Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 23 Jan 2020 09:52

Can you please give us an update on the status of the Kaveri gas turbine engine programme and its future?

Kaveri gas turbine engine programme gave enormous insight and experience in the development of materials, different sub systems, assembly and testing an aircraft engine. Now, we have the requisite knowhow for developing a fighter aircraft engine and the intricacies involved for next gen aircraft engine. In terms of power, technology and utility, we have moved beyond Kaveri engine.

Dr. G. Satheesh Reddy interview in geopolitics magazine November 2019 issue.

Neilz · Post by **Neilz** » 23 Jan 2020 14:22

https://idrw.org/we-can-do-it-chorus-gr ... a-locally/

Among many feedbacks from all sector, a majority of them are urging to build a consortium company with many key stakeholders who should be in charge of developing the new engine locally instead of an international collaboration with a foreign Aero-Engine maker if we aim to be import free and less dependent on foreign engine manufactures in the future.

idrw.org .Read more at India No 1 Defence News Website https://idrw.org/we-can-do-it-chorus-gr ... a-locally/ .

Kalyani Group headed by Baba Kalyani reportedly told the committee members that if countries decide we won’t import them, then we can build it and offered to be part of the consortium

idrw.org .Read more at India No 1 Defence News Website https://idrw.org/we-can-do-it-chorus-gr ... a-locally/ .

” We have spent nearly 2000 crores on Kaveri engine which might look huge but it is not even 30-40% of the developmental money spend by others on a similar class of engine elsewhere “, ” Kaveri is not a complete failure ! it has demonstrated 75kN of thrust and new 51kN Dry engine for UCAV is under development”.

idrw.org .Read more at India No 1 Defence News Website https://idrw.org/we-can-do-it-chorus-gr ... a-locally/ .

LakshmanPST · Post by **LakshmanPST** » 24 Jan 2020 18:19

Security Scan discussion on RS TV about Kaveri Engines...
Nothing new in the discussion, but one small info from Arora ji is Dry Thrust requirement of final AMCA engine, which is 75kN...
I heard only Wet Thrust requirements (110kN) in all news articles, but couldn't find the dry thrust requirement anywhere before...
https://youtu.be/Jp1ONvOllLs

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 24 Jan 2020 18:22

good data point

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 24 Jan 2020 18:28

LakshmanPST wrote:Security Scan discussion on RS TV about Kaveri Engines...
Nothing new in the discussion, but one small info from Arora ji is Dry Thrust requirement of final AMCA engine, which is 75kN...
I heard only Wet Thrust requirements (110kN) in all news articles, but couldn't find the dry thrust requirement anywhere before...
https://youtu.be/Jp1ONvOllLs

It's been known for 5-6 years now, nothing new about it.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 24 Jan 2020 18:40

not to mention that no one wears hats anymore.

JayS wrote:IIRC they first claimed it will be done by 2018..!! Well, French can can anything. What can we do if they cannot finish it in said time line..??? A variant of matured civil engine family takes minimum 3yrs for certification even when done by GE/PW/RR (min 5-6 yrs total development time from concept to EIS). Certification for mil engine is even more rigorous. And you can add some factor for Kaveri since it will be flight tested for very first time. Do the math. I would not put my money on even 2020..!! If its done by then, I'll eat my hat.

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 25 Jan 2020 16:58

The increase in dry thrust of current Kaveri to 110 KN Kaveri is a 44% increase or 23 KN (52 to 75) while for wet thrust it is a much smaller increase of 20% or 6 KN ((110-75)-(81-52)).

The by pass ratio of 0.16 for Kaveri is less than half of GE F404's 0.34 and still less than GEF414's 0.25. Is the (extremely) low bypass ratio reason that Kaveri could achieve the dry thrust easily while struggling to achieve wet thrust?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 27 Jan 2020 10:16

One mango man question: Suppose we use Kaveri as it stands today - Can it be used in LCA MK1 even if it will be under powered? Or do we need further tests and improvements as to test it for reliability etc. If further tests for reliability etc are needed then is it not make sense to conduct such tests and use Keveri for LCA for testing purpose so as to mitigate any any US Sanctions and non variability of GE eng or its spare parts in future?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jan 2020 11:27

There was on Security Scan a discussion on Kaveri and why it has failed.Tracing its failure back to that of the HF-24, meant to be a Mach 2 fighter withthe Helwan engine,but when that programme went kaput ( thanks to the Israelis), the HF got shafted using much inferior Orpheus engines.We never took up the offer of developing improved Orpheus engines for just $3 M too.

Learning nothing from that experience in the '80s we began the LCA project and Kaveri engine from scratch without any history of engine tech.,on a small budget of $50M and 7 years in which to perfect it going it solo without any JV from a proven engine OEM! I've mentioned over the years how babudom prevented a DG rank officer to be in charge too,with hire and fire powers.Thus even APJAK was taken for a ride by the GTRE who told him that only a 3 month period was reqd. for its arrival .The IAF AM on the panel warned him that it was a fib,but Kalam believed them..That was in 2003.APJAK then publicly stated that by 2013 200 LCAs would be fying!

The SS discussion also mentioned that in the 80s and 90s,the thrust of the envisaged engine was adequate,but by the time changes were made to the bird to catch up on the latest tech.,it got heavier and we had to find the GE plant instead.All the panellists mentioned our next programme the AMCA and that we
should not repeat the mistake for the third time.It is clear by now that on our own we cannot deliver the goods for an engine for AMCA despite our vastly improved mil- tech base when compared to that of 4 decades ago. A JV is therefore reqd.,say the dxperts, plus to mj mind an alternative engine also tested with the prototypes to insure us against sanctions,especially if a US engine is selected.The LCA suffered delays due to US sanctions after P-2 and is yet again threatening sanctions because we're buying Russian weaponry, Iranian oil,etc.We must never be faced with another similar situ.Whether Kaveri can be salvaged with a SNECMA core or a new engine needs to be developed is another matter, but AMCA's engine should be the first major decision,building the aircraft around the engine not shoehorning the engine into a fighter and failing yet again.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 27 Jan 2020 13:12

We continue to re-hash the same old points that has got discussed umpteen number of times in the past - so maybe, one more time wouldn't hurt:

1) Developing a Turbofan for 110/xx/yy/zz KN with an imported core - this is like asking to develop LCA with an imported FCS.
Might as well go for lic-mfg of the entire engine instead of wasting money etc - as investing in it would mean,

a) essentially reimbursing the OEM for it's own R&D spent, and worse, what is their "claimed" spent
b) there'll be no follow-up incremental adhoc/on-demand changes by IAF etc, as any change anywhere will require some change in the core, for which additional permission/fees would need to be spent.
Now pls contrast this point (b) with what we are witnessing/hearing from the user-feedback (IAF) vis-a-vis LCA product itself.

2) DRDO/IAF/MoD joint panel of 1983 which analysed the requirement and its feasibility of an indigenous Turbofan engine didn't really ask for an unobtanium in form of Kaveri (or GTX-35 VS) - yes it was very ambitious ask, given the indigenous technical capability etc of that era etc, but not an unobtanium.
It was in the same lines of what was being asked for, in the technology-devt aspect of the platform (LCA) itself - plus a proper due-diligence was done before proceeding with the go-ahead of Kaveri devt.
If based on Marut experience and decades of Lic Mfg experience, the platform (LCA) devt was given go ahead, so was in the case of Kaveri.

Pls read thru the Kaveri Saga thread to understand this following aspect in detail:
DRDO already had a turbojet developed, with similar thrust levels (similar, not same) of what got specified for Kaveri - and in fact had already failed (and then succeeded) in adding a FAN to it, in order to develop a Turbofan.
In fact, in a very crude way, it can be said the Kaveri ask was to remove an HPC stage and derive a "light-weight" turbofan etc.

And the specs being asked for, were to match the "upcoming" (and in fact almost contemporary) F404. And even there, the approach was to copy what GE did with F404 development (based on TF30 on F-111s, whose production ended in mid 1980s).

The twin risks that the then, committee took were:
a) No "flying" turbojet or turbofan experience - max experience was with bench tested turbojets/turbofan prototypes
b) No Technical/R&D bare-minm R&D infra (plus industrial infra) available to undertake a program of such a magnitude
c) and the biggest of all - budget (or investment) guarantee

Yes, with no money to spend, it was almost designed to fail from start - and so, quite unsurprisingly, it did.

What is surprising however is, it failed AFTER successfully delivering the specified dry thrust (of 51-52KN) and marginally falling short of the Wet Thrust (75KN achieved vs 81KN specified).
But more importantly, AFTER meeting all other key aspects of the requirements (SFC, OPR/TeT combo, Surge Margin etc etc etc).

3) Performance criteria and growth potential: A leaky turbojet (like Kaveri) is already disadvantaged vis-a-vis a military turbofan (like F404) when it comes to delivering thrust figures.
The clue is in the BPR and core-massflow figures (of both) and how dry thrust values are so directly influenced by them - it is quite well illustrated in the excel-based-injin-comparative-models, linked many times earlier as recently as in the last 1/2 posts.
A point to ponder maybe, if Kaveri is able to deliver xyz KN dry thrust alongwith comparable SFC figures, with such low BPR regime, what would be possible if the BPR is tweaked upwards, say, to match that of a F404.
(ofcourse it's not a linear relationship etc, but one can think and deduce atleast subjectively).

4) Imported Core means no follow-up engine development program - period.
Not sure how many realise a very simple fact - mighty GE developed F414 by going what is essentially "cold section" upgrade.
(pls refer to my earlier posts to understand the diff between thrust upgrade via "cold section" or via "hot section" upgrades).
Which essentially means, in lay-man terms, the so-called "core" has remained same between F404 and the earlier models of F414. Of course, the current versions of F414 sports considerably "changed core" etc - but the initiation was with ultra low-risk path of tweaking the Fans/LPC etc.
Good luck, dreaming of such stunts with an imported core.

... and so on and so forth ...

And there goes my quota of b/w for BRF posting, so back to lurk mode now ...

Barath · Post by **Barath** » 27 Jan 2020 17:41

khan wrote: What’s the point in developing a 1970’s engine (GE-404) in 2030?

They should do what they did with LCA, try to build something cutting edge, throw some real money & effort at it (which they will have to do anyways - even for a 404 class engine) - maybe they get close enough or maybe they can just import.
Comparing with China & Russia is not valid because they cannot import GE-404 class engine, so have to make do with homegrown inferior substitutes.
Either way, trying to develop something contemporary is the smart way to go IMO.

Contemporary engines could be like this RR engine for Tempest or the GE & PWadaptive cycle options for the 2025+ F35 re-engining. Or the Safran-MTU partnership for FCAS. Without the similar technology, experience or design base as any of these companies, and without even that of China or Russia. It'snot as if China is starving its engine development teams, or that foreign firms and countries will fall over themselves to give invaluable critical gas turbine technologies to India (which they really haven't at any time)

Even with multiple times the infrastructure, budget, and some foreign input, one may need to be realistic in aspirations.

after all, in the 2030s, the GE 414 engine will also be powering contemporary planes

khan wrote: or maybe they can just import.

That would be a waste of an opportunity. You won't be likely to get a business case/volume like this easily...You could proactively always up the budget, infra etc ...but that doesn't seem to hve happened at any point in the past..

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 27 Jan 2020 18:16

Good to read your posts, Maitya, keep them coming.

With Missile Development and Fighter Development becoming Business as Usual with multiple simultaneous projects, I wish GoI takes up fighter engine development as the next frontier to conquer.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 28 Jan 2020 06:00

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/122 ... 99072?s=20 ---> So, here's DDR's explainer video on some technical aspects related to the development of a non after burning turbofan engine (jet engine) for India's Ghatak Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) program. It has been put together by Sriram.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 28 Jan 2020 06:06

Security Scan - Kaveri Jet Engine
23 January 2020

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 28 Jan 2020 06:17

Maitya, It doesn't make sense to do this alone; a lot of things can be learned in the process of getting an engine certified. Even if we get a 110KN engine developed with foreign core, then replacing the core at a later time and redoing the certification process is a lot easier. Plus we can build our own 100 KN engine with our core and get that to market after that experience. We have yet to take an engine and certify it in air. That process can be made easier if we allow someone else to hold our hand through it.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 28 Jan 2020 19:08

Cybaruji, I never said that we should do this alone - certifications etc aside, I'm saying yes, by all means, we should go ahead and ask for the hand-me-down cores from GE/Snecma/whosoever.
If we are desperate to reimburse R&D budgets of these orgs, so be it ... but we should atleast maximise the return for these reimbursements, right?
And the way to do that is Lic Mfg of the entire engine (like we do for AL-31FPs).

These “joint development” etc really means that, we the Kallurams, shouldn’t even venture close to manufacturing of typical core-components like HPT/LPT discs and blades, vanes, compressor blades, combustor, main spool etc etc etc – these are after all for the gora-sahibs super-special technical skills and ultra-rich experience.
If the sahibs are in a generous mood they may allow us with slightly better terms like end-to-end manufacturing of some of the core components like compressor discs and case, compressor spool, hubs, seals etc just like what the Swedes do for their RM12 (plus of course the end-to-end mfg of non-core components like the fan, afterburner etc).

And ofcourse the entire final assembly, again just like in AL-31FPs.
And, the most important thing - we can always ask HAL et all to mfg a shiny sticker of "Make of India" and attach it to, to complete the conundrum and be done with it.
That should make everybody happy.

What I'm saying however, if we are going to go that route, we shouldn't have any such grandeur hopes (sometimes bordering insanity) of,
i) continuous tweaking of it to tailor it IAFs ever-changing requirements
ii) any iterative version development etc, on our own (like 404-IN20, 404-402 etc)
iii) any follow-up turbofan engine program for any other future platform (including civilian applications)

And, not sure why we need to have a gazillion of chai-biskoot committees to somehow “market” this lic mfg initiative as “joint development” etc – what exactly is there to jointly develop in a Turbofan, except for the Fan and the A/B maybe, if the core itself will be a hand-me-down one.
Earlier after many such chai-biskoot sessions and along with a really tough tongue-twisters like “DTTI” we got told – “Nyah!! Nyah!! These stuffs are not for you children”.

It seems we never learn, do we?

Ever wondered, why we haven't heard any follow-up program from the Swedes despite them doing so these from mid 1990s? They have much stronger and developed industrial manufacturing base than us, right?

Either way, bottom line is we have a working core – that develops exactly the same thrust (52KN) what it was supposed to have. Furthermore, it also achieves almost all crucial parameters of low-bypass military turbofan, indicating the maturity level of the thermodynamic and aerodynamic technologies incorporated into it.

A Turbofan core is exactly is supposed to do the above – and it already does.

So, this engine needs to be flown and the technology levels baselined and the empirical parameters recorded out of it, so that any future program can be worked on/derived from it etc.

But that core hasn’t yet flown – so basically, we are back to 1983 then, where-in we have had bench-tested turbojet (and a turbofan) and we struggled for 20+ years thereafter, to build a contemporary turbofan based on it.
All these “joint development” etc would mean we remain exactly in the same state 20 years hence.

Regarding this "... replacing core ..." etc I have no clue what it really means – I mean, how does one replace a core without building and certifying a brand new engine etc etc etc.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Jan 2020 23:14

Maitya, How much do you think the current Kabini core cost out of the total Kaveri program?

to me looks like the turbo fan, casing the after burner are per requirement.

So what will it take to come up with a new engine that will poser the MWF and the Naval Tejas Mk2.
Nice if it can power AMCA but not needed.

Ref: viewtopic.php?p=2372872#p2372872

The price, not cost, for new M88 core for Kaveri is
€250M (Safran)+ €500M (DRDO) = €750M.
DRDO spent € 240M total for the Kaveri so far.
So €750M.for new core is definitely high.
The biggest problem is the shoe string budget for the Kaveri.
Despite so many higher ups saying it's a national project of importance.
I would ask DRDO how much to redo the core with M88 type technology?
And fund them.
SAFRAN quoting 3x cost of Kaveri is either a rip off or don't know the job.
Can't be latter as they were consulting DRDO in some form or the other since inception.

So build a new core for a new engine.

And don't do the smallest Swiss mechanical watch type of design.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 29 Jan 2020 00:49

maitya wrote:Cybaruji, I never said that we should do this alone - certifications etc aside, I'm saying yes, by all means, we should go ahead and ask for the hand-me-down cores from GE/Snecma/whosoever.
If we are desperate to reimburse R&D budgets of these orgs, so be it ... but we should atleast maximise the return for these reimbursements, right?

And the way to do that is Lic Mfg of the entire engine (like we do for AL-31FPs).

So, this engine needs to be flown and the technology levels baselined and the empirical parameters recorded out of it, so that any future program can be worked on/derived from it etc.

But that core hasn’t yet flown – so basically, we are back to 1983 then, where-in we have had bench-tested turbojet (and a turbofan) and we struggled for 20+ years thereafter, to build a contemporary turbofan based on it.
All these “joint development” etc would mean we remain exactly in the same state 20 years hence.

Regarding this "... replacing core ..." etc I have no clue what it really means – I mean, how does one replace a core without building and certifying a brand new engine etc etc etc.

Yeah - I agree with you on many of these points. Plus I know nothing about aero engines - with that caveat, I continue to share my opinion.

My argument is

a. that a portion of certification of engine
b. figuring out engine infrastructure/air-test-beds for flight testing new engines
c. getting Kaveri 52/75 KN engine first 500 hours in air remain

and that needs to happen.

This should close the loop on
a. Engine testbed choices
b. certification process
c. learning to ground/air test any engine in the future

Funny enough Kaveri has the same power parameters as the current Rafale M-88 engine. It could theoretically power that if needed..

The engine collaboration should ensure, we get two engines out of it and has us secure for next 20-30 years,
1. We test and certify Kaveri on LCA TD demonstrator, ghatak or retrofit it on Rafale in future
2. Create a new 75-80/110-115 KN engine for AMCA

Ideally that should allow us to do the following in future as all the pieces will now be there
3. Create a 65 KN / 105 KN to power later tranches of MWF if possible -
4. Create 80-85 /130-140 KN engine to power last built MKIs when engine replacement comes up another 10/15 years down the road or if we start a Advanced Heavyweight project.

A collaboration could quite easily cut many years if we structure it right.

Like you say, no change will be possible and all once a engine is made and any change will "lead to lots of cost" - I agree with that statement, and I still think, getting there has immense value for us as a country as it will fill many blanks for us and push us forward quite a bit if we are willing to start and fund other engine programs simultaneously and invest in a testing platform like the Il-76.

So if we get one of our engines (Kaveri) fully functional and another one that we do not have for AMCA (Safran-GTRE) jointly owned engine developed, a lot of things are secure for the future.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jan 2020 02:01

Cybaru, No one will help develop jet engine technology.

VenkataS · Post by **VenkataS** » 29 Jan 2020 03:20

Why not develop a new fighter (with dual engines) design based on the existing Kaveri engine or use the Rafale as suggested above.
We need a few fighters flying with a domestically produced engine as soon as possible so that a feedback loop can be setup so that continuous incremental improvements can be made to the engine.
Estimate how much this would need over the next five years and fund it starting now.

kit · Post by **kit** » 29 Jan 2020 04:44

ramana wrote:Cybaru, No one will help develop jet engine technology.

Well that may not be exactly true, its better said no one is going to hand hold to develop that, an old story about the Russians developing their Mig engines (VK 1 for the Mig 15) from the engines supplied by England (RR Nene) during WW2. Poilitical will, lots of funds and effort. Is anyone/anything stopping india from developing an engine derivative of the Sukhoi s AL 31 or for that matter Mig 29s RD 33 ? Sometimes availability and access kills innovation. I believe with private enterprise and funding on a national mission will help india achieve its goal., the hard way being better in this sense. The rewards are huge.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Jan 2020 05:24

kit wrote:
ramana wrote:Cybaru, No one will help develop jet engine technology.
Well that may not be exactly true, its better said no one is going to hand hold to develop that, an old story about the Russians developing their Mig engines (VK 1 for the Mig 15) from the engines supplied by England (RR Nene) during WW2. Poilitical will, lots of funds and effort. Is anyone/anything stopping india from developing an engine derivative of the Sukhoi s AL 31 or for that matter Mig 29s RD 33 ? Sometimes availability and access kills innovation. I believe with private enterprise and funding on a national mission will help india achieve its goal., the hard way being better in this sense. The rewards are huge.

Read the Chinese report posted on the China thread. Post WW2 engines were much simpler. Having access to western engines is a good thing as it allows more realistic dev and ops performance metrics etc. However, there is no substitute to research and development and developing both the design competency and the production and supplier base to support a program at industrial scale (something like say 60-100 engines a year). It is a high cost investment and the investment needs to be sustained and an eco-system designed and subsidized around the thing. China is doing that at scale but despite of that is still going through significant challenges. If it were just as easy as having an talent pool and access to cutting edge engines which you can them quickly break apart and use the knowledge to develop top class engines, the Chinese and many other nations would be producing commercial engines on par with the quality of the big 3 or 4.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jan 2020 05:29

I think if India had copied the Russian engine that would have ended all cooperation and India would be friendless in an unfriendly world.
However that does not mean they should not have funded the Kaveri generously knowing that jet engines are the Achilles heel of India aviation industry.
Something is wrong there and no wants to talk about why it was so.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 29 Jan 2020 10:51

Ramana,

I really do think the two pronged approach of getting the Kaveri off the ground-tested-certified along with a new engine for AMCA is the only way forward.

Even if the AMCA engine has core from Safran and we only make the cold parts, that is fine for now. There will be immense learning in the process of getting both Kaveri and this 110KN engine off the ground and available for our programs.

I understand no one will give us the hot core - let them not. It is still a very valuable exercise.

This will be the best hybrid Build-buy program there can be.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 29 Jan 2020 11:23

maitya, love reading your posts! From one of your posts,Got a question:

maitya wrote:The twin risks that the then, committee took were:
a) No "flying" turbojet or turbofan experience - max experience was with bench tested turbojets/turbofan prototypes
b) No Technical/R&D bare-minm R&D infra (plus industrial infra) available to undertake a program of such a magnitude
c) and the biggest of all - budget (or investment) guarantee

For an emerging aerospace industry with some experience in rigging up something as complex as the Netra and figuring out the CLAW of Tejas, it should be a low risk project to get a four-engined plane rigged up with all sorts of test gear and a fat engine test-pod, for a flying test bed.

If hours and hours of testing can be done up in the air, why is this infra being deferred? Is there any technical or financial reason why we dont have a flying-testbed yet?

This particular infrastructure seem to be the only remaining missing infra.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 30 Jan 2020 01:40

kit wrote:
ramana wrote:Cybaru, No one will help develop jet engine technology.
Well that may not be exactly true, its better said no one is going to hand hold to develop that, an old story about the Russians developing their Mig engines (VK 1 for the Mig 15) from the engines supplied by England (RR Nene) during WW2. Poilitical will, lots of funds and effort. Is anyone/anything stopping india from developing an engine derivative of the Sukhoi s AL 31 or for that matter Mig 29s RD 33 ? Sometimes availability and access kills innovation. I believe with private enterprise and funding on a national mission will help india achieve its goal., the hard way being better in this sense. The rewards are huge.

The sale of those Rolls Royce Nene engines to the soviets by the then labor govt of britain is acknowledged as the single biggest blunder in the history of aviation and one that will never ever again be repeated. They purchased a total of 25 Nenes

Thereafter, the soviets, unauthorisedly built copies of the Nene engine and also developed it further as the VK-1, all in direct contravention of the sale agreements.

However, the real pity of selling the engines to the Russians was that so many young britshit engineers lost the chance to trade the designs for sex. Imagine all those eager and willing natashas just pining away.

The bitter irony was that this same engine was in the Korean War, both on the Soviet Mig-15 as well as the US Navy Grumman F9F-2 Panther in the same time frame.

Production Grumman F9F-2 Panthers had a Rolls Royce Nene, built under license by Pratt & Whitney as the J42.

“The MiG-15 surprised the hell out of us,” says National Air and Space Museum curator Robert van der Linden. Compared to the North American F-86 Sabre, hastily introduced in combat after the MiGs showed up, “the MiG was faster, could outclimb it, and had more firepower,” he says. And Sabre pilots knew it.

Lieutenant General Charles “Chick” Cleveland today, he’s president of the American Fighter Aces Association and still has respect for his adversary of 60 years ago. “Oh, it was a wonderful airplane,” he says from his home in Alabama. “You have to remember that the little MiG-15 in Korea was successful doing what all the Focke-Wulfs and Messerschmitts of World War II were never able to do: Drive the United States bomber force right out the sky.” From November 1951, B-29s stayed on the ground during the day; bombing missions were flown only at night.

The west, as well as the russians, have all learned their bitter lessons very well indeed.

No one will ever sell you their crown jewels now.

kit · Post by **kit** » 30 Jan 2020 04:29

chetak wrote:
kit wrote: Well that may not be exactly true, its better said no one is going to hand hold to develop that, an old story about the Russians developing their Mig engines (VK 1 for the Mig 15) from the engines supplied by England (RR Nene) during WW2. Poilitical will, lots of funds and effort. Is anyone/anything stopping india from developing an engine derivative of the Sukhoi s AL 31 or for that matter Mig 29s RD 33 ? Sometimes availability and access kills innovation. I believe with private enterprise and funding on a national mission will help india achieve its goal., the hard way being better in this sense. The rewards are huge.
The sale of those Rolls Royce Nene engines to the soviets by the then labor govt of britain is acknowledged as the single biggest blunder in the history of aviation and one that will never ever again be repeated. They purchased a total of 25 Nenes

Thereafter, the soviets, unauthorisedly built copies of the Nene engine and also developed it further as the VK-1, all in direct contravention of the sale agreements.

However, the real pity of selling the engines to the Russians was that so many young britshit engineers lost the chance to trade the designs for sex. Imagine all those eager and willing natashas just pining away.

The bitter irony was that this same engine was in the Korean War, both on the Soviet Mig-15 as well as the US Navy Grumman F9F-2 Panther in the same time frame.

Production Grumman F9F-2 Panthers had a Rolls Royce Nene, built under license by Pratt & Whitney as the J42.

“The MiG-15 surprised the hell out of us,” says National Air and Space Museum curator Robert van der Linden. Compared to the North American F-86 Sabre, hastily introduced in combat after the MiGs showed up, “the MiG was faster, could outclimb it, and had more firepower,” he says. And Sabre pilots knew it.

Lieutenant General Charles “Chick” Cleveland today, he’s president of the American Fighter Aces Association and still has respect for his adversary of 60 years ago. “Oh, it was a wonderful airplane,” he says from his home in Alabama. “You have to remember that the little MiG-15 in Korea was successful doing what all the Focke-Wulfs and Messerschmitts of World War II were never able to do: Drive the United States bomber force right out the sky.” From November 1951, B-29s stayed on the ground during the day; bombing missions were flown only at night.
The west, as well as the russians, have all learned their bitter lessons very well indeed.

No one will ever sell you their crown jewels now.

Just nitpicking, the Brits only sold the engines but not the blueprints. But i guess then at that point metallurgy did not have that big a role in engine tech ? So by extrapolation India needs to adhere to some "invisible" laws ? If we could make the Vikas engine ( a derivative with indian jugaad neverthless) , no one can object to making a variant of any of the engines india makes under license, but i guess the clear and present issue is the lack of expertise and metalurgical knowhow., and these are the real crown jewels so to speak.Even the big 4 's factories seem to have areas with restricted access, snecma for eg.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 30 Jan 2020 04:47

LakshmanPST wrote:Security Scan discussion on RS TV about Kaveri Engines...
Nothing new in the discussion, but one small info from Arora ji is Dry Thrust requirement of final AMCA engine, which is 75kN...
I heard only Wet Thrust requirements (110kN) in all news articles, but couldn't find the dry thrust requirement anywhere before...

Just to put that in perspective, 75kN is the max dry thrust produced by the Su-30's Saturn AL-31F. We need the same on an engine of roughly the size and weight of the GE F-414. No such engine exists today anywhere.

That's not to necessarily say that the technology to make such an engine does not exist. PW or GE can probably build one based off of the technological developments made for the F135 and F136 respectively. But building one in house in India without outside help is out of the question.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 30 Jan 2020 06:21

kit wrote:
chetak wrote:
The sale of those Rolls Royce Nene engines to the soviets by the then labor govt of britain is acknowledged as the single biggest blunder in the history of aviation and one that will never ever again be repeated. They purchased a total of 25 Nenes

Thereafter, the soviets, unauthorisedly built copies of the Nene engine and also developed it further as the VK-1, all in direct contravention of the sale agreements.

However, the real pity of selling the engines to the Russians was that so many young britshit engineers lost the chance to trade the designs for sex. Imagine all those eager and willing natashas just pining away.

The bitter irony was that this same engine was in the Korean War, both on the Soviet Mig-15 as well as the US Navy Grumman F9F-2 Panther in the same time frame.

Production Grumman F9F-2 Panthers had a Rolls Royce Nene, built under license by Pratt & Whitney as the J42.

The west, as well as the russians, have all learned their bitter lessons very well indeed.

No one will ever sell you their crown jewels now.

Just nitpicking, the Brits only sold the engines but not the blueprints. But i guess then at that point metallurgy did not have that big a role in engine tech ? So by extrapolation India needs to adhere to some "invisible" laws ? If we could make the Vikas engine ( a derivative with indian jugaad neverthless) , no one can object to making a variant of any of the engines india makes under license, but i guess the clear and present issue is the lack of expertise and metalurgical knowhow., and these are the real crown jewels so to speak.Even the big 4 's factories seem to have areas with restricted access, snecma for eg.

you have got it right, saar.

Metallurgical knowhow is the key.

The struggle to make a success of the vikas engine is another story altogether, full of red herrings and dirty work at the crossroads and not for an open forum.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Jan 2020 06:32

chetak, Even the Dassault Ouragan had the Nene engines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Ouragan

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 30 Jan 2020 06:37

ramana wrote:chetak, Even the Dassault Ouragan had the Nene engines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Ouragan

Sirji,

They did not have the original RR Nene but the license produced version of the RR Nene made by Hispano suiza.

Incidentally, the IN had all RR Nene engines while the IAF only had the Hispano suiza license produced Nene.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Jan 2020 07:34

For Vampires?

arvin · Post by **arvin** » 30 Jan 2020 07:44

In 2017 I had posted this..

arvin wrote:Borrow 1 747 from Air India and convert into flying test bed. This single act will wipe off all bad karma of Air India and help it attain moksh.

In the new round of AirIndia sale which begun this week, GOI has kept the 4 B747 out of the sale. We can still hope atleast one of them can be converted to flying test bed. Hope realization dawns on the powers that this is a critical need for aero engine development. Even for ghatak program, if engine needs to be tested the test bed design will take atleast 5 years. This is most shameful that we have send it to Russia, when we can easily design such stuff here.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 30 Jan 2020 09:01

Shouldn't this be made as suggestion to mod, not that they wouldn't know bout what's easy to see is ready to miss

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 30 Jan 2020 09:27

arvin wrote:In 2017 I had posted this..
arvin wrote:Borrow 1 747 from Air India and convert into flying test bed. This single act will wipe off all bad karma of Air India and help it attain moksh.
In the new round of AirIndia sale which begun this week, GOI has kept the 4 B747 out of the sale. We can still hope atleast one of them can be converted to flying test bed. Hope realization dawns on the powers that this is a critical need for aero engine development. Even for ghatak program, if engine needs to be tested the test bed design will take atleast 5 years. This is most shameful that we have send it to Russia, when we can easily design such stuff here.

probably for conversion as vip transport or cargo version for the IAF

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 30 Jan 2020 09:39

ramana wrote:For Vampires?

The IN had them on the seahawks, one lot of seahawks came from the UK and the other lot of seahawks were german produced, known locally by some as "black hawks" and both these shipborne fighters had the RR Nene engines.

The Ouragan was powered by a single Rolls-Royce Nene turbojet engine, produced under license by Hispano-Suiza. The IAF renamed the Ouragan as the Toofani and we bought about 104 of them.

The Ouragan was a deliberate decision to initiate diversification of supply sources.

Possibly by then, someone had wisened up to the inherent unreliability as well as the duplicity of the britshits.

The vampires were powered by the de havilland Goblin engines.

per wiki

Certain marks of the Vampire were also operated as flying test-beds for the Rolls-Royce Nene engine, leading to the FB30 and 31 variants that were built in, and operated by, Australia.

arvin · Post by **arvin** » 30 Jan 2020 12:21

chetak wrote:
probably for conversion as vip transport or cargo version for the IAF

[/quote]

For VVIP we have 2 B777 that has come via FMS and equipped with self protection suites. For Cargo they have globemaster.
Currently these 747 assets are transferred with alliance air and not intended to be sold off. If transferred to DRDO the vacant pylon can be used to test many things apart from turbofan. i.e airborne lasers, scramjets, pegasus air launch rockets etc.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 30 Jan 2020 12:48

arvin wrote:In 2017 I had posted this..
arvin wrote:Borrow 1 747 from Air India and convert into flying test bed. This single act will wipe off all bad karma of Air India and help it attain moksh.
In the new round of AirIndia sale which begun this week, GOI has kept the 4 B747 out of the sale.

The GoI has kept all tangible assets aside in a SPV and selling AI as a running business. The existing debt is also taken over by the said new SPV of GoI. So we can try. But it will not be free thing.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 30 Jan 2020 13:37

arvin wrote:
chetak wrote:
probably for conversion as vip transport or cargo version for the IAF

For VVIP we have 2 B777 that has come via FMS and equipped with self protection suites. For Cargo they have globemaster.
Currently these 747 assets are transferred with alliance air and not intended to be sold off. If transferred to DRDO the vacant pylon can be used to test many things apart from turbofan. i.e airborne lasers, scramjets, pegasus air launch rockets etc.[/quote]

your original post said

GOI has kept the 4 B747 out of the sale

You should have been more clear about the transfer of these assets to alliance air.

If transferred to alliance air, then they may intend to operate the 747s for revenue service. They would have probably transferred the aircraft to them at some nominal and written down book value.

The govt is very unlikely to transfer any 747 to DRDO.

There is not enough utility for a DRDO owned testbed and it will take many millions more to instrument and configure the aircraft as a testbed not to mention grounding it for up to a year or even a year and a half. It will most probably have to be sent abroad for all the modifications as there is no way that such work can be done in India

While I appreciate where you are coming from, it may not necessarily be the view of the govt to do this primarily because of the low confidence levels which have been the unfortunate fall out of the very lengthy gestation period of the kaveri engine and yet the program continues to be in the doldrums having plateaued out quite some time ago.

I have attended many meetings where finance advisors of the govt were present. Most of the times our very smart and very sharp senior "engineers" were simply floored by the technical questions asked by these much reviled "bean counters".

At the same time, we need to understand that there is money available for ISRO, DAE and our own ongoing missile programs among many other successful projects.

arvin · Post by **arvin** » 30 Jan 2020 15:05

chetak wrote:
There is not enough utility for a DRDO owned testbed and it will take many millions more to instrument and configure the aircraft as a testbed not to mention grounding it for up to a year or even a year and a half.

While I appreciate where you are coming from, it may not necessarily be the view of the govt to do this primarily because of the low confidence levels which have been the unfortunate fall out of the very lengthy gestation period of the kaveri engine and yet the program continues to be in the doldrums having plateaued out quite some time ago.

.

The approximate cost to rig up a used 747 to make a test bed is $70 million. This figure is from rolls royce who bought a 747 from qantas recently.
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/roll ... index.html

That is around 500 crore rupes which can easily be obtained by say GOI selling a small land parcel in
So Bo. Or compare that amount with 69000 cr bail out package for bsnl & mtnl.
I cant see how they are going to test kaveri turbofan without a test bed. And what about testing the NAL - Drdo turboprop for replacing the PT6A on saras and HAL HTFE 25 and Resurrected Kaveri with afterburners and so on. Dont know how much Russia charges per test, but this 500 cr sure looks cheaper in the long run when we have many more aero engines program.