Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 23 Jun 2023 11:58

There was a Safran presentation where they claimed that they will share 100% ToT - know-how & know-why. The slides were doing the rounds on Twitter

Hope we squeeze the US for all its worth, using Safran as the benchmark.

One way to hedge the bets would be to do the GE deal for 414s + sign a co-development agreement with Safran for AMCA-2. That will present Supply Chain difficulties (& ability absorb tech) no doubt, but will help de-risk and play one against the other

The way things are going right now, we are in no position to develop the AMCA-2 engine on our own. If we are serious about it, the time to start was last Sunday with a $10 Billion investment and like Rakesh said, an ATV level commitment

Kersi · Post by **Kersi** » 23 Jun 2023 14:40

Let us accept

NO ONE IS GOING TO GIVE US 100% TOT FOR JET ENGINE ESPECIALLY FOR THE HOT SECTIONS AND SINGLE CRYSTAL NICKEL BLADES.

We have on option we have to develop all these technologies. No short-cuts we have to go through the R&D grind, through the learning curve

Kersi · Post by **Kersi** » 23 Jun 2023 14:44

We have been "manufacturing" jet engines since long, Orpheus for Gnat n HF 24, R 11 / 13 for MiG 21, Saturn AL 31 for SU 30MKI, Shakti for Dhruv etc. What technology have we absorbed ?

If this F 414 deal "teaches" us about mass production of the engine I would be glad. Would HAL be able to absorb this knowledge ?

sanman · Post by **sanman** » 23 Jun 2023 15:30

@ 12:51 this guy Group Captain V Jha says that India might use dual-Kaveri configuration for 2-engine fighter design:

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 23 Jun 2023 18:19

Kersi wrote:We have been "manufacturing" jet engines since long, Orpheus for Gnat n HF 24, R 11 / 13 for MiG 21, Saturn AL 31 for SU 30MKI, Shakti for Dhruv etc. What technology have we absorbed ?

If this F 414 deal "teaches" us about mass production of the engine I would be glad. Would HAL be able to absorb this knowledge ?

Well said. ToT for manufacturing has not helped either HAL or GTRE to improve the ability to manufacture jet engines even one bit. Once the hype cycle settles down, we will go down the same path with GE 414

Silver lining is that we have an assured supply chain for Tejas, TEDBF and AMCA-1. But Modi, Rajnath Singh etc must not be under any illusions that they have done their bit for making jet-engines Atmanirbhar

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Jun 2023 19:15

No "TOT", will ever help us. Because the creation of supply chain will be done by the OEM.

The OEM will always control the most vital parts of the supply chain.

In order to learn how to made produce. The product has to be indigenous from the day one.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 23 Jun 2023 22:02

Let me start with saying I have very little knowledge of engine or manufacturing tech, it challenges etc. (though I am an engineer by education -with 0 industry experience).

I find the current R&D over the top, very rhetorical, but more importantly very illogical and uninformed.

There are few people here at BR that understand things in depth to make a claim. Some may know the science, some the manufacturing process, rarely (if anyone) both.

Having said that, let's discuss few things that we know from public information and from logical inference
1. We have been assembling engines from a long time, while manufacturing some non critical parts.
2. The above does not mean we can not fully make engines that we made in 1960s or 1970s. There is no need, technology has moved on and if we make those engines (say for Gnat, or MIG 21s), it will be a vanity project, there are no aircraft to fit that in the 21st century.
3.An exception to the above is the Jaguar Adour engines, we assembled them, now we are in position to make a similar engines HFTE 25 and HFTE 40 completely indigenously. These engines are still relevant (ucav, perhaps Jag re-engine if we don't retire them first, small transport planes, HAWK, trainers etc.) and we are in position to make it. The material tech that we have mastered through Kaveri is in fact a generation more than what HFTE 25/40, Adour need.
Our problem has been lack of imagination/initiative, money, order from top to pursue this initiative, organizational weakness, Lack of talent etc.. Instead of planning/doing this around 2015, we could have started this in 2000. This engine can be fully tested, in twin seater Jags, that we can modify. Then the issue would be how do you mass test it? Perhaps keep 1-2 sq of Jags just for this, upgrade and flog it so that we can learn.
4. Mig 29 engines and SU30MKI is getting done in India. The info is shrouded in secrecy of what we got and what we do. People have made all kinds of claims for SU30MKI engines, from full ToT from raw material stage to finished product, to finished product from Russia provided processed raw material, to simple CKD assembly. What is certain is that MDNL started showcasing SC blades after we got started 'making' SC blades. We have not been able to leverage this know how for 'other' engine (What other engine), could still be function of -lack of imagination/initiative, money, order from top to pursue this initiative, organizational weakness, Lack of talent etc.
5. We have put some $300 mil to 'fully indenize' SU30MKI engines some 6 months ago. Are we that close? If yes, we must be doing great!!
6. Kaveri has been a success as far as getting some material tech, but as of now as an engine it has been not a success. Rumour has it that it is tantalizing close (which was btw also claimed 15 years ago and ever since then). Here also the issue seems to be -lack of imagination/initiative, money, order from top to pursue this initiative, organizational weakness, Lack of talent etc.

So what is the solution (Not R&D), as many have mentioned
1. National program like LCA Tejas. Have resources, talent pooled in with a common goal
2. Time - Tejas in a way is not 100% indigenous still (25 years from fist roll out), engine and many parts are foreign. If we did something similar with Kaveri, perhaps we can fly it -like with a foreign core? and perhaps the inlet fan? and then slowly replace them (or never, like Tejas may never have an indigenous engine). Unfortunately planes lend themselves for modular development, radar from one place, engine from another and ejection seat from third, engines do not lend themselves so easily. That means it will take more time, all else being equal
3. Supporting Infra - We build quite an impressive infra/org for Tejas (over time) - Iron bird,lighting test facility, HS-748 nose cone for radar etc etc. We need similar for Kaveri/K-9/K-10/...k-n. We will have retired Jags and Mig 29 soon to complement this (2 engines plane), if we cannot pony up a wide body aircraft.
5. Go step by step - LCA went through - TD -->PV-->LSP--> LCA IOC --> LCA FOC --> LCA MK1A --> LCAM MK2 --> AMCA/TEDBF. We need gradual growth there with Kaveri. Perhaps our Kaveri was LCAMK1A and we are struggling, because we needed equivalent of these -TD -->PV-->LSP--> LCA IOC --> LCA FOC (or maybe not).
6. An optimistic reading says we are almost there (and that may explain western nations willingness to provide TOT), and perhaps the delay is genuine (it takes 9 months...) or maybe it is not, regardless we need - focus from top, budget, etc etc.

konaseema · Post by **konaseema** » 24 Jun 2023 00:08

Here is an insight from a IAF veteran. It's not metallurgy but the tooling that is a problem for GTRE / HAL.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 26 Jun 2023 21:30

https://twitter.com/alpha_defense/statu ... 77760?s=20 ---> All information combined for the AMCA Engine deal:

- French Offer: Safran to collaborate with DRDO, HAL (Lead System Integrator) and Indian Pvt Companies for 'Design, Development and Manufacturing of an 110-130KN Jet Engine'. The IPR and control over the engine remains with India-France.

- British Offer: Rolls Royce to collaborate with DRDO and Indian Companies for 'Design, Development and Manufacturing of an 110-130KN Jet Engine'. The IPR and control over the engine remains with India-England.

- American Offer: GE to collaborate with HAL and DRDO for 110-130KN engine. But there's ambiguity over the IPR and control over the engine.

https://twitter.com/alpha_defense/statu ... 85386?s=20 --->

- This deal will also include setting up all infrastructure required for testing and validation of the engine i.e. High Altitude Test Bed, Flying Test Bed etc in Bengaluru.

- The technology derived from it will be used in development of different class of engines.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 26 Jun 2023 21:33

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/167 ... 07712?s=20 ---> The French do not have a ready engine that can power the AMCA Mk2. So any offer they make will be a 'co-development' offer that will require many boxes to be ticked. Especially, with respect to the workshare arrangement for the high-pressure core and the early participation of Indian industry. Moreover, in my opinion a 110 KN max thrust engine may not have an attendant level of dry thrust (typically 60-65% of max wet thrust) that will be sufficient for the AMCA Mk2 to super-cruise at a given altitude despite the twin-engine configuration. A cop out wherein someone says 'Oh, we'll reach that Mach number with minimum Afterburner engagement' may not suffice.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/167 ... 70369?s=20 ---> Bottomline: Purna Swaraj can only happen when India designs and develops its own low-bypass turbofan that can power the AMCA Mk2. And for that effort to succeed credible Indian industrial players will have to be brought in early.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/167 ... 51780?s=20 ---> And if Purna Swaraj is to be gained and the AMCA Mk2 engine has to succeed then India will have to adopt a 'Whole of The Nation Approach' towards this effort from the very beginning. So, DRDO and credible Indian pvt players must work together from the outset in order to leverage whatever the foreign OEM brings.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 26 Jun 2023 23:29

After GE deal, India looks at co-development of next generation fighter jet engine
https://www.timesnownews.com/india/afte ... -101258790
25 June 2023

An offer from Safran, sources said, has already come and it involves the full Transfer of Technology (TOT), a co-development offer and no restrictions on stopping any access to sensitive issues.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Jun 2023 23:47

Where did 130 kN come from?

Is the GoI ready to pony up around $1 billion a year for about 10 years to develop, test,produce a 110-130 kN engine?

Considering that the entire eco system needs to be set up, the cost should be much higher. And, the time could be 15+ years.

Dunno folks.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 26 Jun 2023 23:54

NRao wrote:Where did 130 kN come from?

Is the GoI ready to pony up around $1 billion a year for about 10 years to develop, test, produce a 110-130 kN engine?

Considering that the entire eco system needs to be set up, the cost should be much higher. And, the time could be 15+ years.

Dunno folks.

110kN is just a baseline. We don't even know what the final specifications will be. Until definitive/confirmed specifications comes out, numbers are just speculation. Both programs - turbofan and AMCA - are still very much in the infancy stages.

If the GOI was ready to pony up billions for 114 SE F-16 Block 70/72 fighters, then they can likely pony up billions for engine development for a length of time. It boils down to priorities. It does not matter if you don't know NRao, as no one in the GOI is calling you to find out whether it is affordable or not. Your opinion is irrelevant. The decision makers will make the call. Don't take takleef.

Roop · Post by **Roop** » 27 Jun 2023 09:02

Rakesh wrote:If the GOI was ready to pony up billions for 114 SE F-16 Block 70/72 fighters, then they can likely pony up billions for engine development for a length of time. It boils down to priorities.

Exactly! When discussing any planned/proposed large expenditure, questions like "How will we pay for this?" or "Where will the money come from?" are all rhetorical questions which are really just a disguised form of expressing an opinion (the questioner's opinion). The opinion being implied here is really something along the lines of, "Don't be ridiculous, we can't afford it, we don't have the money. Better to just forget these daydreams and do without (this proposed program)". In fact, it would be more honest and straightforward to just argue precisely that (i.e. forget about it, it's an unnecessary expenditure, a waste of valuable taxpayer money) than to argue about how to find the funds -- because if your only quibble is how to pay for it, then you have implicitly acknowledged that the proposal is reasonable and the item worth having, but we now have to figure out how to pay for it. In babu-speak, you have implicitly granted the program AON (Acceptance of Necessity) status.

In all cases of being faced with the question of how to pay for it, the obvious and reasonable answer is, "We will pay for it the same way we pay for anything else that we buy: through the Indian treasury. That was how we paid for IGMDP, for the nuclear weapons program, for our national highways, airports and railways, etc. etc. " None of these items were/are cheap, but we pay for them because we need them. They are vital to our national interests. We are not a beggar/pauper nation, we are a large and growing economy, we can afford it. If we have cash-flow problems, we will have to do a bit of wheeling and dealing with the seller about phased payments or tradeoff benefits, etc.

It does not matter if you don't know NRao, as no one in the GOI is calling you to find out whether it is affordable or not. Your opinion is irrelevant. The decision makers will make the call. Don't take takleef.

Ouch! A little harsh, maybe, but true.

Kersi · Post by **Kersi** » 27 Jun 2023 14:30

Excuse me if i am repeating

Over 10 years ago I visited the stall of EuroJet at a DEF EXPO or AERO INDIA, cannot recollect.

The stall was maned by a n elderly persos, 50 - 55 years old. I asked him a simple well thought of question 'If any reputed company were to design a new jet engine, form the scratch, what would be the cost and how much time would be required.

And what was the gentleman's first response ? He started laughing, rather loudly.

His answer "Nobody would ever do it !!!! ". (i think he had not heard about HAL, ADE, India etc ???)

He said that a company would take an existing engine and work on it

He added that if his company (EuroJet) were design anew engine it would take minimum 5 years and cost Euro 5 billion to design and test say 2-3 prototypes. So if Eurojet (Rolls Royce + MTU + others) who have been in business for 50 - 60 years and need these resources, what about us poor dark skinned rice eating Yindoos?

It is obvious if we put in these resources we may have a decent working engine by 2035.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 27 Jun 2023 14:40

maitya wrote:
Rakesh wrote:@ Maitya-ji: Check this out...

https://twitter.com/VishnuNDTV/status/1 ... 32001?s=20 ---> For those wondering, DMRL (Defence Metallurgical Research Lab) has produced Directionally Solidified and Single Crystal Turbine Blades & Vanes - Can this technology be adopted for use on F-414s assuming we aren't getting full single-crystal technology from the US?

https://www.drdo.gov.in/technology-clus ... l/1529/170
Rakeshji, I can provide my non-expert-lay-man-perspective to this - but will require me to write-up a (actually rehash some of my old posts from last 7-8 years) slightly longish post.
...
<snip>

The issue with writing up on such topics (I'm calling it Ni Superlloy) is ... for B/W challenged people like moi, it never really gets done - just too many stuff to document, in as much layman mode, as possible.

So, as I struggle to finish it (not sure how many parts I'll have to break it up), I thought I'll post a small preview of some part of it.

So here goes (broken into 2 parts):

[Part - nn]
Coming back to indigenous effort towards designing a SC Ni-Superalloy, DMRL designed and developed 4th Gen SC Ni-Superalloy, and called it DMS4 (presumably the DM coming from DMRL and 4 the Gen itself) - almost as it seems, just for the heck of it i.e. there are no documented "intended application" etc to specify the key Superalloy requirements, both in terms of Metallurgy and Thermo-Mechanical aspects.

So, all these thermo-mechanical and metallurgical requirements must be some sort of a mish-mash of best of all worlds, pure brochurities. Anyway, whatever it is, DMS4 is here, but doesn't have an intended application yet.

Now via an unwritten convention followed globally, 4th Gen SC Superalloys needs to have minm 6% by wt Re - in DMS4 the total refractory elements constitute about 22wt% including 6.5wt% Re. It has a nominal composition (by weight %) of: 67Ni - 2.4Cr - 4Co - 5.5W - 6.5Re - 9Ta - 0.1Hf - 0.3Nb - 5.2Al.
It is fully solutionised in a stepped manner between 1315C -1360°C in about 24 hours with about 20°C of heat treatment window.
It is normally subjected to an aging regime (of 1160°C/ 4hr aging - then 1140°C/ 4hr of simulated coating treatment - then final aging at 870°C/20hr) which results in homogeneous distribution of γ′ precipitates of uniform size (of about 0.5 mm cube edges).

Performance wise it exhibited,
1. Better metal temp capability (~1140deg C) compared to both Rene N6 (~1105deg C) and CMSX10 (~1125deg C)
2. Slightly better creep strength and creep rupture life than CMSX10 and Rene N6
3. Same heat treatment window (20deg C) as Rene N6
4. Plus good castability, alloy phase stability and environmental resistance

Also, do note DMRL et all didn’t really stop there – they continued and developed DS version (called DMD4) from SC DMS4 metallurgy (and not the other way round). This was done for a very specific purpose of cost-effective production of complex turbine airfoil parts (e.g. NGV), which are difficult to cast in single crystal form.

Desi-Kalluram-buddhi galore

– they simply replaced some (not all) of the Ta with Hf and also re-added C and B for grain boundary strengthening. Such initiatives are normally disparagingly called juggad by the Dilli-educated-medieval-history-degree-dhari baboons and the so-called desi defense reporters, who wouldn't probably be able to differentiate between a turbojet and turbofan in the first place.

Anyway, as expected of any such desi-kalluram initiatives

, DMD4 exhibited excellent castability with respect to wide chord and thin-walled vanes (and blades) with overhanging shrouds and complex cooling channels that are typical of a modern turbofan. It also exhibited good phase stability, environmental resistance and creep rupture properties etc, almost matching with that of a SC CMSX-4 (2nd gen SC) superalloy.

Now, coming back to DMS4 initiative, with all these so-called high-level perf parameter comparisons, does it make DMS4 superior to Rene N6 (or for that matter commercially available CMSX10 superior to Rene N6) – hell no!!

Pls read on ...

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 27 Jun 2023 14:49

[Part - nn+1]

As I’ve said in one of my previous posts, Superalloy design is an iterative process and is absolutely dependent upon level (both depth and breadth) of actual-usage data availability. GE, with it’s phenomenal reach (and diversity) of gas turbine applications across the globe, knew 2 other important aspects, as follows:

1) The LAB effect: During practical casting of SC blades and vanes, it is impossible to maintain perfect [001] crystal orientation – so some levels of low angle boundaries (formed between parallel single crystals), occurs during the SC solidification process (and gets further exacerbated by formation of recrystallized grains forming during solution heat treatment phases). So, some amount of LAB are always accepted in SC casted vanes (and blades).

However, do note, the “actual” high-creep-resistance property, the raison d'etre of SC Superalloys, would somehow tolerate upto 6deg of LAB – beyond which, the actual achieved creep resistance in practical use, falls dramatically.

Just as an example, there’s published literature of, Chinese research (lo-and-behold), with their 2nd Gen SC DD6 - with 980deg C/250MPa load, life of 195hrs for 0 to 3 deg LAB – compared to 42hrs for 6 to 9 deg LAB (and 0.1hr for 9 to 12 deg). Below 800deg C however, there were not much of a difference.

So, one way to mitigate this, reject all SC blades/vanes that has > 6% LAB defects – and thus achieve a run-rate (called Casting yield) of, say 10 blades/month etc – good volume if you are only required to put them for various demos and publish photographs in various research journals, and revert back to DS casted (the so-called 70-80s tech) solutions.
A well-aimed kick to the nether regions by the GE execs must have solved such “ego problems” – after all, GE is a commercial org, not a place to do Science projects.

OR

Find a way to mitigate the Creep-resistance free-fall in presence of > 6% LAB i.e. build capability to accommodate such orientation defects upto, say 15-20 deg LAB (and thus achieve a decent Casting yield -> so low cost overall).

Solution is pretty well known actually – bring back the grain-boundary-strengthens like C, B, Hf, Zr etc – something that the SC Superalloy designers work so hard to eliminate from the earlier gen DS casting solutions (and thus called them high-purity superalloys yada yada, so considered blasphemous to do so by them).

This was experimentally proved via CM 186LC superalloy, which originally was a DS superalloy, consisting of 3% Re and yes, though less, C (0.07%), B (0.015%), Hf (1.4%) (almost at trace levels). They just took that lump of metal and casted it as SC – and then compared the creep-resistance, tensile strength etc at high temperature (say 970 – 1050 deg C), of both the DS and the SC casted vanes from same superalloy composition. There was practically no deviation observed between them.

All these actually resulted in a call for binging back the DS casted superalloy chemistry but process it as a SC – best of both the worlds, with some comprises of course.

2) The Oxidation effect: GE, from it’s extensive use of Rene 4 and Rene 5 superalloys globally, found that Al2O3 formed during service life the of the blades and vanes is not being effective enough in preventing the oxidation effect (which it should have) at high temp and prolonged exposure.
However, incorporating traces of Yttria (Y) (and sometimes even Lanthanum) would dramatically improve adherence of this oxidation protective Al2O3 layer.
Also, if the blades and vanes are to be coated (which they obviously would be as TBC is a must) with a bond-coat containing Y, then the oxidation protection goes up by multiple times.

However, accommodating all these (C, B, Hf and Y) additions would require sacrificing some % of other trace elements – so GE, in Rene N6, optimised the creep rupture strength and microstructural stability along-with improved tolerance to low angle grain boundaries and enhanced oxidation resistance properties.

So it’s all very fine to make paper-claims that DMS4, CMSX10 etc are “superior” than Rene N6, but wrt actual usage Rene N6 will out-perform both of them – there’s simply no substitute to actual operating experience backed by a robust feedback mechanism which feeds into continuous product R&D (which require almost unlimited no-holds-barred funding).

Which obviously won't happen in our country, despite all the sloganeering etc ...

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 27 Jun 2023 15:23

Among other things, lot of the crystal blade tech of GE has come from P&W.

GE is a major investor in P&W, and one imagines that IP access/transfer would have been part of the sale process itself

It's all so easy, when everyone's striped undies go to the same laundry, no

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 27 Jun 2023 18:18

fanne wrote:Let me start with saying I have very little knowledge of engine or manufacturing tech, it challenges etc. (though I am an engineer by education -with 0 industry experience).
<snip>
3.An exception to the above is the Jaguar Adour engines, we assembled them, now we are in position to make a similar engines HFTE 25 and HFTE 40 completely indigenously. These engines are still relevant (ucav, perhaps Jag re-engine if we don't retire them first, small transport planes, HAWK, trainers etc.) and we are in position to make it. The material tech that we have mastered through Kaveri is in fact a generation more than what HFTE 25/40, Adour need.
<snip>

fanne-ji, whilst I'd agree generically with your post, the above highlighted part isn't accurate - what we assembled as a part of the Adour program and what we are making via HTFE-25 program, are completely different gens, technologically.

The IN718 Superalloy (of 1930-40 vintage) based HPT blades of HTFE is as cutting edge as it gets - but then there's a catch.
You are very right - turbofan development has just so many inter-twined technologies, that making a generic claim about good, bad, ugly etc is very difficult/inaccurate - If you are able to wait for my write-up to come-up, it will have a reference to this very point.

I've tried to bring out that facet of it in my previous two posts wrt 4th Gen SC Superalloys - DMS4 (our indigenous), Rene N6 (used in F414) and CMSX10. Pls go thru it and feedback pls.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 27 Jun 2023 21:52

https://twitter.com/SafranEngines/statu ... 28320?s=20 ---> DRDO Chairman Dr SV Kamat meets with Jean-Paul Alary, CEO of @SafranEngines, at a facility where key parts of the M88 are produced. We are committed to #MakeInIndia by developing an aerospace ecosystem and supporting the co-development of a new engine to power the AMCA.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Jun 2023 07:37

There was report yesterday on Indian defence updates about a proposed kaveri 2 with 95Kn thrust for the Mk2 . In case the Americans created issues with the 414.

I was scratching my head.

If it's possible to do Kaveri 2 with 95 Kn thrust. Why go with 414 in the first place?

isubodh · Post by **isubodh** » 28 Jun 2023 08:45

Pratyush wrote:
I was scratching my head.

If it's possible to do Kaveri 2 with 95 Kn thrust. Why go with 414 in the first place?

414 is real, demand for TejasMk2 is real,
Kaveri 2 is possibility. That's not too difficult to comprehend.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 28 Jun 2023 09:37

I am happy with the way the MoD is going about it (for a change). By inviting Safran to co-develop the 110 KN turbofan for AMCA-2, they are keeping competition alive & hedging our bets, while supporting Atmanirbhar.

I hope the contract goes to someone outside Anglosphere like Safran so that we are immune (to some degree, over a mid-term horizon) to sanctions from the US

Once a 110 KN engine is developed, a 414 equivalent can be done subsequently, should such a need arise. It will mean tech-development and tech-absorption at unprecedented levels and I hope HAL et al step upto it.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 28 Jun 2023 14:25

Prem Kumar wrote: <snip>
Once a 110 KN engine is developed, a 414 equivalent can be done subsequently, should such a need arise. It will mean tech-development and tech-absorption at unprecedented levels and I hope HAL et al step upto it.

A 4th Gen Turbofan of 60-62KN/98KN thrust-class (like F414) can be be developed indigenously even now ... all relevant technologies are available.
It doesn't need to wait for the 110-120-130KN (I keep hearing new figures everyday) engine development etc, for which 5h Gen tech is being sought for (via partnerships).

But to do anything like that, a copious amount of funding is required, which obviously won't come - so nothing to worry about, as F414 itself will now be assembled (and thus will be called an indigenous product - saw this bit in today's news actually).

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 28 Jun 2023 14:30

You know what takes the cake: a Swarajya report that states that Tejas-Mk2 will be 80% indigenous, while Mk1a will only be like 59%. Presumably, they will call the GE-414 engines going into MK2 "indigenous" and claim victory!

Same GE 414, purchased outright for Mk1a, will be considered an import

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 28 Jun 2023 16:23

Mk1a used f404 engine not f414, two different engines

mody · Post by **mody** » 28 Jun 2023 18:49

Maybe with the GE-414 engine manufacturing in India, we will be able to get the Kaveri to match or maybe slightly exceed the performance of the GE F404IN20 engines. All aircrafts go through upto 3 engines in their service life. If the Kaveri can match the GE F404IN20 engine, then sometime in the future the Tejas MK1A would fly with the Kaveri engines.

For the Tejas MK2, the upgrade would be to 110KN engine, either F414-EPE or something similar. So even if we can come up with 95KN engine on our own, it most probably would never go into full production for the Tejas MK2. Perhaps might get used for UAV programs.

hgupta · Post by **hgupta** » 29 Jun 2023 06:19

If you want to increase the thrust of the engine, does that not imply you need more airflow? If you need more airflow, don't the air intakes need to be bigger, hence necessitating a new air-frame redesign?

Also don't the increased thrust put more stress and fatigue on the air frame, increasing wear and tear and shortening the lifespan of the air frame?

konaseema · Post by **konaseema** » 29 Jun 2023 08:03

What is the possibility of GE-404 engines being replaced by GE-414 in the future as part of a midlife upgrade of Tejas Mk1/A or when it is time for replacing the engines?

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 29 Jun 2023 08:03

fanne wrote:Mk1a used f404 engine not f414, two different engines

Fair enough. But the 414s are going to be no more indigenous than 404s.

Sure local manufacturing and all that hullaboo about 80% ToT. But we all know that it amounts to nothing other than the ability to do local MRO (& even there, we are dependent on OEMs and external availability of critical components)

If we believe these "Mk2 is 80% indigenous" type nonsense, then we dilute the whole point of Atmanirbhar. CKD assembled parts getting the Made-in-India tag are the bane of the Positive Indigenization list. Its a loophole heavily exploited by MoD, Services & the whole import lobby.

We need to have better standards than this.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Jun 2023 10:29

konaseema wrote:What is the possibility of GE-404 engines being replaced by GE-414 in the future as part of a midlife upgrade of Tejas Mk1/A or when it is time for replacing the engines?

Very possible. In fact that could be the plan.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 30 Jun 2023 10:59

1) The 404 is reliable enough that baring a manufacturing defect, it will not be replaced with a different unit.

This is based on the numbers of units build being slightly more than 10% of the total numbers of platforms built with them.

2) the 414 was claimed to be a drop in replacement of the 404 when it was being developed.

But I have not seen a case where it has actually been done for an in service platform.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 30 Jun 2023 12:14

ramana wrote:
konaseema wrote:What is the possibility of GE-404 engines being replaced by GE-414 in the future as part of a midlife upgrade of Tejas Mk1/A or when it is time for replacing the engines?
Very possible. In fact that could be the plan.

I doubt this as weight and Inlet Fan diameter and certain dimensions are different.

mody · Post by **mody** » 30 Jun 2023 16:34

ramana wrote:
konaseema wrote:What is the possibility of GE-404 engines being replaced by GE-414 in the future as part of a midlife upgrade of Tejas Mk1/A or when it is time for replacing the engines?
Very possible. In fact that could be the plan.

Mostly this will not be possible for the Tejas MK1A. If it was possible, it would've already been done. Most probably it would require changes to the air intakes of the aircraft. Also, the weight of the F414 is slightly higher and both of these points would require significant changes to the aircraft.

What is a distinct possibility is that, maybe in the next 7-8 years we will have a Kaveri version able to generate 84-85 KN of wet thrust and this would then replace GE F404IN20 engines in the Tejas MK1A, as and when required. Maybe someone like @Maitya might be able to say more on this.

With regards to the engine for the Tekas MK2, it will be the GE F414INS6 and future upgrades of the same, which will increase the thrust to 110-115KN. In fact, the EPE design for the engine with the required thrust level is ready with GE. It only needs funding to complete the testing. Most likely this will be the baseline that will be used for the AMCA MK1 and TEDBF fighters, along with the future upgrade for the Tejas MK2.

For the AMCA MK2, apart from the raw thrust, we are looking for more advanced technology, beyond the level of technology of F414 or for that matter the M88 and EJ200 engines.

sanman · Post by **sanman** » 02 Jul 2023 16:57

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 02 Jul 2023 20:32

Will start a separate thread (if & when) to discuss the JV with the chosen engine manufacturer for the 110kN turbofan for AMCA.

For now, continue to post any turbofan developments in this thread. The latest news...

Ahead of PM Modi’s visit, France offers to co-develop engine for combat jets
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... 82106.html
02 July 2023

The Emmanuel Macron government gave green signal to Safran to jointly design, develop, test, manufacture and certify an engine that will power India’s AMCA.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 03 Jul 2023 01:21

I hope it includes a test bed aircraft where the engines can be tested and experimented upon.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 03 Jul 2023 19:25

Rakesh wrote:<snip>
Ahead of PM Modi’s visit, France offers to co-develop engine for combat jets
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... 82106.html
02 July 2023

The Emmanuel Macron government gave green signal to Safran to jointly design, develop, test, manufacture and certify an engine that will power India’s AMCA.

What a complete waste of an article - anytime he went to the technical aspects he got it completely wrong, as he never bothered to ask slightly more specific questions?
But then expecting from DDM, is like ...

Some samples ...

<snip>Despite the DRDO's best efforts since 1996, it could not deliver on the Kaveri jet engine due to issues with metallurgical tools, rotating parts, single crystal blade technology and high-pressure engine core.
<snip>
It is understood that the Safran offer covers the full hot section of the engine including the rotating parts, most crucial single crystal blade technology and high-pressure compressor.
<snip>

What metallurgical tools, what rotating parts?
Kaveri was almost successful to the extent, it was specified for - too bad the intended application platform added weight and thus expected more thrust growth from it - which it couldn't do, as the program itself was cancelled immediately.
If there are issues with the so-called high-pressure engine core (what's that between, engine core is, well, engine core - what is this high-pressure engine core), just how did it achieve the specified 51Kn dry thrust?

Yes, if it was suddenly needed to archive say 56KN etc, then a follow-on program would have been required, which didn't happen. That 10% growth (in dry thrust) is very much within reach of GTRE using the current core itself, but for that funding etc is required - where is that, for last 10+ years now?

Also, in almost all parameters it equaled the earlier gen versions of F414 (e.g 402 etc)
e.g. same PR achieved by 7-stage core in F414 vs 6-stage core in Kaveri/Kabini.
OPR is less, as the LPC/FAN total PR is less (compared with F414) - which can easily be rectified (refer to my earlier posts), but then again funding is required.

SC was never required anyway for the thrust levels specified for it - as the TeT levels it was designed for, got achieved by DS casted blades anyway (which between is an fantastic performance actually - compared to what other established engine houses could achieve via their DS versions). So except for, going for a SC HPT blade, just for the heck of it, there's no use of it.

Sometimes, I feel GTRE/DMRL/MIDHANI et all should have used an inferior 2nd Gen SC casted commercially available superalloy material (say CMSX 4, or Rene 5), and just replaced the Kaveri HPT blades with them - and put it up for comparisons.

Even a complete illiterate would be able to do a simple comparison, no:
A SC casted AL-31FP HPT blade (manufactured indigenously, and all such pompous claims) struggles to achieve 1350 deg C TeT, while Kaveri/Kabini with it’s so-called-ancient tech DS-casted HPT blades could go upto 1455 deg C TeT.
I shudder to think, what would have happened to these worthies, if there was more funding, and next-gen DS casted superalloys like DMD4, got used.

And also how is the supah-dupah Rene 6 based HPT blades in F414, that many folks are projecting, will be handed down to us as gods-gift etc, is anyway superior to the indigenous DMS4 superalloy?

And as mentioned innumerable times now, neither the TeT not the HPC PRs etc needs any change, to achieve another 10% growth - which can come via newer FAN/LPC, and, if required maybe even an improved LPT (the OPR For the 3-stage FAN/LPC needs to go to 3.8-4.0 levels (from current 3.4 levels))

What nobody like him, the so-called defence reporters, wants to talk about (not their fault, they simply don’t have the wherewithal to analyse and understand the technical aspects anyway) are:

For the AMCA turbofan co-development ityadi, what India is aiming for 5th Gen military turbofan tech – India already has almost all aspects of 4th Gen tech, except for funding to demonstrate them in a single platform (like K10, for example).

Below, I have tried to put a list of technologies that most probably, we are trying to achieve, via this joint-dev route (figures in brackets in blue, is what already achieved/exists indigenously via Kaveri program or elsewhere):

Parametric:
1) FAN PR: >=5 (3.4, though 3.7-3.8 achievable)
2) HPC PR: >=6.8-7.0 (6.4)
3) OPR: 30-35 (21.5, though 26.5-27 achievable)
4) BPR: 0.3 - 0.5 (0.16, though 0.2 achievable)
5) TeT: 1600 - 1650deg C (1455deg C, though 1500deg C achievable)
6) Afterburner: 60% of Dry-Thrust with 1.1 Mass-Fraction (45-50%)

Materials:
1) Fan: Ti-Blisks (standard Ti Fan)

2) HPC: Ti MMC based Bling + 1.6-1.8M Blade Tip Speed (Blisk with conventional blade-disk integration via LFW/ECM etc - Transonic Blade tip spee,d 1.1-1.3M)
3) HPC (last/later stages): Ti-Al based or CMC based (Ni Superalloy, PM superalloy for Disc)

4) Combustor: CMC + EBC (Env Barrier Coating), elimination of film cooling (Superalloy + TBC + Film Cooling)

5) HPT Blades: 5th SC Superalloy (DS/SC 3rd/4th Gen Superalloy)
6) HPT Discs: PM Superalloy-Blisk (PM Superalloy std)

7) NGV: CMC (DS Superalloy - maybe even SC Superalloy)

8 ) LPT Blades: CMC (Conventional DS/SC Ni-Superalloy)
9) LPT Discs: CMC (PM of Ni Superalloy)

10) TBC: EBPVD Bilayer LZ-Yt (EBPVD 7/8 Yttria)

11) Coating: Rub Tolerant Coating
12) Shroud/Casings: CMC/MMC (Ni Superalloy)

I'm sure I've missed a lot, but this should be a good starting point, to understand what we are aiming for, technologically, via this joint-dev route.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 03 Jul 2023 20:23

maitya, great post. If and when, a new engine thread is started...I am going to be leaning on you to provide the technical details (or the lack thereof).

Based on your post above, please break down those future posts into two sections;

1) Simple English For Mango Abduls (like me). The viability of the JV, how successful (if at all) it will be, etc.

2) More detail focused for the bright minds, as to why (or why not) this JV will work. Basically the nitty gritty technical details.

Thanks....

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 03 Jul 2023 21:03

Rakesh wrote:maitya, great post. If and when, a new engine thread is started...I am going to be leaning on you to provide the technical details (or the lack thereof).

Based on your post above, please break down those future posts into two sections;

1) Simple English For Mango Abduls (like me). The viability of the JV, how successful (if at all) it will be, etc.

2) More detail focused for the bright minds, as to why (or why not) this JV will work. Basically the nitty gritty technical details.

Thanks....

Ok Rakeshji, will try - being a Mango Abdul myself, my try will be as lay man as possible.
But be aware, trying to infer/make-sense from the reports that gets authored by such genre of defense-reporters, is an impossible task - as, except from quoting a few keywords, nothing much gets reported anyway (like the report from HT, you posted above).

But will try, either way ...

At a summary level, prima facie, I think this JV et all will be successful - in fact, will be very successful, for the OEM partner, that is.
Because, we will be funding their own (current wet dream) next gen technology development initiatives, which they are unable to get funding from their own sarkars.

So with SDRE Yindoo money, one get to fund their current wet dream level techs, and then hand-down some mfg tech (like the current 414 deal), and be done with it - bonus of course is, in turn get the strategic-friend (or some such tongue-twister) type takma/titles.

Between the techs that I've listed above are with nobody, except Unkil (read F119/F135 program etc), and that's the precise reason, you'll never hear any such co-dev discussion with them.
Only folks who don't have such tech, and need to develop them for their own future programs, are the ones who are eager to get our funding and then "co-develop" them with us.

After all, how are a bunch of technologically-pichde SDRE going to prevent/audit/know a following scenario (completely fictitious) such as:
Get the SC DMS4 composition (not the open source composition, which everybody has access to) tweak it by adding some more Ruthenium, to it, and add say another 50-60 deg C metal temp capability - which hand down a version with say 15deg C, metal temp variant, and say "Sorry, that's max is possible - and here's the mfg tech for it" (DMRL et all already has the mfg tech betw of current version).
(between, that is exactly what DMRL folks are trying to do/achieve currently, with 0 funding or institutional support - in their quest for 5th gen SC superalloy, mirroring Japan and their TMS series), and I'm sure there'll a glorified-bean-counter (aka CAG), reprimanding DMRL for wasting funds and time-and-effort for such endeavors)

All they need to do is give it a different name, and then use it gleefully for their own programs - all dev/testing/certification etc funded by the SDRE yindoo tech-pichde folks.

There were news reports, that Safran et all had asked for $6B investment from our side, while not sure what they will bring in (in form of Rafale offset part) - plus approx a decade of R&D (they do/run, we see/watch mode) effort.

We'll see, I'll guess.