25 years and then maybe, just maybe, you're going to be able to compete with us.

Chinaman has taken him seriously.

There is no shortcuts no frugality, only hard cash on the table for decades.

Nope. Not cash.

The operative words: "then maybe, just maybe".


On China, they only recently took that seriously. They were under the impression that copy, copy, copy was the shortest way. But copying also is a difficult art. You got to get the copy right. Perfect. Not easy. In an engine, nearly impossible.

Morphing, perhaps.

[Zynda]

This is slightly OT but nevertheless interesting. I was talking last week to some one who has a good understanding of Engineering Services landscape in India. Per him, from an offshoring POV, the 2nd best competency of Indian aero engineers is Aero Engines!!

I was not willing to pry further on what level or in value chain, Indian engineers figure...but I was truly surprised to hear the above). I may meet him again in a few weeks and this time I will try to get more info.

[Prem]

This is slightly OT but nevertheless interesting. I was talking last week to some one who has a good understanding of Engineering Services landscape in India. Per him, from an offshoring POV, the 2nd best competency of Indian aero engineers is Aero Engines!! I was not willing to pry further on what level or in value chain, Indian engineers figure...but I was truly surprised to hear the above). I may meet him again in a few weeks and this time I will try to get more info.

Early this year there was news that head of F35 engine programme is a young Desi who could not join DRDO.

[Gyan]

I am sure very soon India will set up a committee to make plans for a special task force which will lay down the time lines and allocate funds for the team that will set up labs, test equipment and flying test beds for gas turbine engines.

[Neela]

Indigenous aero engine stays on radar, says DRDO official

The last word may not have been said about an indigenous aero engine although the first effort, the Kaveri engine, didn't make it to powering the LCA light fighter plane.

New efforts, tweaks and hopefully a Rs. 2,600-crore grant are being explored to salvage 25 years of work and resources of over Rs. 2,000 crore spent on the Kaveri and use the engine’s derivatives in unmanned strategic projects of the future - probably with a different name.

‘Ghatak’

Already its spinoff version has been identified as the engine for ‘Ghatak’, a tentatively named future unmanned combat aircraft on which early studies have been taken up at two aeronautical labs based in Bengaluru.

“There is potential for derivatives of the Kaveri engine to be used for strategic purposes and other programmes. For anything in future that requires a 50-kilo-Newton engine [& its multiples,] here is a readily available one. Only a few engineering adaptations are required,” said K.Tamilmani, Director-General of DRDO’s Aeronautical Systems, who demits office on May 31 after about three years in the post.

[SaiK]

IIT-Madras develops warning system for gas turbines

http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/ ... 489200.ece

The technology has found interest among some of the major players in the sector, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and our own Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).

[brar_w]

I have been saying for a while now, the 3rd GEW is further along than many think..

Three-Stream Engine Moves To New Phase

The U.S. Air Force is poised to award General Electric and Pratt & Whitney contracts for adaptive cycle technology development that will pave the way toward an active procurement program for a sixth-generation fighter engine as well as the potential reengining of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Contracts for the Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) are expected to be valued at up to $1 billion apiece for the two engine-makers, setting the stage for a 21st-century version of the “great fighter engine war” between GE and Pratt over dual-sourced engines for the F-15 and F-16. Although Pratt now runs both key U.S. military development programs with the F135 for the F-35 and the engine for Northrop Grumman’s B-21 Long-Range Strike Bomber, AETP opens up potential competition for both the reengining of F-35s as well as proposed sixth-generation fighters for the U.S. Navy and Air Force.

AETP is specifically aimed at maturing three-stream engine technology now considered vital to achieving the high-speed, long-endurance performance requirements of the Navy’s future F/A-XX and the Air Force’s F-X sixth-generation fighters. Although it remains unknown whether the F/A-XX will emerge as a twin-engine design, the three-stream concept is designed to be scalable across a wide thrust range. The AETP is, however, targeted initially at a 45,000-lb.-thrust-class engine baselined to fit within the existing confines of the F-35A engine bay. This makes it a contender to replace the F135 from the mid-2020s onward.AETP is scheduled to run through 2019 with several tests of full engines; it follows the Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) program that is helping prove the basic viability of the adaptive cycle. AETD, which is set to wrap up between now and early 2017 with a series of demonstrations by GE and Pratt, itself builds on Advent (Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology), the Air Force’s pioneering research effort into variable cycle architectures, three-stream flowpaths and adaptive fans, conducted from about 2007 on.

The third stream provides an extra source of air flow that, depending on the phase of the mission, is designed to provide either additional mass flow for increased propulsive efficiency and lower fuel burn, or additional core flow for higher thrust and cooling air. It also can be used to cool fuel that provides a heat sink for aircraft systems. The third stream can also swallow excess air damming up around the inlet, improving flow holding and reducing spillage drag.

At the heart of adaptive engines are variable-geometry devices that dynamically alter the fan pressure ratio and overall bypass ratio, the two key factors influencing specific fuel consumption and thrust. Fan pressure ratio is changed by using an adaptive, multistage fan. This increases fan pressure ratio to fighter engine performance levels during takeoff and acceleration, and, in cruise, lowers it to airliner-like levels for improved fuel efficiency. The third stream, which is external to both the core and standard bypass duct, is used to alter the bypass ratio.

“We have seen a huge amount of technology progress and a huge amount of risk reduction,” says AFRL Adaptive Engines program manager Matt Meininger. “The objective here is to burn as much risk down as you can before you walk into an acquisition program for a potential product in the mid-2020s. It is an exceptional accomplishment to not only demo the technology but to transition it as well. But we bridged that ‘valley of death’ [the gap between early prototype technology and readiness for further development] with AETD and the follow-on transition program, because adaptive engine technology was viewed as a significant capability and a cost saving for the future of the nation.”

AFRL paved the way for an early transition to procurement by partnering with the Air Force’s Life Cycle Management Center (LCMC) on AETD. “They are the development guys, if you will. If something is going to get out into the field, they will be the agents for that,” says Meininger. “As we move into the AETP program, which is an active procurement program, this transitions it out of the lab and into LCMC as the primary agency. They will mature this into a full design and deliver an engine to test.” To feed more technology into AETP, AFRL is also pursuing a follow-on effort called the Air Dominance Adaptive Propulsion Technology (ADAPT) program (see related story). The involvement of LCMC is key to transitioning the adaptive engine from research to full-scale development because currently the technology, or an engine incorporating the technology, “is not really a program of record. This is still all technology maturation and risk reduction,” he says. “The beautiful part is we are transitioning it to LCMC. Normally we would do a demo program, and when we are done it either sits on the shelf or works its way into a program of record.”

Meininger also notes, “We started this program together by developing a set of requirements that were robust and comprehensive. But we could not have done that without the partnership of the LCMC guys because they were worried about life cycle, and we worry about making it work. It has been a real education for our team.” The cooperation affected the trade studies for the life, cost and weight of the engine. “They are all as highly prioritized as meeting the performance requirements,” he adds.

GE, which concludes its AETD work in the coming months with a fan rig test and a core engine test in the third quarter at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, says it “remains very engaged” with the Air Force on the AETP program and its timing. GE believes the program “would certainly include more design work, maturing the design to a Detailed Design Review (which is the next formal design milestone), and we envision several full-up engines being tested in the AETP program.”The company enters the AETP phase with confidence, having successfully passed through a gauntlet of sophisticated tests for AETD. These included completion of two combustor sector development tests, third-stream cold flow and jet effects testing at NASA Glenn Research Center, advanced lightweight fan stator hardware evaluation and runs of an F414 with flaps and seals made from an oxide-oxide (ox-ox) ceramic matrix composite (CMC) material. Other components tested included an advanced heat exchanger and an F414 fitted with second-stage low-pressure turbine blades made from CMCs. Various rigs have also been run to test an advanced augmentor assembly, bearings, mechanical systems and a high-pressure compressor.

“Next year is a big one for AETD,” says Jimmy Kenyon, senior director of Advanced Programs and Technology at Pratt & Whitney, which is also undertaking AETD testing. The company demonstrated a three-stream fan in a rig in 2013. In early 2017, “We want to take the next step and demonstrate that in an engine environment, so that we get interaction between the fan and engine,” he says. “So we are taking the fan off an F135 engine, [then] putting the three-stream fan in its place and simulating three-stream flow back to the back.” Pratt also plans to demonstrate a “very high-efficiency core” on a test stand early next year, he adds.

“AETP will mature that design and go to a series of tests where we will ring out the engine in a true prototyping sense of the word,” says Kenyon. “We will mature it to put some time on it and that will be a huge risk reduction for any sort of follow-on EMD type program.”

AFRL also notes the different approaches taken by GE and Pratt, particularly on materials. “GE has made a big bet on CMCs for low-density, high-temperature materials as well as other areas, and Pratt is leveraging all their combat experience. They are leveraging what they have done in the past and evolving that through the AETD program. So we have two unique approaches to the core and material set and also two unique adaptive fans,” says Meininger.

USAF Details Sixth-gen Combat Engine Research Plan

As procurement plans begin for the next-generation fighter engine, the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) is launching a supporting initiative to gain maximum performance from all available avenues of adaptive engine technology, particularly the largely unexplored potential of the core.

The Air Dominance Adaptive Propulsion Technology (ADAPT) program builds on almost a decade of variable engine research at AFRL, beginning with the Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (Advent) program, which started in 2007. These sought to reduce average fuel burn by 25% and engine cooling air requirements by using a third air stream to enable longer-range missions in cruise mode and higher Mach speed in combat mode.

Advent, and subsequent efforts such as the Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) and follow-on transition program are focused primarily on developing this multirole capability by varying the low-pressure spool of the engine using an adaptive fan. ADAPT, on the other hand, will focus on developing adaptive features in the high-pressure spool, as well as a means of integrating the core within the overall variable cycle operation of the engine.“ADAPT is another spiral back into the science and technology environment,” says AFRL ADAPT program manager Jason Parson. “We are going back to where Advent was, but with additional technologies and, in particular, we are going to bring adaptive features back into the core—the compressor, combustor and high-pressure turbine. We already have adaptive features in the low spool, but we want to bring those features into the core,” he adds.

In addition, ADAPT provides a pathway into a potential production adaptive engine for newer technology that was not available a few years ago. “Some of these just were not at the right maturity level to bring into AETD. There were a lot of higher-temperature and higher-strength materials that needed a few more years of maturing in the lab before they were ready to progress to a TRL [technology readiness level] 6 demonstration,” says Parson, referring to the point at which a technology is considered ready for prototype demonstration prior to full-scale development. “We have had that opportunity, and now we are going to bring those back in, so that we continue to mature technology and make it available for the next generation of engines.”

ADAPT is targeted specifically at additional fuel burn reductions on the order of 5% in cruise mode, as well as higher thrust capability for supersonic operation. It will also include technologies for ensuring support of high-power systems such as directed-energy and other weapon systems. “The ultimate goal is that you would end up with adaptive features throughout the engine that would be usable depending on the needs of whatever system the Air Force decides is appropriate,” says Parson.

The program will be challenged by the higher temperatures and pressures in the core. “There is a level of difficulty that is associated with variable features in the core, although it is not the first time we have looked at this,” says Parsons, referring obliquely to earlier variable-cycle engines such as the Pratt & Whitney J58 turbo-ramjet used in the Lockheed A-12/SR-71. “But one of the things we are benefiting from is that Advent and AETD allowed us to learn how to use the variable features in an architecture. Instead of a one-off variable feature that is constrained by the rest of the engine, we are learning to put them together smartly. That learning gives us confidence we can take that and put the same thing into the core now that we better understand how we [can] control these features.”Although the physics of the higher-pressure core leads to harsher conditions in the gas path, AFRL’s approach to varying the cycle is analogous to the methods used for controlling the third stream passing through the bypass and low-pressure spool in the Advent/AETD engine. In this scenario, a variable area nozzle works in conjunction with a variable fan to split the flow and alter pressure ratio, depending on the thrust requirement and operating mode.

“The core of the turbine functions as the same thing. It is a nozzle, so I can change the flow and pressure ratio going through that core essentially with a nozzle,” says Matt Meininger, AFRL Adaptive Engines program manager. “There may be other ways to do it, but fundamentally the two things you are trying to decouple [are] the flow and pressure ratio through the core. Right now you increase or decrease the speed, and that is basically how you move the flow and pressure ratio, but they are closely related. If you can decouple those through variable features, you may be able to change the flow without changing the pressure ratio, or vice versa, and alter the pressure ratio without changing the flow significantly.

“We are going through a technology concept exploration to decide what is going to be in and what is going to be out,” says Meininger. AFRL has “just started the conceptual design of these demonstrators so that will help narrow down exactly which technology we will have in there. The variable turbine is certainly a technology of interest that we think is very powerful,” adds Parson.

General Electric and Pratt & Whitney are among the companies working on the early stages of ADAPT. Pratt expects to leverage its ongoing studies with the U.S. Navy on the Variable Cycle Advanced Technology (VCAT) program, which is designed to identify and mature adaptive-cycle turbine propulsion technology for future carrier-based tactical, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems. The VCAT program, which is aligned with AFRL’s variable-cycle work, is a partnership effort between the Office of Naval Research and the Navy’s Energy Task Force and is focused on turbine-based adaptive cycle technology.

“VCAT is working on component technologies that are a strong part of adaptive engines, so the opportunity to work that across into ADAPT is something we would like to do,” says Jimmy Kenyon, senior director of Advanced Programs and Technology at Pratt & Whitney. “We are on contract to the Air Force for some early studies and design work, but we are also in discussion with the Air Force as they plan the next phase of their science and technology enterprise. [We want] to see what the right next step is in terms of the next technology demonstrator. What role does Adapt play in that, and what should that demonstrator look like?”

[malushahi]

^^^ please consider writing a blurb for tech-and-time-challenged people like me who don't have a clue about how the above 2395 words relate to kaveri.

[Aditya_V]

Think it is very important at least today we start building wind tunnels, have test bed aircraft purchased, some Mig-29's and IL -76's for future engine development, so we dont need to run to Russia and waiting for results.

So that developers can quickly come up with changes improved designs and get feedback on the Kaveri engine quickly.

[brar_w]

General Electric Prepares to Launch localization programme in South Korea

General Electric (GE) has outlined an expansive localisation programme to support its pending contract to supply F414 turbofan engines for the Republic of Korea Air Force's (RoKAF's) Korean Fighter Experimental (KFX) aircraft A GE spokesman told IHS Jane's on 21 June that although the F414 purchase contract is still being negotiated the company's initial defence offset proposal includes a plan, which is still subject to change, to build more than 50% of the powerplant's components in South Korea.

South Korea's military procurement agency, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), announced in late May that it had selected GE to power the twin-engine KFX with its F414-GE-400, which powers the BoeingF/A-18E/F Super Hornet. GE was selected ahead of its European rival Eurojet, which had offered the EJ200, the powerplant of the Eurofighter Typhoon. The value of the engine contract has not been disclosed.

DAPA said the decision on the KFX powerplant was taken in collaboration with the RoKAF; Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI), the prime contractor on the USD15 billion KFX development project; and Hanwha Techwin, South Korea's main aero-engine producer, which is expected to partner GE on the F414 programme. DAPA hopes to finalise negotiations with GE on the purchase of the engine as well as the defence offset package in the next few months.

The GE spokesman said this offset package would reflect the company's intention to "put the utmost effort into localisation to help the indigenous Korean industry grow". He said the proposed offset package features a plan to transfer manufacturing technology as well as maintenance, repair, and overhaul capability.

He added, "GE is committed to support Hanwha Techwin, KAI, and RoKAF by providing engine localisation options that meet or exceed the request for proposal requirements in excess of 50% for both the EMD [engineering and manufacturing development] and production phases [of the KFX programme]."

The localisation package features the entire fan and low-pressure turbine (LPT) module for the production phase of the KFX programme. Additional parts featured in the package include blisk, blades, and disks, including the high-pressure turbine, and many critical high-volume rotating parts.

GE said, "These types of component manufacturing methods and super-alloys will continue to expand Korea's engine technology base in the areas of manufacturing and know-how." In terms of the EMD phase of the KFX, GE said that it has developed unspecified engineering work packages that will be implemented in collaboration with Hanwha Techwin and South Korean industry.

The proposed F414 offset programme continues GE's strong industrial ties with South Korea industry and with Hanwha Techwin in particular.

KAI's single-engine T-50 Golden Eagle advanced jet trainer and its derivatives are powered by GE's F404-GE-102 turbofan. This powerplant is produced through a collaborative programme, also under defence offset, with Hanwha Techwin. GE said it is also supporting KAI to export the T-50 to customers including Indonesia, Iraq, and the Philippines as well as its bid to supply the aircraft to the US Air Force in its USD8 billion T-X competition.

GE and Hanwha Techwin are also teamed on the programme to build and supply the GE T700-701K turboshaft engine for South Korea's Surion light utility twin-engine helicopter, which is operated by the Republic of Korea Army and was developed and produced by KAI in collaboration with Airbus Helicopters.

GE said the total value of its investment in industrial engagement programmes in South Korea is worth more than USD3 billion.

South Korea's defence offset policy calls for foreign contractors to engage with local industry in contracts worth more than USD10 million. The offset obligation is, in principle, "more than 50% of the estimated main contract amount" but can be adjusted on a case-by-case basis.

The policy, which was last updated in 2015, prioritises what it terms as "Class A" offset returns, which include the transfer of "core" technologies to support the manufacturing and export of parts and components, and joint research and development programmes.

In terms of priority technologies, DAPA outlines a requirement to acquire what it has termed "target-oriented" capabilities, which are intended to advance the capabilities of the local industrial base as well as the Republic of Korea Armed Forces.

Technologies related to military aero-engines such as the F414 fall firmly within the scope of these priorities and Seoul's stated commitment to elevate the capability of the country's military-aerospace industry and, over time, reduce reliance on imports. While the country's naval shipbuilding and land systems producers have achieved a relatively high level of self-reliance, South Korea's military aerospace requirements are still, to a large extent, fulfilled by foreign technologies.

This is also reflected in the KFX. KAI is prime contractor but is being assisted in the programme by Lockheed Martin, which is transferring technologies and know-how based on an offset agreement linked to the RoKAF's procurement of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft.