Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

[Yagnasri]

My views as a mango man are also the same. We can have a good Kaveri engine much faster if money and time are given. Design something around Kaveri. We can do a Rafele class one as we already have most of the tech base with LCA Mk2 and AMCA developments. S

[maitya]

^^^^^^^^^^^ Please note, it's ok to consider LCA Mk1 and Mk1A as to be "designed around Kaveri" i.e. a fully certified Kaveri (51KN /81KN) can be operationally used in Mk1 and MK1A.

As mentioned before, in Indian operating environment context, a flat-rated 51KN is way better (in terms of thrust output) than a non-flat-rated 54KN TF.
It's not uncommon to have these non-flat-rated 54KN TF to loose upto 10% of their rated thrust in hot summer months in our plains (and also round the year in high-altitude airfields - and we have quite a few of those). Pls do the maths yourself ...

Problem is without certification, these claims are of no value - if we had persisted with K9 (51KN/75KN) and followed thru the entire certification regime, by now we would have got a follow-on version (say K10) ready for operational deployment. Instead, at the very first hint of thrust(wet) shortfall, the program itself was mothballed/cancelled.

Now we are trying to catch-up with dry-Kaveri + AB (from Brahmos Aerospace) version - if this is now funded to complete it's full certification regime, a good 5+ year painstaking haul, it will then be available for Mk1 (and Mk1A) fitment, during their 2nd (or 3rd) TF replacement overhauls.
Pls refer to my prev post wrt a possible roadmap regarding this.

OR, the other option is, treat it as a science project, and continue to starve it wrt funds/support - which will ensure we forever remain import-dependent.

And those who are dreaming, that the so-called JV with Snecma/RR et all, for AMCA TF, will magically leapfrog us wrt military TF competency, they are in for a rude shock, 5-7years hence (mark my words, you heard it here first).
I bet if we go that route, without a parallel program for indigenous attempt of 5th Gen TF D&D, 5-7 years later we will be exactly in the same current state i.e. either assembling imported TF components (called LiC Mfg from raw materials, just like we currently "make" AL-32FPs or RD-33 Mks) or importing the entire TF itself (F404, M88 etc).
Of course, you can choose to believe the Baboon ubachas about "contractual iron-clad commitment" etc, choice is yours.

Fact remains, there are absolutely no shortcut towards 5th/next Gen TF dev without first mastering 4th Gen TF D&D (and mass-manufacturing as well) - this post will become too long, if I start elaborating this point.
(but a cursory reading of my recent posts wrt 5th Gen TF characteristics and where we are vis-a-vis that, should provide enough hints regarding this)

[srai]

^^^
Safe to say … some of us oldies won’t be around to see Indian engine

[Prasad]

With the GCAP program firming up an alliance with Japan and Saudis as a possible funding backstop & customer to provide scale, it looks like RR might not be in as dire straits as they appeared to be even 3 years back.

French are not averse to spending as required when they go at it alone. So your idea of tying up with both engine makers in parallel programs (with tech osmosis between them) might result in enough tech transfer that we can build the AMCA engine. But they could well collude and stymie tech transfer (they are oiros at the end of the day) and it'll cost double. GoI will not spend even one extra penny as it is, forget getting sanction for 2 engine programs. We're truly stuck and time is running out.

[maitya]

With the GCAP program firming up an alliance with Japan and Saudis as a possible funding backstop & customer to provide scale, it looks like RR might not be in as dire straits as they appeared to be even 3 years back.

French are not averse to spending as required when they go at it alone. So your idea of tying up with both engine makers in parallel programs (with tech osmosis between them) might result in enough tech transfer that we can build the AMCA engine. But they could well collude and stymie tech transfer (they are oiros at the end of the day) and it'll cost double. GoI will not spend even one extra penny as it is, forget getting sanction for 2 engine programs. We're truly stuck and time is running out.

Prasadji, that right ... there's no way we are going be able to afford parallel AMCA TF D&D programs, if they are both going to be in JV (separate) with Safran and RR. Even one, is turning out to be prohibitively costly, anyway.

What I's asking for, is funding an indigenous AMCA TF program (120-130KN class* TF), in parallel to a JV program (with either Safran or RR).
One that builds on the substantial learning/experience of the Kaveri program - but do that in an "active" partnership mode with OEMs who have already had 5th Gen TF dev experience (GE, P&W or Saturn).
This since, the current issue with GTRE (and other indigenous orgs), wrt taking up such a program, is one of confidence (as Kaveri program itself didn't reach flight certification and mass-mfg levels). An experienced partner OEM, in active consulting mode should address this "confidence" issue, quite well.

Yes, that also will be costly, as nothing comes free anyway - but will be substantially cheaper than having 2 parallel JV (one with Safran and another with RR) etc. Flip side of which, is that it'll substantially less risky wrt actual D&D level Tech Transfer etc.

There're no other way really.
=================================================================================================
*Once a decent 4th Gen low BPR TF (80KN Thrust levels) has been mastered, it's quite achievable to scale it up to a 120-130KN class TF.
Yes it won't be of the same perf levels (wrt say TW ratio or SFC levels etc), that a true-blue 5th Gen TF would boast of - but achieving those thrust-levels alone should be doable.
If we are able to develop some of the 5th Gen TF tech, with the help of these consulting OEMs, these perf levels would then become substantially better.

[basant]

I still can't understand why TEDBF was not based on Kaveri. The engine could have been certified by the time of first flight or there about. And a dual engine fighter would have been a very safe option. More than LCA, TEDBF was a bigger backstabbing to the desi engine.

[Prasad]

I still can't understand why TEDBF was not based on Kaveri. The engine could have been certified by the time of first flight or there about. And a dual engine fighter would have been a very safe option. More than LCA, TEDBF was a bigger backstabbing to the desi engine.

Because Navy won't take anything less than the Rafale.


maitya,
sadly there is no confidence in the go-it-alone route.

[basant]

If Kaveri generates more power than Rafale's M88, why would that be an issue?

[williams]

If Kaveri generates more power than Rafale's M88, why would that be an issue?

TEDBF was designed around 2 GE f414 engines (98 kN). In theory it should be possible to make some improvements to match that class of engines. However as Maitya Ji mentioned. It will take 5-7 years to certify the engine. Let us say GTRE takes another 2-3 years to make improvements to the weight and performance levels to match GE-414 and then takes another 5-7 years to certify it. We are talking about 7-10 more years to see the light in the tunnel.

TEDBF first flight may happen in around 2030 (my guess). So in theory is it possible to get Kaveri to match F414 specs and get integrated with TEDBF midway of its test phase? I don't know. Also all that is possible only if we see serious money on the table for GTRE. I don't see that happening. GoI has put all that funding on local manufacturing of F414 and F404 and expecting some miracle to happen that GTRE can come up with more advanced engine for AMCA collaborating with RR and Safran. I am not sure if that plan came from the scientific advisor or the DM babus

[Rakesh]

Please click on link below....

https://x.com/UKDefenceIndia/status/1866434535585689841 ---> Recently, the third joint working group meeting of the UK - India Electric Propulsion Capability Partnership was held at Portsmouth Naval Base in the UK. A detailed thread on key points from the latest meeting and the way forward.

[Kailash]

In all those 5th gen tech to be achieved bilayer coatings are probably the only things that we are close to achieving. Saw an article few weeks ago UK is perfecting mass manufacturing of CMC. French roti there leap engines could already have some CMC knowhow. So between the European powers i guess France might have a thin edge (notwithstand AUKUS type tech transfer between unkill and ukstan)

I wonder how far ahead our own CMC research is. There is very little open-source information on this subject..

[Prasad]

If Kaveri generates more power than Rafale's M88, why would that be an issue?

Kaveri isn't certified. Only the dry kaveri is considered a ready thing. And even then, GTRE has to put the entire engine including the afterburner on a fighter, fly it extensively. Then, I'm sure there will be things they might encounter and need fixing, fine tuning. All this, all the way to certifying the engine for production will take years. TEDBF needs to enter service by 2034 (revised from 2032 as per CNS). And even then current Kaveri is overweight and will produce 7x KN only.

CMCs are a sore point. We're doing some research and progressing but we need a lot more investment.

[basant]

Why would GoI fund hundreds of crores on an engine that is not acceptable as 'next gen' is sought by the Services? If GTRE can deliver a Kaveri from scratch for flight testing by the time of IOC of Tejas, why can't (couldn't?) we fine tune and get the engine certified in the next 10-20 years?

You have your own flight tested engine, design a/c around the engine's minimum expected performance, give the engine finishing touches, and fly the a/c. Or we can do the beautiful exercise of making fighters that sit on tarmac, without engines... Or grounded during critical time when you need them. Oh sorry, we have doing it right now! We graduated from 3-legged cheetahs to flightless birds! I mean, even after FBW confiscation, sanctions on the program and 'delays' in the delivery, we are not only dumping the Kaveri advances, but making SURE that it will never fly again by designing a/c with performance ABOVE Kaveri. Because if someone does show the resolve on using Kaveri on TEDBF, the performance will be a little less and we know how the 'System' would exploit the 'obvious compromise' on national security.

Most of the ordinary folks buying 2- or 4-wheelers would check the maintenance requirements and service quality before making a purchase. Yet our mighty 'leadership' vision has no room for such aspects.

We must be the dumbest citizens on the planet that no dismissals and court martials are called for.

[williams]

Why would GoI fund hundreds of crores on an engine that is not acceptable as 'next gen' is sought by the Services? If GTRE can deliver a Kaveri from scratch for flight testing by the time of IOC of Tejas, why can't (couldn't?) we fine tune and get the engine certified in the next 10-20 years?

You have your own flight tested engine, design a/c around the engine's minimum expected performance, give the engine finishing touches, and fly the a/c. Or we can do the beautiful exercise of making fighters that sit on tarmac, without engines... Or grounded during critical time when you need them. Oh sorry, we have doing it right now! We graduated from 3-legged cheetahs to flightless birds! I mean, even after FBW confiscation, sanctions on the program and 'delays' in the delivery, we are not only dumping the Kaveri advances, but making SURE that it will never fly again by designing a/c with performance ABOVE Kaveri. Because if someone does show the resolve on using Kaveri on TEDBF, the performance will be a little less and we know how the 'System' would exploit the 'obvious compromise' on national security.

Most of the ordinary folks buying 2- or 4-wheelers would check the maintenance requirements and service quality before making a purchase. Yet our mighty 'leadership' vision has no room for such aspects.

We must be the dumbest citizens on the planet that no dismissals and court martials are called for.

I would let the past as sunk cost. Is it worth spending 1-2 billion dollars (in 10 years) on India's own fighter jet engine that can power our own fighters of all classes is the question. For the Indian market, this is a no brainer. You will easily recover the cost and make so much more in the 10 years. Import lobby seems to be too powerful even in the Modi govt if we still question more money for engine development.

[basant]

I am sorry, are Kaveri and TEDBF past to abandon? How does Kaveri compare wrt the Rafale's powerplant?

[Rakesh]

I am sorry, are Kaveri and TEDBF past to abandon? How does Kaveri compare wrt the Rafale's powerplant?

Apples and Oranges comparison.

You cannot compare Kaveri to any other turbofan, because the development of the Kaveri is not complete. On what basis can any comparison be made?

You cannot take theoretical specs and claim that Kaveri will work. You have to test and validate. While maitya-ji's posts on Kaveri are all correct, has any of this been tested? Where is our flying test bed? Do we have one?

We can stand with confidence and state that the Tejas Mk1 is infinitely better than the MiG-21 Bison. Because the aircraft has flown, hundreds (if not a few thousand) of sorties - since 04 Jan 2001 - have been conducted. Every parameter has been tested, validated and improved on.

What foundation do we stand on with the Kaveri, that we can claim with the Tejas Mk1?

TEDBF has yet to receive sanction of funds for a even single prototype. Why to build castles in the air, when we do not want to fund the program?

No point in making tall claims and at every Aero India Expo, roll out a brand new aircraft program and display a model. Those are all fine, but show me the money to develop the prototype.

We don't want to invest, but we want Kaveri to be better (or at least match) the specs of the M88?

Lets be real yaar.

[Rakesh]

\
We must be the dumbest citizens on the planet that no dismissals and court martials are called for.

We Are.

[ernest]

One option will be to keep developing the Kaveri engine, get a version into production, and continue producing it in decent numbers. This will help us get to the supply chain and RnD ecosystem (including test facilities and dedicated testbeds) for a serious engine of its class. This engine should be the one we can get certified with our current tech maturity, and not something that will match GE F414.

The next question comes is which fighter a/c will these engines equip? We will have to figure out an aircraft that will be produced in significant numbers. From the current planned aircraft:
1.Tejas Mk2 will not work due to higher power requirements at F-414 level
2. TEDBF also planned with F-414, with funds yet to be sanctioned. Coupling with Kaveri not feasible without delaying the program and also risking the objectives
3. AMCA of course has even higher requirements. Not feasible
4. Tejas Mk1-A - can be equipped. Will be risky for the current production lots, as it might delay production when squadron strength is already low. Kaveri variant will be hopefully available for MLU, if we continue the development.

IMO, we need a Tejas class aircraft that is useful for our armed forces. It should be developed quickly to be available for integration, so a adapting existing Tejas design will be sensible. It is anyway proposed to integrate a Tejas airframe, and some work might already be underway

Based on this, we should go for a new Tejas LIFT/SPORT, with Kaveri engines, and produce it in reasonable numbers. Even promote exporting it as a sanction proof alternative to friendly countries, and sweeten the deal as needed. HAL already has some concepts, and this will be the quickest viable product with Kaveri. Any small shortfall (if it occurs) in thrust/range might not be that consequential with a LIFT platform, and it will still be useful. Govt should commit to >40 numbers of these, and have IAF draw up plans for optimal utilization of such LIFT platforms. Exports are bonus.

As a second iteration, we can also add optionally manned feature, which are in development and demonstrated on Kiran. This will give us another loyal wingman fully build with desi tech. Alternately, we can build another new fighter UCAV around Kaveri, with tech borrowed from Tejas.

Another follow on, could be a Twin Kaveri aircraft. Based on IAF / Navy requirements, it can be any of the following:
1. ORCA variant with Kaveri. Will not have a great payload compared to 2xF-414 option, but still viable. IAF could consider and decide
2. 2xKaveri replacement for attack roles that Jaguars fulfil. Way more payload than Jags, and can be modeled as a drone mothership, extending the Jaguar Max concept. Can be a UCAV. Could just be the ORCA variant described in 1
3. Ghatak follow on with 2xKaveri. I am not sure if afterburner will be useful, maybe for a Naval version. We will need a naval UCAV soon, so better start working on it with a desi engine in mind. I believe MQ-25 Stingray works with lower amount of thrust available from a catapult. We can make this Ghatak naval version work with 2x-Kaveri no ski-jump. Will also be useful for extending range of other aircraft in tanker role.

There are several viable options, if we think in an engine first way. We can continue developing higher thrust, newer gen engines, while using the ones we can produce - the way China does it.

[basant]

...
What foundation do we stand on with the Kaveri, that we can claim with the Tejas Mk1?

TEDBF has yet to receive sanction of funds for a even single prototype. Why to build castles in the air, when we do not want to fund the program?

No point in making tall claims and at every Aero India Expo, roll out a brand new aircraft program and display a model. Those are all fine, but show me the money to develop the prototype.

We don't want to invest, but we want Kaveri to be better (or at least match) the specs of the M88?

Lets be real yaar.
...

Admiral, I am unable to understand the drift. We have stronger foundation on Kaveri TODAY than we did when LCA was conceived, or whatever France had with M-88 when they began designing Rafale or USA with F119 when F-22 program began. GoI will not spend money for expensive infra if they do not see the RoI. They know it is necessary. However, even the great MP had to struggle to get the IAF onboard with Tejas that many believed was on the verge of being scrapped. Realistically, we may not see another MP soon who would spend countless hours to drill the obvious to the military. Remember he once said, "...those writing the QRs were perhaps watching `Marvel comic movies'".

It's okay if TEDBF loses a year or two. When it flies, it WILL have a desi engine and it won't be grounded, or be flightless, because of sanctions or unavoidable delays. That in itself is worth the wait.

BTW, even Rafale did not have M-88 for its first flight and used F404s. We can do the same.

[Rakesh]

Basant, riddle me this...

There are more than 500 M88s in active service around the world. Each and every one of them is providing valuable data to Safran (during their regular servicing, etc). How many Kaveri turbofans are in active service? The foundation you are referring to is theory. Where is the practical application? Which platform is using a Kaveri turbofan?

You said it yourself, "GoI will not spend money for expensive infra if they do not see the RoI." Since they will not spend, who will? Who is going to bell this cat? For a nation that can spend billions on 26 Rafales for the Navy, really has no money for engine development? Come on!

And it is not a necessity for the GOI. A turbofan has very little importance for them. They are unable or cannot see the ROI.

There is money for all the below. But no money saar for engine development.

* Nuclear Weapons.
* Nuclear Triad.
* Land Based Missiles.
* Ballistic Missile Submarines (4 + 3)
* Nuclear Powered Submarines (2 + 6)
* Follow-On Scorpene (3)
* Project 75I (6)
the list goes on and on (and runs into billions of dollars)....

It is no longer an issue of money. The issue is about priorities. Engine is not the GOI's priority. So continue to import foreign platforms.

The prototype of TEDBF (whenever it comes) will be fitted with a pair of GE F414 turbofans. That is the plan. I have not seen anything to date, that has changed that plan. If you have other open source info, please do share.

Theory is nice saar. It really is. Read Prasad's post again. Let that reality sink in.

[maitya]

Frankly, I'm very confused now, exactly where this concept of "Kaveri on TEDBF" etc came from. If this post of mine triggered it, well, I'd urge folks to maybe read it once again ...

...
c) Repeat 3a wrt Kaveri+, for residual MK2/TEDBF etc
...

The two operative words (highlighted as well) in that sentence are "Kaveri+" and "residual".

Pls understand Kaveri+ != K9/K9*/K10 ...

Kaveri+, is the follow-on uprated TF, of the 98KN class, sort of an evolution mirroring the F404 -> F414 evolution, implemented by the mighty GE about 2 decades back ... and then also it took almost a decade for the mighty GE to actually design/develop/certify it.
In the current context, it's sort of a Khayali Pulao, as even the "baseline" K9/K9*/K10 is not implemented (and is not yet into mass-production as well).

To get to Kaveri+, three things need to happen first:
1) First implement K9* (Dry Kaveri from Godrej + brand new A/B from Brahmos Aerospace)

2) Then fully certify k9* (a good 5+ years endeavor,)
(and we haven't even fully identified the flight-testing platform yet - some reports suggest an used MiG-29 platform, though)

3) Start K10 program, after pt1 is implemented (and in parallel to pt2), with an aim to reduce K9* weight by ~125-150+ Kg, so it's around 975-995Kg level.
Remember replacing any "parts" with lighter/better ones, will require time-consuming recertification, albeit, may not be full certification regime.
Recent example of something similar, is the F404-IN20 delivery struggle by GE ... as one of the suppliers gone kaput, so GE not only had to find an alternate source for the part, but also re-certify it (which is where its actually taking time).

Any follow-on program like Kaveri+ can only happen when pt2 is completed and pt3 is well under way.
(though conceptual design etc can be done even now, as the basic aerodynamic and thermodynamic cycles are more or less well established in the original K9 or dry Kaveri versions - has been that way for decade+ now actually)

If you follow my prev posts, there are ample hints, how this path can be conceptualized etc.
I'll not belabor it once again, but suffice to say, F404->F414, is more of a hot-section next-gen tech increment program, which actually graduated F414 to a benchmark of 4+ Gen military TF.
Technology-wise both M88 and EJ200 are at that level, however their thrust ratings are kept at diff/lower, because of the requirements of their respective parent programs.

So no, technology-wise K9/K9*/K10 are not in that F414/M88/EJ200 league, but still a level higher/better than the F404 levels - and to graduate to those 4Gen+ levels, a Kaveri+ type program is required.

And it's pertinent to point two important points here, to keep the "expectations" realistic:
1) a non-flat-rated F414, that advertises 98KN thrust levels, but in reality, in Indian operating env context, it produces 90-91KN thrust levels.
(there are links to the relevant news items in this very thread, pls dig around and satisfy yourselves)
2) Technology-wise F414-EPE is what worth aiming for - and that, F414-402 levels (or INS6 levels), though praiseworthy, but still will not graduate Kaveri+ to the current 4+ Gen cutting edge levels (i.e. above M88 or EJ200 levels)


Now, coming back to the issue of using Kaveri-variants for TEDBF or MK2 - do note (and this will be a repeat of what I've already said multiple times now) the following:
1) Parent programs (like TEDBF or MK2) can't or shouldn't be, held hostage to its intended TF programs - as all TF D&D programs are inherently many, many times more risky, and thus, doing so, would put the parent program in jeopardy.

2) All fighter-platform dev programs, all over the globe, will always (repeat always) use a well-used TF for it's initial testing and certification phases - and almost always the thrust-ratings of this "well-used TF" are much lesser than what the platform is designed for.
And later once the platform has been fully certified, if (a big if) the intended TF is ready (and fully certified), only then will there be any endeavor of integrating this TF to the platform.
Rafale flying on F404, in its certification days, is a prime example of it - and there are many many more such examples.

So, TEDBF or MK2 or any other program, will thus follow this - so banish any thoughts of Kaveri+ etc, coming anywhere near the TEDBF or MK2 platforms, in atleast it's first lot of deliveries (say around first 50% of the platforms, at the bare minimum).
Realistically, and very very optimistically, max it can be hoped that they will get used in the last 25% of the platforms, and in the 2nd/3rd engine replacement phases.

3) All of these above, hinges on one fundamental requirement - unlimited/unhindered funding support, which in our case, sadly, was/and-still-is never there. So unless one relies on Djinn-magic etc, how is it even realistic to talk about all such stuff.
Khayali Pulao indeed!!

4) The only reason the Chinese platforms are in-news nowadays, is they have achieved true-atmanirbharata in all of their fighter-platform programs (incl the relevant TF programs), doing exactly over the past 3+ odd decades, what some of us have been advocating for decades now here.
Maybe out of compulsion, but that doesn't take way anything, from such a stupendous achievement.
Yes, some of us may snigger at the tech-level of these Chinese platforms (or their TFs) and cast aspersions on their actual perf levels etc, but they will incrementally improve and reach acceptable levels of perf, eventually.

We of course did exactly the opposite, in those very same 2+ past decades.
So, except for sloganeering, and making bombastic claims (other than specifying unobtaniums and then rejecting/mothballing in-devt platforms/programs on the very first hint/sign of failing to achieve those, howsoever close those programs may have achieved at that stage), we have precious-little (and sometimes 0, say in case of TFs) to show-case on these very aspects.
And that becomes even more jarring, as unlike the Chinese, we still had some level of consultancy-support, some level tech-dev support etc available from all established OEMs all this while.
And thus we have made sure our TFs will remain 100% foreign-dependent (read US-dependent) over atleast next 2+ decades - an apt price for being an 100% import-pasand nation/society.

Oh well ...

[pravula]

Frankly, I'm very confused now, exactly where this concept of "Kaveri on TEDBF" etc came from.

Well, TEDBF/ORCA would be a logical extension of LCA. Mirage 4000 specs with M53 would be comparable to an ORCA with current spec Kaveri K9s right? a 8+ ton payload machine would be an ideal bomb/drone truck...Heck, we don't need the M2.2 top speed, we seem to be fine with sub M1.8 speeds (and so does F-35 afaik)

[basant]

pravula sir, Admiral and maitya sir, that's what I have been trying to convey. Stick to the expected performance achievable for Kaveri and design a/c with those specs. It could be K9 or even K8, so be it. It won't be a world beater, but it will fly and teach us the art of making an engine at commercial scale and perfecting it. No amount of R&D will be adequate if we don't integrate and fly those engines in our a/c. We could get to K9+, K10, etc., when we reach the maturity level.

No one will test our engines on their a/c so that we could gain confidence in our engines. Think of cryogenic engines that USSR/Russia made that even they did not fly. We designed our GSLV around it and then improved the design. No one will use Kaveri and prove it for us. That's a given and elementary.

I often feel how terribly GTRE community must be heart broken. The arguments that even jingos used over years for LCA were never applied to Kaveri, though progress of Kaveri was more impressive IMHO, given the meagre resources and support. On the contrary, if only we had employed that risk averse attitude towards ADA and HAL, it would have killed the LCA project, AMCA and other a/c. Why risk when proven alternatives exist? The time has come for us to cross the bridge and burn it. Just saw on X:

Alpha Defense™ @alpha_defense
GE F404 for Mk1A won’t be delivered before mid of next year. Practically killing LCA program??

Hope it's not true, but is very probable. What is most deafening is the silence of IAF over the progress of Kaveri program. Oh yes, they keep giving lectures to ADA and HAL to speed up delivery. Probably they don't read news. Or count chickens before they hatch.

[drnayar]

meantime Turkey, South Korea has all started work on their own indigenous jet engines. if that is not a wakeup call , what is

[Yagnasri]

As I read somewhere, I have read many times that aircraft are designed around engines. Right? So why are we not doing the same with our new aircraft? A Twin Kaveri power AMCA will still be a great aircraft. It may not be supercruising, but I am sure it can do most of the other things, such as the non-existent 5-gen engine we want to have.

[Aldonkar]

I have been reading these posts in lurker mode, mainly as I have no direct experience of aero engineering. However a close member of my family has been an aero engineer and has worked on the Augusta Helicopters (that were bought as a VIP purchase) and on the Eurofighter Typhoon that involved BAe. It would be a fairly simple task to convert a LCA to a flying testbed for the Kaveri engine as a development exercise, and gain some experience of what needs to be done to improve it.
Currently, it seems that the IAF are asking companies such as Safran, GE etc to give feedback as part of the purchase offsets. This would be the equivalent of killing the golden goose. The Indian MOD and IAF need to have a more practical attitude. If one is to get the expertise to build as usable jet engine, India needs to develop it inhouse and build the infrastructure to enable that to happen. I won't be cheap and will take time. Manohar Parrikar was the only politician who seemed to appreciate this and sadly he went too early.

[williams]

An engine test bed usually needs a multi-engine aircraft because it permits engineers to test a new engine while maintaining safe flight conditions. The other engines are operational as a backup, providing redundancy in case of any issues during testing with the new engine. I think if we need to certify the K9+ we will have to acquire one of those test beds plus a bunch of other ground testing equipment. My guess is DRDO is probably doing it. But it is never going to solve the current crises of GE engine deliveries and supply chain issues.

[maitya]

Frankly, I'm very confused now, exactly where this concept of "Kaveri on TEDBF" etc came from.

Well, TEDBF/ORCA would be a logical extension of LCA. Mirage 4000 specs with M53 would be comparable to an ORCA with current spec Kaveri K9s right? a 8+ ton payload machine would be an ideal bomb/drone truck...Heck, we don't need the M2.2 top speed, we seem to be fine with sub M1.8 speeds (and so does F-35 afaik)

I think people here have gone to an extreme, to somehow make this well-established concept of "... designing a platform around an TF ...", applicable to K9/K9* TF.
For having a pair of 51KN/82KN TF (any TF, doesn't have to be K9/K9*) applicable, the twin-engined platform needs to be around ~9-10T empty weight - which means this TEDBF variant (called ORCA), needs to loose 4T or ~30% weight (from empty weight and not some MTOW figure).
How is that possible, without extensive redesign of the entire platform itself - tinkering with lighter LG or fuselage strengthening structures or non-foldable wings etc, wouldn't simply cut it (wrt such an extensive weight-reduction regime), period.

So for any AF variant of TEDBF platform, it will have to be a pair of 62-63KN/98KN class TFs, and that's what Kaveri+ is all about anyway - IOW, ORCA etc can't be designed around pair of K9/K9* (of 51KN/82KN class TFs).

Plus why should IAF not insist on supercruise capability etc for such a futuristic 4.5Gen platform ...

Either way, the first priority has to be towards certifying K9* -> developing sub-ton K10 variant -> productionizing K10 for 2nd/3rd MLU of Mk1As -> parallel D&D of Kaveri+ -> productionizing Kaveri+.
Not sure why is there any need of inventing yet another platform for these K10s (and later Kaveri+) operational usage - various applicable platform programs are already in place.

[basant]

maitya sir, TEDBF is not a religion and there is no blasphemy in revising specs. Nor was that true with LCA Mk2 (F404->F414 upgradation) that through series of MCAs settled again as Mk2. The following pic shows the evolution you are well-aware of. Using the same engine, payload was increased from 4.5t to 6.5t and AUW from 15t to 17.5t. If M2K, the delta wing counterpart of Tejas, could be used to create M4K in a very short time, why can't that be done with Tejas too? Of course it can be refined later as is the norm elsewhere. Aiming for perfection in the first number is the death warrant for a/c. Risking on engine could be fatal, not the predictable delay due to minor redesign of the indigenous fighter.

[maitya]

Kaveri engine approved for inflight testing: A breakthrough in Indian aerospace

...
India's Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), part of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), announced the Kaveri engine's clearance for inflight testing on December 23, 2024.
...
“This clearance is not just a technical achievement but also a strategic one, enhancing India’s path towards self-reliance in aero-engine technology.”
...
“While this is a milestone, challenges remain. The engine must prove its endurance, efficiency, and adaptability over extended inflight tests.”
...
The DRDO and GTRE are committed to further refining the Kaveri engine. Plans include developing a Kaveri 2.0 with the potential to match or surpass the thrust of engines currently used by the Indian Air Force.
...

[basant]

Congratulations to GTRE for the certification! Elsewhere it would already have been under integration into some platform for evaluation. Hopefully this would be the tipping point that it so badly waited for.

[maitya]

Seems like advanced CMC processing (2D SiC/SiC) has been mastered by NAL.

...
Aero Engines:
- Hot end components
- Convergent/Divergent Nozzle components
- flaps, V-Gutter, exhaust Cones
...

But how much of this has been implemented wrt K9/K9*/K10 programs is anybody's guess ... nothing of that sort has been reported yet.

To understand the context/implication of this you may want to refer to these two of my old posts:
1) First Post
2) Second Post

If by stating "Hot end components" above, it's alluded wrt CMC blades usage (by replacing the equiaxed Ni-Superalloy blades) in LPT (and also in the last stage of the HPC), it'll be THE MOST CUTTING EDGE achievement wrt 5th Gen TF technology usage anywhere in the world (think F414-EPE/F119/F135/Izdeliya-30 etc).
However, for a low BPR TF design like Kaveri, the impact of such a Tech infusion will be slightly limited, except of course wrt weight reduction etc - reasoning etc in my multiple previous posts.
Other aspects (usage in CD Nozzles, A/B components etc) ofcourse are all wrt weight reduction, which is extremely crucial as well.

Interesting news indeed ...

[bala]

Dont know how reliable this news: Apparently Kaveri will be tested on UAV Ghatak

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsP7VOl4nwo

The Kaveri engine developed by the Gas Turbine Research Establishment under the Defence Research and Development Organisation has been cleared for inflight testing. This marks a significant milestone in India's aerospace sector with the engine now ready for integration with unmanned aerial vehicles. This advancement enhances India's self-reliance in aero-engine technology. Challenges remain as extended inflight tests are necessary.

[SriKumar]

Dont know how reliable this news: Apparently Kaveri will be tested on UAV Ghatak

Kind of old news. It came out in a tweet roughly a year ago.

Logically speaking, this is the ONLY way to break the decades-old logjam of 'we cannot risk a human life without flying it first', and 'oh, a flying testbed is too expensive, India is a poor country onlee'. The big problem now though is that flying a Kaveri is tied to the development of a (mostly) new airframe, and new control laws for autonomous plane operation and the related, extended testing. Many more years to go.... well, nothing new about these delays. The good news though is that this will not involve the air force and their decisions/demands; and the dependencies will be internal.

[fanne]

But the question remains, how do you first validate Ghatak design (as in it flies and lands safely). It has to be with a proven engine. What done have? We can use earlier version of f404. Or adour 871 or rd33 or even old mig21/23/27 engines. None of them are ideal but are proven engine. Use them to certify the airframe. Then use Kaveri on this certified platform to certify Kaveri.

[SriKumar]

.....and add another decade to the process. DRDO is going with Kaveri from the get-go per what's is on the web. It speaks to their confidence on this.

[bala]

On testing: web is full of Kaveri being given the go ahead for testing. Some are stating Mig29 will be used for testing, others are sticking with UAV type tests. Recently ISRO created some atmospheric testing of their engines besides vacuum testing. Can Kaveri testing benefit from ISRO's infra for testing, or create something similar at GTRE.

[srai]

But the question remains, how do you first validate Ghatak design (as in it flies and lands safely). It has to be with a proven engine. What done have? We can use earlier version of f404. Or adour 871 or rd33 or even old mig21/23/27 engines. None of them are ideal but are proven engine. Use them to certify the airframe. Then use Kaveri on this certified platform to certify Kaveri.

End users rarely want to switch engines once certified with a platform. Decades would have gone by.

Rather than sequential development path, things should be done in parallel. Get Kaveri variant flying at the earliest. Unmanned test vehicles the best option at this juncture … if we are to see Indian jet engines in our lifetime.

[sanman]

[maitya]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^So, all these flurry of news about "Kaveri going for flight testing", is nothing but another round of high-altitude in-flight testing of the Kaveri Dry-variant, in Gromov Test Centre in Russia.
Also it's not clear (from this report), if, with the new Fan, the current Kaveri Dry version, has already achieved 52KN dry thrust in simulated high-altitude testing here - and thus, this round of high-altitude testing (in Russia), is all about validating it!!
(Note: In the prev high-alt in-flight testing, in 2023, this dry-version did achieve 48.5KN (against an expectation of 46KN))

Also this report is completely silent about the brand-new AB Design (by GTRE) and mfg (by Brahmos Aerospace) and it's integration to the dry-Kaveri - something they themselves have reported atleast twice earlier:
1) First here
2) Then here