chetak wrote: ↑01 Jun 2024 00:57
Prem Kumar wrote: ↑27 May 2024 15:55
The same HAL went on record last week, stating that the 80% ToT from GE will not include the critical core tech and would therefore not enable HAL to make these engines fully in-house.
Needless to say, this was expected.
If Rajnath Singh believes that anyone would offer their crown jewels, then it does not speak highly of his competence in these matters. I hope HAL or ADA or GTRE are not selling him this snake-oil.
Prem Kumar ji,
what does HAL expect ... garam garam, bana bana halwa on a silver thali
These engines are the crown jewels
The amriki offer was crystal clear right from the beginning. If anyone may go very close to the 100% TOT, it is only SAFRAN but they may offer a reasonably good engine, but maybe one that has constrained margin and scope for growth beyond a limit (which usually means an all new hot section design). Rajnath Singh cannot be faulted because its geopolitics at play and these things are not controllable by any one single country in today's day and age
no one will do 100% TOT, unless the tech is of a much older generation
This was the thinking when the israelis sold their lavi fighter design to the hans
The Israeli influences on the J-10’s design are unmistakable: a close-coupled, canard-delta arrangement; a single-engine fighter featuring a ventral engine inlet; twin ventral strakes; and an area-ruled fuselage.
The J-10 is more inspired by the Lavi than an outright clone. It is significantly longer and heavier, and has different wings. China lacked access to the compact PW1120 engine and the capability for wide-scale manufacturing of lightweight composite components.
They had to lengthen the J-10’s fuselage by two meters to accommodate a Russian AL-31F turbofan, resulting in an 11.75-ton jet.
HAL is not capable of doing this sort of equivalent work on the 80% TOT engine, hence the quiet "clamour" in the upper echelons of the engine development fraternity for the garam garam, bana bana halwa on a silver thali
Sorry, had to quote the whole post, but a few following points needs re-iterating:
1) There's a
world of difference between mfg-tech (e.g. the F414 initiative)
and D&D-related-tech-capability (e.g. the AMCA engine devt initiative), both being very important, and indispensable as well, in their own right.
Confusing between the two, and
assuming one would automatically bring-in the other as well, is utterly fallacious, to put it mildly.
2) Chetakji (and I'd assume quite a few in BRF as well), is 100% right -
no OEM does 100% mfg-ToT on such strategic products, and GE is obviously no exception.
Plus wrt the military TF, national technological capability gets involved, and thus no government would have allowed such transfers anyway.
So 0 surprises there - and in fact, I must
commend HAL to say so openly.
(as opposed to "simply saying nothing" and allow the dumb-ignorant media to carry on their tamasha wrt ToT etc (e.g. the so-called 100% ToT of the AL-31FP etc, decades back).
And similarly, if we are now
assuming that a future D&D-cum-mfg initiative with Safran or whosoever, will bring in the so-called 100% D&D-ToT and 100% mfg-ToT etc, well ... no harm in dreaming, I guess.
3) HALs engine-division is actually quite capable - in fact they did
demonstrate their contemporary military TF technological competence with HTFE program 3-4 years back, but then they lost their way I guess.
(funding etc must be an issue, expecting PSUs to exhibit strategic foresight etc, is well ...)
I'd refrain from elaborating this point here, as it'd then become another long post, but I'd urge to read thru the related posts in the Kaveri thread, from 3-4 years back, and it should be quite clear.
4) Anyway, however that
doesn't automatically mean they could have developed the F414 hot-section equivalent etc, but at the same time, given the current indigenous capability spread out across HAL Engine Div, GTRE, DMRL, MIDHANI et all, that's
actually well within their reach.
Remember, and just as an example, it has been publicly stated, "... if there's a need (read funding),
any metallic superalloy-equiv can be recreated indigenously, in a span of max 5 years ..." (for non-metallic ones, it's similarly stated as, 7-8 years).
Now, given the extremely naval-gazing nature of our lab mgmt. teams, well I think you are competent enough understand what this "max 5 year" timeframe would actually mean.
(and those here, who are willing to put in the hard yards, I'd like to point them to the DMRL website, look at the superalloys listed there, go and do some research about global-renowned superalloys and then, it shouldn't be too difficult to make 2 and 2 together).
And the F414 HPT Superalloys etc, have been in existence for decades now - hope you get the drift.
5) All the above really means zilch, as there'll be no push/effort towards, what Chetakji was alluding in the last part of his post (wrt Lavi and J10 programs).
Betw is anybody in MoD etc, serious about such aspects - as all these starts right at the contract negotiation stage itself.
After all, what was stopping the assorted baboons "negotiating hard" (or is it "hardly negotiating"
![ROTFL :rotfl:](./images/smilies/icon_rotfl.gif)
) with GE, to atleast ask for something like this:
"
We don't need the manufacturing ToT for the HOT section tech, as obviously it won't be shared. But in the interim, (while we continue to import them and then assemble to the relevant TF sub-system), if we are able to develop equivalent/alternate HoT section components (e.g. the HPT blades and vanes), that meets the demonstrated perf capabilities of existing OEM components, pls allow us to integrate, test, certify and eventually replace them - without any threat of warranty-voiding, license-cancellation etc of the entire product (i.e. F414 engine)".
Ofcourse, there's 0 chance of GE et all agreeing to it, not without a hefty royalty payment for each such initiative (even then, which would have certainly turned down by the GOTUS), but then, was it even tried? You all would know the answer, very well ...
Speaks volume about all those involved, wrt developing indigenous TF capability etc, isn't it?
So the summary is,
F414 mfg initiative was always, currently is, and will always remain, a ToAsT initiative at best - calling it ToT etc and waxing eloquent with assorted tongue twisters like DTTI, strategic-partnership etc, wouldn't change this very basic fact.
PS: I'm a
strong/ardent supporter of the F414 ToAsT deal, as long as it's properly understood wrt what it does or doesn't bring to the table wrt indigenous TF mfg capability.
After all, IMVHO, if done right/properly, there are a quite a few important 4th Gen TF manufacturing tech aspects in it, mastering which will no doubt improve the indigenous TF mfg capability quite a bit.
(details in another post, some other time, and in the Kaveri thread)