Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

[vina]

Even a new college graduate would have come to the conclusion that it needs a re-jig..

Yawn.. I am an "old" college graduate and I am not even an Engineer, but a YumBeeYea, doing Phynance ..What will I know . But anyways, I did write this in 2010 ,

viewtopic.php?t=3351&start=1280#p1096060

Refer to the sermons in Pinglish by El-Enqyoob-Al-Gas-Turbiney many many moons ago on this topic and the mashawr-e-aam on this.

I do think that the core is a "oversized" , ie pye-bass is too low and while there is high specific thrust, the total thrust suffers because of that. Pye-bass needs to go up.. either Kabini goes tinku and chikna or the Yell-Pee spool needs to grow bigger to handle a higher mass flow to handle to make the pye-bass halaal and get the thrust of the engine up..

Sure, if you are going to decrease core flow and increase pressure ratios there, you need a higher TeT and the need for the materials from Frogistan.

viewtopic.php?t=5719&start=120#p974071

The current core is obviously too large and the core flow is too high , but with better materials and getting the pressure ratio and TET up, the Kabini core could become the "Gangotri" able to power a "Ganga" sized engine. Sure for for MCA/LCA kind of applications, using an off the shelf high tech /latest materials kind of tinku , chikna core should do the job, if mated to the existing Kaveri LP system.

If they do go with Snecma to come up with a Kaveri with the Snecma core, what I do hope is that the resulting engine has all blisk compressor stages, contra rotating LP and HP spools, latest materials and TB coatings and film cooling giving one highest TETs around and an overall pressure ratio of 30+. And oh.. don't go for a piddly 70/80 kn engine, go for a 110KN/125KN class engine, coming out in around 2015 time frame, if the babu monkeys sign off on 2011 or so and give the "No Objection Certificate" (got to hand it to 'em Yindoos, this No Objection business is profound, as profound and pill-o-soppical as the zero/shunya/nothingness. After all, it is only a culture that can imagine and invent zero can invent something like the "no objection", all others will have invented only an "objection certificate") in triplicate and laminate it and get it notarized by a govt officer notified in the presidential gazette.

The Yindoo - Excess Air - Dhoti Cooling Teknaalajee

Posting excerpts from that "Yindoo Dhoti Cooling Technology - Vina (tm) " link .. (do read in detail).. I wrote that in 2009

3) Efficiency /Summing it up --(aka back to bell bottoms and 1970)

Now since LCA has been slurping up a lot of Ambalapuzha Payasam from the Krishna Temple near Enqyoob's home town , it has put on nice haunches like Tamil film heroines.. So , IAF says,

We need 20% more thrust from same airflow and engine size!

How do you do it ? . You basically have to increase the overall efficiency of the engine!. What the IAF is basically keen on is the high take off thrust so that the high payasam fed LCA can take off with all the sweets and ample belly filled with fuel for range.

Now that leads us directly to point number

1). Increase by pass so that the take off thrust is increased!.
so Ok.. now I do that and take the air that would flow to the core and route it using the fan , which leads us to point number
2) Now since there is less air (and hence less excess air) in my dhoti, the turbine will melt for the same power output as earlier!

So what to do ? Run to vilayat (or if you can kick DMRL's bottom and the come up with the materials by magic) and get the materials that will run at such high temperatures ! That is the solution. However, it is not so simple as just putting the new materials and things will be fine. You basically have to redesign the core for the lower air flow and higher power output. Hmm so a brand new core is required!.

The IAF is now breathing on my musharraf and saying I want it now!. So what do you do. Go to Vilayat for the new core that will work. So that is what GTRE did with the Snecma Eco Core !

All this was very clear to someone with even a half wit like me, sitting totally outside , with no knowledge of whatsoever going on in GTRE or any place and just connecting the dots of what is happening there.

It is a tribute the the incredible STUPIDITY of the Baboon & Mantri system that is so throughly and criminally incompetent that we are still discussing the exact same thing ( need for the M88 Eco-3 core or EJ200 core) for the Kaveri to meet the performance specs for the LCA. I really don't understand why we need a Kaveri class engine all NOW. The Baboons sat around with their thumbs up their a*ses , and didn't make any decision and the timeline for that is over. You need a 125KN class engine now (for the AMCA) .. and for that, what you need is "Ganga" with the the "Gangotri" (ie. Kabini core with new materials that can sustain the TET with a civilised bypass ratio) and an all new much larger LP system.

This Kaveri business is but just a glimpse of the criminal incompetence of the Indian Baboon-Mantri system. Multiply this kind of decision making across millions and millions of things large and small, inconsequential or hugely consequential, and you know why this country is so f*cked up and will remain so, unless the Baboon-Mantri-Sarkarki stuff is thrown out lock stock and barrel out of whole sectors of the Indian economy and polity where it entrenched itself thanks to the socialist command and control - "mixed economy" garbage of the ISI/DSE /Jawaharlal Nehru /Planning Commission ding-dongs , and the Baboon-Mantri combine are firmly restricted to managing the "Hindi Vibhaag" and "lets learn an new Hindi word everyday" kind of stuff.

[JayS]

JayS: What else were you expecting? I don't think anyone who was in Snecma-Safran and GTRE had any other expectation other than this. It will be a French engine onlee, but it is a much better situation to be in...rather than an engine program was comatose.

I wasn't expecting anything as such. That was for those who were. I do not even expect Kaveri or this "Make in India French Engine" to fly on LCA before AI-2021. That too, given they sign a contract first in immediate future, or its already signed for all we know (I don't understand why GOI is being so secretive about it, and not forthcoming with any information). I have said this before as well, you can't take LP system of Kaveri and M88 core and expect it to work (without significant redesign and ground testing) and be flight-worthy in 2yrs. If you see any engine development program, when a new engine is made from existing core, just by re-designing LP system to change thrust class for example, or redesign of LP system for PIP, it take 5-6yrs minimum even for that. You can't just geometrically scale up or down a design. Heck, if we want to put M88 as it is on LCA, it will take more than 2yrs to qualify it on LCA.

[maitya]

Yes the M88 core was offered in the past too but not taken as GTRE did not think they need it.
They focused on the LP/AB thinking they need to get more out of them.

If you note DRDO chief's statement 60% of new Kaveri will be GTRE.
So the LP/AB were not the problem. there is the ~ 60%.


If I had the decision making opportunity would have taken the M88 core and developed the Kabini core apart from the Kaveri program.

Betw what the heck is this 60% business ... this is much simpler than that - we are capitulating and accepting that we do NOT have the tech for any 80KN military turbofan class - so, by corollary, there'll be no indigenous turbofan (of that or higher class) in future, period!!

Putting a core in a turbofan and then saying, oh we did great, because we will now screwdriver the core (by importing the entire castings as "sub-assemblies") and we will learn something - this is subterfuge of highest order.
(pls remember, until some years back, we used to import the whole turbine-blade-cores from Safran anyway).

How is this will be any different from Philip'sque rants like "thanks to mother Russia, we have learnt AL-31FP manufacturing etc"?

And what exactly the proposed licence-manufacturing of F414 be any different than this effort?

Ironically IAF is the only hope now ... last time they put paid to the exactly similar Eco-core tamasha which was been foisted upon us, hoping against hope they do again and stick to F414.


Betw Vinaji, not sure how and where to host an image and link it's URL from here ... (like I earlier used to do, before that site went kaput).
Your above thesis was backed by my back-of-envelope-simulator which showed Thrust growth options and corresponding impacts to TeT and OPR and Thermal efficiency etc.

[Marten]

maitya sir, please follow this:
To upload an image on IMGUR and use the URL on BR.
1. Go to http://imgur.com/
2. On the top of the screen, click New Post.
3. Next, click Browse to select and upload the image.
4. After the image is uploaded, a dropdown icon will appear on the top right of the image. Click this downward arrow to view a menu with four options (Edit image, Get share links, Download, Delete image).
5. Click the "Get share links" option, then copy the link and use that URL within the img tags here on BR.

Code: Select all

[img]INSERT IMAGE URL HERE[/img]

If you need any further clarity, please do ask.

[JayS]

Yawn.. I am an "old" college graduate and I am not even an Engineer, but a YumBeeYea, doing Phynance ..What will I know . But anyways, I did write this in 2010 ,

<snip>
.

Why Kaveri has a low BPR is also as much obvious - Its Flat-rated. Once this was a design requirement, it necessitated lower BPR. Add to that the lower technological level of the core overall. TET of 1700K is too low when the engine needs to be of same T/W ratio as its global counter-parts while being flat-rated at the same time, when no other engine in the same class is flat-rated (that I know of). Physics doesn't change for yindoos. I don't know who the heck came up with this flat-rating requirement, or why GTRE persisted with the requirement until now. Simply removing that one constraint could have made life much easier.

[JayS]

Yes the M88 core was offered in the past too but not taken as GTRE did not think they need it.
They focused on the LP/AB thinking they need to get more out of them.

If you note DRDO chief's statement 60% of new Kaveri will be GTRE.
So the LP/AB were not the problem. there is the ~ 60%.


If I had the decision making opportunity would have taken the M88 core and developed the Kabini core apart from the Kaveri program.

Betw what the heck is this 60% business ...

My next post was on that. But now that you have already said what needed to be said, I would skip it. We can give billions of dollars to outsiders to screw us royally time and again, but we can't give it to our own people and let them try. If GTRE is not working out for whatever reasons, open up the engine dev to private sector (if GOI thinks privatization is panacea to everything).

We need someone who understands this $hit and can take decisions and do whatever it takes to make them right. We have baboons and mantris running around like headless chicken when anything of technical complexity comes up. If they can't handle it at lease let it be handled by people who understand or at least appreciate it.

[vina]

You can't just geometrically scale up or down a design.

Of course you can. In fact. Most, the overwhelming majority of engines are scaled versions of the core ,and lp system.This kind of mix and match happens all the time and that is how engine makers tailor and deliver an engine for a given thrust requirement.

Creating an all new centre line engine is very very rare indeed.

[JayS]

You can't just geometrically scale up or down a design.

Of course you can. In fact. Most, the overwhelming majority of engines are scaled versions of the core ,and lp system.This kind of mix and match happens all the time and that is how engine makers tailor and deliver an engine for a given thrust requirement.

Creating an all new centre line engine is very very rare indeed.

No. You can't. Same variants of a family of engines e.g. PW1000G series of GE90-GE9X family or Trent Family (not all but some of them), do share exact same core and different LP system. But the LP components have quite a lot of variations among themselves. I cannot tell exact details of some that I know of on public forum. But even as simple as static frames are far from being geometric scale up or down. There are a lot of component level factors (aero, structural, manufacturing, all sorts of stuff) which force designers to do a significant work to make them work. Designers would start with a geometric scaled up/down version of existing design as a starting point, but after 5-6yrs of work they end up quite different. Add to that the continuous improvement in technology and application of experience gained from previous designs, and the amount of changes goes even higher.

But doing it all to LP system is still comparatively easier. That's why OEMs prefer to make a core, fully certify it and use it on multiple engines without any or as less as possible changes and tinker with LP system to adjust thrust levels, by changing BPR mostly.

[JayS]

Last time DRDO tried to do that same kind of JV with Snecma, IAF didn't like it (as mentioned by Maitya above, they shot it down). The context is little different, however it does not change the fact that the resulting engine will still be 80-85kN class and would be almost useless for either as MLU for LCA or for AMCA. As vina said above, why do we need 80kN class engine now..? If it was a complete indigenous engine then it was something else. But what will we do with this new MII French engine..??

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 064_1.html

IAF feels DRDO fronting for French engine, citing ‘joint development’.

India’s Tejas light fighter is failing to meet performance targets, largely because of an underpowered engine. And, the Indian Air Force (IAF) believes the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is actively stalling the process of choosing a new engine.

A furious IAF, which urgently needs the Tejas to replace its retiring MiG-21 squadrons, has complained in writing to the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The IAF report says that even as the Aeronautical Development Agency, or ADA — which oversees the Tejas programme — is choosing between two powerful, modern engines from the global market, the DRDO has confused the issue by throwing up a third option: An offer to resurrect its failed Kaveri engine programme, this time in partnership with French engine-maker, Snecma.

The IAF report, currently with the highest levels of the MoD, makes two points. First, since the DRDO has been unable, for over two decades, to deliver a Kaveri engine that can power the Tejas, the ongoing procurement — of either the General Electric (GE) F-414, or the Eurojet EJ200 engine — should go ahead.

The IAF’s second objection is even more damning for the DRDO: Snecma, the IAF charges, has already developed the heart of the engine it is offering, an uprated derivative of the M88-2 engine that powers the French Rafale fighter. The DRDO, therefore, will not co-develop the engine, but merely provide Snecma with an indigenous stamp. In reality, the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), the DRDO laboratory that has laboured for decades on the Kaveri, will hardly participate in any “joint development”.

Further, says a top IAF source, a Kaveri engine based on Snecma’s new core will leave the Tejas short of performance, providing barely 83-85 Kilonewtons (KN) of maximum thrust. In contrast, the GE and Eurojet engines already short-listed for selection provide 90-96 KN, a significant advantage. The source says sneaking in the underpowered Kaveri-Snecma engine through the GTRE back door will damage the LCA project.

For the IAF, the performance of the new engine is crucial. It has agreed to accept the Tejas into service as soon as the fighter obtains its Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) in December, even though the Tejas does not yet fly, climb, turn or accelerate fast enough. The IAF’s accommodation is based on a promise from the ADA that a new, more powerful engine will overcome all the Tejas’ current performance shortfalls.

Senior IAF officers explain that the DRDO needs the Tejas project to endorse the Kaveri-Snecma engine because Snecma insists on a minimum assured order of 300 engines as a precondition for partnering GTRE in “joint development”. Since India’s futuristic Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) — the other potential user of a Kaveri-Snecma engine — has not yet been sanctioned, only the Tejas programme, with some 120-140 fighters planned, provides the numbers needed for satisfying Snecma.

Shuk-law ji's report of proposed GTRE-Snecma JV circa 2009. They claimed a more powerful 90kN class engine. But note the time required - 4yrs. Will be dragged to 6yrs easily.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.se/2009/12/k ... power.html

But, unexpectedly, the Kaveri has gotten off the floor. Business Standard has learned that the MoD --- apprehending that Eurojet and GE would hang back from providing India with critical engine technologies, even if Transfer of Technology (ToT) was mandated in a purchase contract --- now wants to co-develop an engine in India rather than manufacturing one under licence. The DRDO’s Gas Turbine and Research Establishment (GTRE), which has a design partnership with French engine-maker, Snecma, has been asked to design a more powerful Kaveri successor.

A Snecma-GTRE joint venture to develop the upgraded Kaveri is likely to be announced during President Nikolas Sarkozy’s visit to India in early 2010.

Minister of State for Defence, Dr Pallam Raju, has confirmed to Business Standard, “It is important for India to have indigenous capabilities in engine design. And having invested so many man-hours of work into the design of the Kaveri engine, it would be a national waste to fritter away or dilute those capabilities…. (Snecma) is willing to co-develop an engine with us; they are willing to go beyond just transfer of technology. It is a value-added offer that gives us better technology than what we would get from ToT from Eurojet or GE.”

Amongst the key engine technologies that India needs is that for Single Crystal Blades, which significantly enhance turbine performance within the incandescent confines of a jet engine combustion chamber. The MoD suspects that this technology, worth billions of dollars, will not be fully transferred by Eurojet or by GE. (But the French will gladly give it away to India, haan ji..? )

An MoD official, who is closely involved in deciding between the EJ200 and the F-414, explains this apprehension: “The tender stipulates that 50% of the technology must be transferred to India. But the vendor will lump together a bunch of low-end technologies that might add up to 50%. What we want is one or two high-end technologies.”

GTRE designers say that it would take about 4 years to co-develop an engine with Snecma, somewhat longer than the 3-year time frame in which the EJ200 or F-414 would start being delivered. Based upon the performance of the Kaveri flight in the ongoing flight tests in Russia, GTRE sources are confident that, “Snecma-GTRE is fully capable of producing an engine as good as the F-414 and the EJ-200.”

That will involve improving from the current Kaveri’s maximum thrust of 65 Kilo Newtons (KN), to the 95 KN that the EJ200 and F-414 develop.

Are the French trying to sell us M88-3..?? Develop it by using us as cash-cow to bankroll the development cost..? I don't think they have made this uprated version so far, which is in concept for 2decades now. But I may be wrong.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... m88-51979/

A further development, the M88-3, rated at 9.5t thrust, still awaits funding, but has been benchtested on a privately funded demonstrator. "We are proposing the M88-3 to the French government for the future standard of the Rafale in the early 2000s and to prospective export customers", says Massot.

The M88-3 features a new LP compressor with higher mass flow (from 65kg/s in the -2 to 73.4kg/s). A new variable stator vane stage has been introduced, permitting the engine to operate at optimum conditions through a much wider range, reducing part-power-specific fuel consumption and providing more operational flexibility to suit the Rafale's multimission role. The development comes out of Snecma's CENTOR LP compressor research programme and from other exploratory developments carried out by Snecma in recent years.

[vina]

..... Same variants of a family of engines e.g. PW1000G series of GE90-GE9X family or Trent Family (not all but some of them), do share exact same core and different LP system.
... to make a core, fully certify it and use it on multiple engines without any or as less as possible changes and tinker with LP system to adjust thrust levels, by changing BPR mostly.

In Inglees, it means you can. You ispeak Yindee, I ispeak Inglees.

[Singha]

way I see it, Rafale is a tightly packed plane (due to naval parking limitations and no folding wing) with no more room to gain the kinds of bulges and increased waistline the slim hotrod F16 did over the years. and it was never designed as a a2a hotrod but a slippery smooth multi role jet that could work around its small radar aperture with AWACS support and good EW.

so it is unlikely to need a more powerful engine other than maybe advances that provide a significant fuel economy. even there it has 3 huge fuel tanks and CFT was also tested but not purchased by FrAF. the OSF IRST was also deleted on some units to save cost I think.

their Neuron UCAV is unlikely to need a very powerful engine.

India has to make a call if 2 x kaveri-snecma will be good for AMCA and COMMIT funds to it. it will be a 10 yr work to get it certified and ready for squadron service. just because hot section is ready does not mean engine is ready to roll. a huge system of parts making has to be setup and brought up to par.

also mate the current kaveri into a couple of Su30 or Mig29 2 seater with instruments in rear cockpit and gather the reams of in flight and service data that nobody else will 'teach' . HAL annually returns some 1.5b $$ of profit to FInMin. it can reward itself with 200 mil , build 2 more Su30 and hire a couple of retired pilots to run them out of ASTE. they do not need IAF permission to build Su30 - they make it themselves incl assembling the engine and avionics. only some initiative is needed to bell the cat

[Singha]

when HAL is struggling to productionize a turbofan engine (throw and use onlee) for nirbhay, how much time it will take to design and develop a new hot section for the AMCA. to me the onlee realistic option if we want a AMCA proto flying in 2025 is

- mate whatever works from kaveri to M88 core
- develop own core in parallel and attempt to replace that in future tranches or if nothing else do a cheen style license and call it cloning. atleast we will learn something that playing in dark.

I dont think the americans will be interested at all. their own needs and budgets are so big, 150-300 engines is like drop in ocean for them and various laws and Congress make it very tough to work on joint projects for them. they do 'some' joint work with israel and nobody else.

[JayS]

..... Same variants of a family of engines e.g. PW1000G series of GE90-GE9X family or Trent Family (not all but some of them), do share exact same core and different LP system.
... to make a core, fully certify it and use it on multiple engines without any or as less as possible changes and tinker with LP system to adjust thrust levels, by changing BPR mostly.

In Inglees, it means you can. You ispeak Yindee, I ispeak Inglees.

I don't know about that, but if you say "you can" then its over-simplification of the things. May be you know what you are talking about but not all who read might know that. A new LP system may take as much design efforts as that of the first LP system of the family designed from scratch, sometimes even more (well there is nothing like designed from scratch in engines, that first design would be based on some older predecessor or a TD program. But you get the drift I suppose.). When you start detailed design, what worked for previous version, the moment you scale up or down, typically does not work anymore. Then you seat down and do it differently. For a specific component in engines, that I have seen, I can tell you as many differences in the products of same family as there are among those from different OEMs. Everything looks same, when you think from conceptual or preliminary design perspective. But its not the same where the bulk of the work happens - detailed design and manufacturing.

That's why I never took seriously all this talk of "LCA flying with Kaveri by AI-2019". This kind of attitude is not good from Program management perspective. DRDO/GTRE is spreading this shit everywhere, and people are bound to get disappointed with this.

[Singha]

without mass manufacture of even the LP and AB sections of Kaveri for AMCA m88ski engine we are NOWHERE in the game. production @ scale and quality , in flight data for million hours, service data ... NOBODY can teach or TOT us all these.

right now its a science project in a lab

this is where the cheen approach of persisting with inferior engines but USING them on 1000s of planes pays off. they have the data banks.

[JayS]

when HAL is struggling to productionize a turbofan engine (throw and use onlee) for nirbhay, how much time it will take to design and develop a new hot section for the AMCA. to me the onlee realistic option if we want a AMCA proto flying in 2025 is

Which engine is that..??

Also keep in mind, miniaturization has its own challenges for jet engines - manufacturing is a key limiting factor. And the geometric design space is also limited. I have first hand experience on this. But now 3D printing is changing the scenario for small engines.

[Singha]

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2012/06 ... bofan.html

i think they are attempting to make a turbojet (simpler but burns more fuel) and not a williams/saturn type turbofan which gives the huge range of the P2 cruise missiles

but even there seems to be no real movement

[Austin]

At low altitude Turbojet should go well for Cruise Missile than Turbofan

[Singha]

i thought turbojets do better at high altitude ? could be wrong ...

[Austin]

wiki says this on turbojets

Turbojets are still common in medium range cruise missiles, due to their high exhaust speed, small frontal area, and relative simplicity. Turbojets have poor efficiency at low vehicle speeds, which limits their usefulness in vehicles other than aircraft.

[JayS]

At low altitude Turbojet should go well for Cruise Missile than Turbofan

i thought turbojets do better at high altitude ? could be wrong ...

Both Turbojets and Turbofans have very similar, almost the same, behaviour with changing altitude. In very simplistic terms

Thrust = mass flow rate * deltaV

Only thing that changes here with altitude is density. The effect would be very similar on both. For military jets the difference should be of no big consequence. For civil engines with very high BPRs we may see slight complications but again basic behaviour doesn't change.

But turbojets are fuel guzzlers a low speeds, so no one use them in airliners anymore. But at high speeds like M=2 they actually become more efficient than Turbofans (military versions, civil engines of this era won't be even reaching those speeds). That's why Concorde used those Olympus Engines. They were said to be most efficient jet engines ever. But on ground they would drink fuel so fast that Concorde was always given preference for TO to keep fuel consumption low during taxing.

[maitya]

<snip>
Betw Vinaji, not sure how and where to host an image and link it's URL from here ... (like I earlier used to do, before that site went kaput).
Your above thesis was backed by my back-of-envelope-simulator which showed Thrust growth options and corresponding impacts to TeT and OPR and Thermal efficiency etc.

Here it is ...


Simply increasing the mass-flow will give higher thrust ratings but at the cost of propulsive efficiency (2nd and 3rd last rows) etc - which would mean poor SFS etc (but that's price to pay for "leaky-turbofan" type design, a la F404, presumably for achieving flat-rating requirement etc).

As always pls take the thrust figures with a pinch of salt as atrocious assumptions like 100% efficiency gains etc are assumed - but is a good tool for comparative analysis etc.

[UlanBatori]

AoA! At least the Kaveri injun PROGRAM is rotating: coming back to the same point time and again with absolutely no net displacement.

[Indranil]

Only way is to run the HW for thousands of hours, observe, learn and then do educated trial and errors.

What are you speaking of? If we allow a private sector company to license produce the F-16s/Gripens, in a few more steps we will be designing and building planes from scratch here.

[JayS]

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2012/06 ... bofan.html

i think they are attempting to make a turbojet (simpler but burns more fuel) and not a williams/saturn type turbofan which gives the huge range of the P2 cruise missiles

but even there seems to be no real movement

I get confused between these two always. Isnt this LaghuShakti same as Manek engine..? Or they are different..?

Given efforts on the HTFE/HTSE, HAL should be in a good position to make a smaller TJ or TF completely from 3D printing. But the thing is they have to fly whatever they come up with in first iteration. Even if it gives less than desired range. Can't wait till it becomes perfect.

[Indranil]

Laghu Shakti and Manik are one and the same. It is a joint effort between HAL/GTRE/NAL with some inputs from Saturn.

Here is the list of small turbofan/turbojet engine projects in India

1. 0.30-0.45 kN : HAL (for Abhyas HEAT) and other UAVs
2. 1 kN (turbojet) : NAL
3. 2.75 kN (turbojet) : Upcoming RCI/NAL: This will be a formal step up , project completion of NAl's 1kN effort (part of the 12th 5-year plan)
4. Manik class: 4 kN - HAL/NAL/GTRE: For Nirbhay (formerly called Laghu shakti) upgradable to 7kN (according to SJha).
5. PTAE-7 engine : 4 kN (turbojet): HAL

Also, the Kalyani group is designing and testing engines of up to 2.5 kN class by using retired GTRE folks.

[Gyan]

25kn htfe
1200kw htshft
3 types of jet starter
Turbo chargers for piston engines

[Gyan]

Some speculation about 8kn turbofan and 1200kw turboprop but unconfirmed.

[Indranil]

I don't like this Snecma core stuff. I hope the India continues to work on the indigenous core in parallel.

However, this is a very low risk option. We might truly have a 90-110kN engine by 2019. GTRE is just flooding it out on the tenders front. From manufacturing of the fans, blades, stators, test stands. If all goes well,....

[Rishi_Tri]

Some seriousness on engines. We have multiple engine programs running. Someone will be successful, at some point in time in all aspects.

Hopefully the french shall fall for Indian beauties and we shall have the core tech, aka the Chinese for submarines.

But hope we don't have to do it and someone somewhere is working on Kaveri while this Snecma story unfolds.

[Prasad]

Ramana saar
I get that our engine was falling short of what the current and future LCA will need. I assumed we would work towards bridging that gap or winding up the current program and work on a future engine for future needs. Right now, a non-AB version for the Ghatak is the likely and perhaps the only program for the Kaveri. What then. While we use the french core, will we make a desi one too? That was my question. Even if we do slot in F414 for the AMCA (thank god the IAF made up its mind on that), there will still be an engine mlu.

[Austin]

It doesnt matter if the engine is 60 % indiginous with new French Core as DRDO Chief says it or other wise , The larger point he was trying to make is the new Engine with French Core will have significant Indian content derived from Kaveri Program.

In the same interview he mentions that Tejas will need 3 engine change during its life time and if DRDO Engine with French core meets the requirement then they would replace the US engine with Indian one.

Kaveri in original specs and purpose has failed and this is the 2nd best thing DRDO could come up with to meet Tejas and in future AMCA engine requirement , One can argue if we are close to 60 % or 10 % when the core is french but it is better than having 100 % foreign engine of US origin when Indian Engine can replace those.

[JayS]

It doesnt matter if the engine is 60 % indiginous with new French Core as DRDO Chief says it or other wise , The larger point he was trying to make is the new Engine with French Core will have significant Indian content derived from Kaveri Program.

In the same interview he mentions that Tejas will need 3 engine change during its life time and if DRDO Engine with French core meets the requirement then they would replace the US engine with Indian one.

Kaveri in original specs and purpose has failed and this is the 2nd best thing DRDO could come up with to meet Tejas and in future AMCA engine requirement , One can argue if we are close to 60 % or 10 % when the core is french but it is better than having 100 % foreign engine of US origin when Indian Engine can replace those.

Problem is not that we would save the day with this kind of make do solutions. Problem is this puts a full stop on whatever little indigenous development that we have been doing. We don't do any work for tomorrow side by side and next time we are back to square one. For example if GOI says, OK lets use M88 core for now and we will fund (adequately) a parallel program wherein we will make Kabini better and replace the M88 core with it ASAP. But these things don't happen. Today we take M88 core, seat with thumbs up our ass and next time we beg for some other core. There is no breaking of the vicious cycle. Even with the current dispensation there is no light at the end of the tunnel so far.

[Manish_Sharma]

I think Austin saar is right

That we manufacture 60% Kaveri and assemble 40% m88 core in numbers maybe 300 + engines.

Second option is that:

2. We keep working on Kabini core for another decade and keep assembling 100% GE 404 / 414 engines.

Option 1 is better this way we will learn the production issues of a 60% Kaveri.

[maitya]

I think Austin saar is right

That we manufacture 60% Kaveri and assemble 40% m88 core in numbers maybe 300 + engines.

Second option is that:

2. We keep working on Kabini core for another decade and keep assembling 100% GE 404 / 414 engines.

Option 1 is better this way we will learn the production issues of a 60% Kaveri.

Actually it's not ... 100% production with "right kind" of ToT (and not screwdrivergiri a la AL-31FP) is way better from tech/design capability building perspective, than this 100%-core-plumbing-in-an-turbofan scam that is being foisted upon us.

Trouble is "right kind" is exactly what no design-bureau-worth-its-salt would reveal ... so designing-and-building the HPC-Compressor-HPT as a whole system is an absolute must, from building capability stand-point.

Rest all, is not even tinkering in the periphery ...

Going into these details would mean lot of verbose posts from me - for which, I wouldn't have the b/w currently.

[chetak]

It doesnt matter if the engine is 60 % indiginous with new French Core as DRDO Chief says it or other wise , The larger point he was trying to make is the new Engine with French Core will have significant Indian content derived from Kaveri Program.

In the same interview he mentions that Tejas will need 3 engine change during its life time and if DRDO Engine with French core meets the requirement then they would replace the US engine with Indian one.

Kaveri in original specs and purpose has failed and this is the 2nd best thing DRDO could come up with to meet Tejas and in future AMCA engine requirement , One can argue if we are close to 60 % or 10 % when the core is french but it is better than having 100 % foreign engine of US origin when Indian Engine can replace those.

IMHO, much more than three engines are changed over the lifetime of an aircraft.

Maybe he is talking statistically in terms of costing, repair infrastructure and investment in propulsion hardware and storage/spares and shop visit rates.

one would love to see what assumptions were made to arrive at these figures.

It is a fairly broad-banded guesstimate at best. Nothing more. Too many variables are unknown to forecast with any degree of certainty.

[Austin]

Actually it's not ... 100% production with "right kind" of ToT (and not screwdrivergiri a la AL-31FP) is way better from tech/design capability building than this 100%-core-plumbing-in scam that is being foisted upon us.

Trouble is "right kind" is exactly what no design-bureau-worth-its-salt would reveal ... so designing-and-building the HPC-Compressor-HPT as a whole system is absolute must from building capability stand-point.

Rest all, is not even tinkering in the periphery ...

Going into the details would mean lot of verbose posts from me - for which, I wouldn't have the b/w currently.

If right kind of TOT is available people would have just bought it off the shelf , No one is willing to part its own crown jewels even if the price is right , Much like India wont be selling its own crown jewel technology on missile program or nuclear even if the price is right.

Right now the approach of getting Core from France and get the Kaveri going even if its 50 % imported or 50 % indiginous depending how one looks is the Glass is Half Full or Half Empty , Thats the quickest way to get a DRDO Engine inside Tejas and other program.

They can always have their own parallel program to build their own core as part of future technologies even if that takes decade or more at some point we will reach that stage , It does not mean we keep importing 100 % GE Engine for the next 15 years just because some one is not willing to give us core technology and we loose the 60 % gain we got from Kaveri so far in the bargain

[chetak]

Actually it's not ... 100% production with "right kind" of ToT (and not screwdrivergiri a la AL-31FP) is way better from tech/design capability building than this 100%-core-plumbing-in scam that is being foisted upon us.

Trouble is "right kind" is exactly what no design-bureau-worth-its-salt would reveal ... so designing-and-building the HPC-Compressor-HPT as a whole system is absolute must from building capability stand-point.

Rest all, is not even tinkering in the periphery ...

Going into the details would mean lot of verbose posts from me - for which, I wouldn't have the b/w currently.

If right kind of TOT is available people would have just bought it off the shelf , No one is willing to part its own crown jewels even if the price is right , Much like India wont be selling its own crown jewel technology on missile program or nuclear even if the price is right.

Right now the approach of getting Core from France and get the Kaveri going even if its 50 % imported or 50 % indiginous depending how one looks is the Glass is Half Full or Half Empty , Thats the quickest way to get a DRDO Engine inside Tejas and other program.

They can always have their own parallel program to build their own core as part of future technologies even if that takes decade or more at some point we will reach that stage

India has always been plagued by lack of engines starting with the HF 24 project.

IIRC, The amrekis went to great lengths to take out an engine factory in egypt with the help of the israelis. We were hoping to enter an airframe for engine swap seal with these guys.

If the core technology is tech transferred to us, the India engine market will dry up forever. So there is a serious cartel to keep this from happening.

M88 core may come but maybe also with serious limiting conditions.

We simply don't have the guys to do the core ourselves and this is the sad fact. If such talent does emerge, someone is sure to recognise this and to take them out.

It has already happened in some of our other programs, no??

So if we are serious, then do it completely classified and protect your assets

I am also confident that we will ultimately overcome, just like ISRO did, in spite of all the technology denials we were subjected to.

[arvin]

Even in EJ 200, HPT blades are supplied by big daddy Rolls royce. We are in the same league of Avio of Italy which supplies gearbox, LPT and aftrburner.

[JayS]

It doesnt matter if the engine is 60 % indiginous with new French Core as DRDO Chief says it or other wise , The larger point he was trying to make is the new Engine with French Core will have significant Indian content derived from Kaveri Program.

In the same interview he mentions that Tejas will need 3 engine change during its life time and if DRDO Engine with French core meets the requirement then they would replace the US engine with Indian one.

Kaveri in original specs and purpose has failed and this is the 2nd best thing DRDO could come up with to meet Tejas and in future AMCA engine requirement , One can argue if we are close to 60 % or 10 % when the core is french but it is better than having 100 % foreign engine of US origin when Indian Engine can replace those.

IMHO, much more than three engines are changed over the lifetime of an aircraft.

Maybe he is talking statistically in terms of costing, repair infrastructure and investment in propulsion hardware and storage/spares and shop visit rates.

one would love to see what assumptions were made to arrive at these figures.

It is a fairly broad-banded guesstimate at best. Nothing more. Too many variables are unknown to forecast with any degree of certainty.

In a way you are right. But it ain't that hard to get a reasonably correct number, if you don't want a number to forth decimal place. As a first order approximation, Just take Design life of Aircraft and divide it by Engine Design Life. For Su30MKI its 6000hrs/2000hrs = 3 sets. Western airframes typically have 8000hrs airframe life while 3000-4000hrs Engine life. So 2-2.5 engine sets per fighter. But unlike the Russians, who throw the entire engine after design life is over and put new engine, Western OEMs use the same engine while they keep replacing modules as per life schedule. Typically modules are rated for different life numbers. For example, turbines are replaced within 2000hrs while Compressors might last 6000hrs. If you do the math roughly 2-2.5 engines worth of spares would be used up for one life of Fighter. As such airframes are not married to engines and they are kept shuffling during daily MRO. But when fleetwide numbers are considered, average per fighter comes out to be the same. Unless of coarse the engine has lifing issues, like F404 had it in its early years for example. As an example, complete fleet of Gripen of 250 would have only about 350 engines in their entire life-time. That 350 number includes test prototypes as well so the number for Air force would be around 320 or so. The additional numbers above 250 are as spares for all the nations operating Gripen. On top of this there is a Life Tracking System which helps improve usage of the engines significantly. I see similar Fighter to Engine ratio for Euro Fighter with 1400 engines for 620 planed Fighters. Snecma follows the same philosophy even since M53. GE follows the same one. Even GTRE has picked up this system. So when DRDO chief says 3 engines per LCA, take it with a pinch of salt. As such the current design life for LCA is only 3000hrs (which itself is not fully certified, as far as I can tell). So unless its extended (which of coarse will happen in all probability), it will not see anything other than the first batch of F404s.

[Gyan]

India/GTRE will never be able to develop any turbine the way it is going. First we need to develop laboratories with all the test equipment including Flying test bed. There does not seem to be any realization in the minds of Babus and Politicos that Turbine engines are as important as any Nuclear or Space Programme. Anyway going forward we have to develop core fundamental research involving Colleges, Universities and Industries working in metallurgy, Software and engineering.

Thereafter we should pluck the lowest fruit first. For instance, HTFE 25 can be used for IJT, Kaveri can be used for AJT, HTSE 1200 can be used for helos and we should develop our own turboprop engines also for HTT-40 as an offshoot of HTFE & HTSE. Only thereafter we will have the engineering strength to aim for Fighter and passenger airliner engines.