Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 28 Jan 2009 07:40

RaviBg wrote:IAF, research firm lock horns

IAF, research firm lock horns
Bidanda M Chengappa ,DH News Service,Bangalore:
The Indian Air Force (IAF) and the City-based Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) are divided over development of the controversial Kaveri engine for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA).

Informed sources aver that the Kaveri engine, if developed with its present thrust, is insufficient to power the LCA in accordance with the IAF's operational requirements. This implies that the Kaveri engine has to be re-designed to generate a higher thrust. Therefore the IAF has already convinced the government to de-link the Kaveri engine from the first few LCA squadrons.

The GTRE, which forms part of the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), was compelled to seek help from foreign aero-engine majors to co-develop the Kaveri engine in late 2004, because it could not make much headway having spent Rs 2,000 crore since 1989. The GTRE lacks the know-how to develop 'hot end' components for an aero- engine which comprise the core of the Kaveri engine. Considering only a handful of eastern countries possess the scientific capability to develop aero-engine technologies, the GTRE felt that joint development was the only solution to get the Kaveri engine ready for the LCA on some schedule.

Accordingly the GTRE was keen on co-development of the Kaveri engine with the French aero-engine manufacturer Snecma.
The French offer proposes to bring the core of an already developed M-82 Eco engine in the late 1970s and tailored for the Rafale fighter aircraft for use in the Kaveri.

However the IAF has serious reservations about the transfer of technology route for further development of the Kaveri engine. Accepting the Snecma offer implies importing the core and its integration with the Kaveri engine; besides paying a lifelong royalty, say the sources. This French technology would cost the exchequer dearly and also lead to a technology transfer stretched out over a 15-year period, they add.

An IAF committee, instituted in September 2008 to study the Snecma offer, feels that it would not meet the air force's operational requirement nor help to acquire technology for futuristic development of an aero-engine for a fighter aircraft.
It also observes that the offer would prove detrimental to the DRDOs efforts to develop the Kaveri engine till now.

The GTRE and the Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory, Hyderabad have been at the forefront of the Kaveri engine development and form part of the DRDO 's 49 laboratories spread across the length and breadth of the country.

The original deal was that both partners, namely, the GTRE and the chosen foreign aero-engine major would contribute financially and technologically in equal measure.

this is the most useless reason that can be offered ! how come the IAF doesn't care about paying royalties for taking Turbomeca help for the Shakti engine? how come they dont care about any of the innumerable cases where parts or the entire product is imported ? now, when the Kaveri can be developed with someone else's help because GTRE cannot do it on its own, they suddenly care for indigenisation and want them to be forced to develop it on their own? what a joke !!

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 28 Jan 2009 08:29

Buying off the shelf Engines for Tejas will not cost the exchequer dearly ?? we are already paying Royalty for IJT Engines with Russia what problem we should have paying French ?

sum · Post by **sum** » 28 Jan 2009 09:14

Maybe the French are demanding too much $$?

Whatever the reasson, the Kaveri is $crewed and will surely go the Arjun/Trishul/xx way....

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 28 Jan 2009 12:34

There is something amiss here. GTRE seems to be thinking of taking a shortcut. IAF wants the engine to be completely indigenous.
Both sides acting utterly unlike themselves.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 28 Jan 2009 18:12

IAF is right in that, they want a fully home grown engine. But the number of years DRDO might take on this efforts will determine whether this engine will ever "fly".

@Kartik - absolutely right. We are already paying a lot of royalties to the French. Why to increase it further?

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 28 Jan 2009 18:35

kailash,
If the IAF is really interested in indigenous engine, the pragmatic way to go is incremental development. This is what the GTRE folks are suggesting now. That too after talking about totally indigenous development for years. Something is amiss there.
Also IAF hasnt been exactly enamoured by Indian items and should have been quite happy if the GTRE was to include more foreign parts, this making the engine more "reliable", the line of thought being that Indian made products arent reliable (whether justified or not is a different issue). See Vijender Thakur's articles for this line of thought, he is ex-IAF.

So them pressing for indigenisation where its almost impossible, that too in a stipulated period of time, instead of going for a pragmatic solution seems amiss as well.
IAF doesnt care to whom the money goes to, as long as the weapons they get are top-notch, same with IA. I think thats what Kartik is also pointing out. And he knows a bit more about IAF than quite a few of us.

IAF is not right here and it seems strange that the GTRE is offering a pragmatic solution after so much of delay when they should have gone for this long long back.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 28 Jan 2009 18:55

Well the only other possibility is IAF is following in the footsteps of IA. Someone must be helping them (monetarily) to keep the French and indigenous efforts out..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jan 2009 19:36

IIRC, Snecma wants to provide the "core" but not the complete technical know-how to build the "core". I THINK the reasoning is that India will pretty much be in the same boat after getting the "core" from Snecma. The lack of knowledge to build a viable core will still be there. IF that is true, then the reasoning should be that the French should provide complete know-hos and India will pay for that. ANything short of that is not worth it.

kit · Post by **kit** » 28 Jan 2009 19:59

NRao wrote:IIRC, Snecma wants to provide the "core" but not the complete technical know-how to build the "core". I THINK the reasoning is that India will pretty much be in the same boat after getting the "core" from Snecma. The lack of knowledge to build a viable core will still be there. IF that is true, then the reasoning should be that the French should provide complete know-hos and India will pay for that. ANything short of that is not worth it.

I would say the snecma deal is not in India s interests but maybe as a life line for GTRE , better that GTRE is absorbed into some other organization or restructured drastically. dont know if leadership/management skills are the problem in GTRE

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Jan 2009 20:27

let me put this straight.. i am with IAF on this. if IAF says, there is a requirement change, there is it!. now its upto GTRE to be not dumbos for the future and come up with a 15% lesser thrust. if IAF wants x thrust, give them x+dx. engine de-rating is important for any r&d based production plan.

if its going to cost y amount to get K on LCA.. why chase behind firangies, when GTRE is a capable org? now, if its only time.. well take it.. and get that done. just ignore the learning cost till happened. going firang will make it y+z on our pockets,. plus ending up with the sins of GE or Snecma technology.

K has a separate specifications.. our engineers have to rework on K-II and get that done asap. give them the extra money and a prescribed and well monitored time. replace the mgmt team with a new set.

tell them no arguments.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 28 Jan 2009 23:59

K Mehta wrote:There is something amiss here. GTRE seems to be thinking of taking a shortcut. IAF wants the engine to be completely indigenous.
Both sides acting utterly unlike themselves.

which is what is so galling about this episode- why does the IAF care about how GTRE manages to get the Kaveri to meet its specs per the ASR? they didn't care when the AL-55I was to be built at HAL through import, or the same with the RD-33K and AL-31F or when the Shakti was built through a JV with Turbomeca..why this sudden rush of love for indigenisation and development of technology in India ?

and when GTRE has basically said it cannot do it on its own, this stupid argument about paying royalties throughout the lifetime of the engine is basically aimed at scuttling the engine itself. there can be no other conclusion.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 Jan 2009 00:03

NRao wrote:IIRC, Snecma wants to provide the "core" but not the complete technical know-how to build the "core". I THINK the reasoning is that India will pretty much be in the same boat after getting the "core" from Snecma. The lack of knowledge to build a viable core will still be there. IF that is true, then the reasoning should be that the French should provide complete know-hos and India will pay for that. ANything short of that is not worth it.

yaar, why would Snecma just give up its IP for a few million $ ? the technology would've been developed by spending hundreds of millions of $ over basic to advanced R&D and we expect them to give it to us for a percentage of that ? its strategic technology that no one will share, but at least GTRE will get some insight into what it needs to concentrate on doing. the other option is to wholly import and get screw-driver technology transfers from GE or Eurojet.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 Jan 2009 00:24

SaiK wrote:let me put this straight.. i am with IAF on this. if IAF says, there is a requirement change, there is it!. now its upto GTRE to be not dumbos for the future and come up with a 15% lesser thrust. if IAF wants x thrust, give them x+dx. engine de-rating is important for any r&d based production plan.

if its going to cost y amount to get K on LCA.. why chase behind firangies, when GTRE is a capable org? now, if its only time.. well take it.. and get that done. just ignore the learning cost till happened. going firang will make it y+z on our pockets,. plus ending up with the sins of GE or Snecma technology.

K has a separate specifications.. our engineers have to rework on K-II and get that done asap. give them the extra money and a prescribed and well monitored time. replace the mgmt team with a new set.

tell them no arguments.

dude, its been made amply clear that there is sore lacking of knowledge of how to design, fabricate hot end components that work in temperature ranges of thousands of degrees. GTRE alone is not to be blamed, because they cannot be tasked with coming up with metallurgical technology that is most likely unavailable in all of India. what on earth has HAL Koraput been doing when its been assembling Al-31s? assembling- thats it. I doubt that the raw materials or the techniques required for building them from scratch them are sourced from within India, considering that they're unable to secure those same suppliers to provide the hot end parts for the Kaveri.

if you lack the material technology and the knowhow to develop is lacking in IITs and other institutions in India, there is little the GTRE can do to design a part to a given specification, which basically asks for the best of the best.
the IAF asks for the best (and rightly so)- it feels that if the DRDO wants it to spend its money on indigenous stuff, they should be as good as anything imported off the shelf - but if that technology is not available in India, there is little option but to buy or steal it from somewhere else. when the IAF says that is not a good idea, there is definitely something else on their mind.

keep in mind, that even in the developed nations, major engineering programs almost always exceed budget and timelines, because people underestimate the effort required, but they're always willing to throw money to get through the final stretch.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 Jan 2009 00:26

kit wrote:
NRao wrote:IIRC, Snecma wants to provide the "core" but not the complete technical know-how to build the "core". I THINK the reasoning is that India will pretty much be in the same boat after getting the "core" from Snecma. The lack of knowledge to build a viable core will still be there. IF that is true, then the reasoning should be that the French should provide complete know-hos and India will pay for that. ANything short of that is not worth it.
I would say the snecma deal is not in India s interests but maybe as a life line for GTRE , better that GTRE is absorbed into some other organization or restructured drastically. dont know if leadership/management skills are the problem in GTRE

maybe the program management will improve, but where will the required skillsets and knowhow for designing extremely high temperature items come from ?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 29 Jan 2009 00:31

Kartik wrote:
NRao wrote:IIRC, Snecma wants to provide the "core" but not the complete technical know-how to build the "core". I THINK the reasoning is that India will pretty much be in the same boat after getting the "core" from Snecma. The lack of knowledge to build a viable core will still be there. IF that is true, then the reasoning should be that the French should provide complete know-hos and India will pay for that. ANything short of that is not worth it.
yaar, why would Snecma just give up its IP for a few million $ ? the technology would've been developed by spending hundreds of millions of $ over basic to advanced R&D and we expect them to give it to us for a percentage of that ? its strategic technology that no one will share, but at least GTRE will get some insight into what it needs to concentrate on doing. the other option is to wholly import and get screw-driver technology transfers from GE or Eurojet.

Its time the powers that be started thinking a bit big when it comes to such things. Give the frenchies the MRCA - 126 rafale + 72 (m2k if UAE deal is real), sweeten it with Vajra upgrade all for a cool $ 20 billion and then demand TOT for M88 core down to the last bolt. I think they'd comply. Rumor has it the deal is already worth about $ 16 bill.

Up until now the last 5 years must be a massive disappointment for the french. They lost the M2k-5 deal (which seemed in the bag), the upgrade deal hasn't been signed. And now you want TOT for cutting edge stuff for peanuts. I know they are a bit snooty, but this seems ridiculous.

It might also work as a jhapad to both the russkies and the yanks.

CM

hariks · Post by **hariks** » 29 Jan 2009 04:24

It would be good if EJ200 engine is selected for LCA, since even if TOT is not full, GTRE folks will have access to a 5th generation engine. The parameters which are controlled to increase thrust (eg war setting) and the different compressor stages used should give them a good architectural idea on what can be done when they go for Kaveri II. Having desiged one engine, they should be able to understand quickly enough what was done different in a more modern engine.

It depends if GOI will continue funding GTRE if we get full TOT. I hope they do, and for future fighters like MCA we will need higher thrust engines. Important thing is LCA reached FOC as soon as possible and all the additional technology and user feedback can go into making the next version of LCA a super fighter!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Jan 2009 04:37

Kartik wrote:
if you lack the material technology and the knowhow to develop is lacking in IITs and other institutions in India, there is little the GTRE can do to design a part to a given specification, which basically asks for the best of the best.

Its a matter of time, that MIDANI will mature. What I read from ddm is that its a production engineering aspects that they are facing a problem.

the IAF asks for the best (and rightly so)- it feels that if the DRDO wants it to spend its money on indigenous stuff, they should be as good as anything imported off the shelf - but if that technology is not available in India, there is little option but to buy or steal it from somewhere else. when the IAF says that is not a good idea, there is definitely something else on their mind.

In my understanding, they feel K-II has to come out with the new requirements. Unless GTRE/HAL or a new setup is put up with doing it with a "crisis" name to it, and put them accountable and activities monitored by public on the web.. they would remain achieving only 80-85% of the requirements. lets also know that there are lot of slackers in govt institutions.. also, the real workers need a big pay hike.

keep in mind, that even in the developed nations, major engineering programs almost always exceed budget and timelines, because people underestimate the effort required, but they're always willing to throw money to get through the final stretch.

correct. and that is what we need to copy as well. if your are willing to pay double price for GE and Snecma, why not pay the same and plus the benefit of establishing the engineering setup in desh.

you know it all better. IAF is not bad when it says we don't collaborate with firangs.. they have been wanting a as pure as possible Tejas. Its the confidence that they have shown on GTRE to ask them to come up with new engine thrusts. BTW, we all agree that Kaveri has not achieved the final configuration yet.. its a long process, and we are poised to spend on it rather drop it like a hot potato and say "we give up".

at the same time, IAF can't take up the deliveries of K-I since, it does not meet the requirements. I know this is painful on our pockets.. that GEs and Snecmas make money.. and what about saturn!?.. we were more quite when russians swindled our pockets. when it comes to west, we are up against the arms.

something about us! eh!.

btw, when I am saying GTRE, its them and all those responsible entities that with which it tied up to get this done.

Daedalus · Post by **Daedalus** » 29 Jan 2009 05:14

I think this is the right thread for posting this material, if not feel free to move/delete this post.

So here is my 2cents on the kaveri issiue

.

From what I have read and understood(assuming I have read and understood the right stuff), the main problem with kaveri engine is with its fabrication, esp. materials used. Recentely I have read on the web about the use of ceramics for use in high temperature and strength applications.

Read this, this, this and this(also google for more info).

The theory sounds simple enough - mix couple of chemicals togather and bake it, just like baking a cake(atleast that is what they say, may be its not as straight forward as it sounds). I think taking this route might produce a good result, because then they just have to find the right mixture(components and ratios). Sounds simpler than growing crystals, atleast to me(again I might be wrong). Also ceramics are used in tank armour which protects against high velocity projectile spitting molten metal(our very own Kanchan).

One of the other practical applications where ceramics are used today is to make disk breaks for race cars(they break real hard, don't they

).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Jan 2009 05:26

zirconia is the best friend! ask nitin padture, ohio state unv prof.

sum · Post by **sum** » 29 Jan 2009 09:30

Its time the powers that be started thinking a bit big when it comes to such things. Give the frenchies the MRCA - 126 rafale + 72 (m2k if UAE deal is real), sweeten it with Vajra upgrade all for a cool $ 20 billion and then demand TOT for M88 core down to the last bolt. I think they'd comply. Rumor has it the deal is already worth about $ 16 bill.

Very impressive idea..
Should be to the satisfaction of all parties( Frenchies, IAF and GTRE/ADA/LCA)

kit · Post by **kit** » 30 Jan 2009 16:11

also keep in mind rafale is not much better than the Block 60 F16 .. avionics,radar,engines and armament on offer considered.,and the difference in prices ...!! even somewhat better doesnt look right for the MRCA..TOT basically is again going to be screw driver tech.Still i might consider if they will give the blue prints and production tech for the snecma engine ! Rafale plus euro fighter avionics hmm ! ..but still wont get seduced by avionics tech of now judging how fast they become obsolete., but engine tech is totally a different ball game.. there will be improvements but everywhere it seems to be maturing at a similar rate..... quite unlike the AESA tech that is going on to 4th and 5 th gen in USA

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 30 Jan 2009 16:46

kit wrote:also keep in mind rafale is not much better than the Block 60 F16 .. avionics,radar,engines and armament on offer considered.,and the difference in prices ...!!

Sorry for OT,But Kit Saab will the F-16 Sustain till 2030?MMRCA Acquisition is based on a long term vision.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Jan 2009 16:51

kit and narayana, use the MRCA thread plz.

kuldipchager · Post by **kuldipchager** » 30 Jan 2009 21:36

I thought that we are supose to work on/with Korapur where engine for SU 30 (Al 31f) are manufecturing.It will be much cheaper then french or British Engine.Kevery is good engine but needs some time and patience.

kobe · Post by **kobe** » 30 Jan 2009 22:11

some inspiration for GTRE guys:
Once expertise is developed, it took GE only
two years to develop this engine.

777 Engine Tests

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 30 Jan 2009 23:32

I know what I am writing has been done earlier but still looking at the way our engine program is floundering cannot stop doing this. IMHO, it is a little difficult to swallow the fact that after license production of engines for decades we havent picked up anything. I am not expecting chartbuster stuff from gtre, I expect an engine that shows that we have learnt something from our manufacturing. I am not a drdo basher I used to work for them.

hariks · Post by **hariks** » 01 Feb 2009 13:05

This may be a naive question so Gurus please clarify why this may not be a valid option.
If SC blades are the only problem with Kaveri, can't the blades alone be made by a foreign firm with the required metallurgical expertise given the specifications? Also it seems SC blades are needed for sustaining the higher thrust, but can high thrust be demonstrated with the directionally cast versions for short periods of time, so that it is clear that SC blades are the only issue to be solved?

Neilz · Post by **Neilz** » 01 Feb 2009 13:58

suryag wrote:I know what I am writing has been done earlier but still looking at the way our engine program is floundering cannot stop doing this. IMHO, it is a little difficult to swallow the fact that after license production of engines for decades we havent picked up anything. I am not expecting chartbuster stuff from gtre, I expect an engine that shows that we have learnt something from our manufacturing. I am not a drdo basher I used to work for them.

suryag,I am Too a trainee here.... but I would like to inform you that license production in a broad way is assembling knocked down kit. Ofcourse you will get blue print but it will never help you to proceed anywhere other than better handling of screw driver. Problem with Kaveri is with it metallurgy. No one will give you that tech. And during assembly we may get the composition but that will not help. Bcoz after knowing the components you have to make so many things like, find a way to make it to mass production level, then there is fabrication. Its not so simple. Because it requires lots of other precision technology + quality assured technology to bring it from test tube in lab to precision format of robotic arm. I hope you know why is LCD screen cost us so much....... On an average to make 1 LCD of permissible(error less than 3 pixel) 2 LCD gets wasted. Similarly just imagine what will be there to make a single crystal blade. Find proper metallurgy >> try to make single crystal of that >> try to make a single crystal of required shape >> Develop all the tools to make "single crystal of required shape" in a consistent manner >> DEvelop tools to reach the precision level >> Get the technology to make it commercially viable >> ring tech of mass production in
lesser/acceptable time.

Also, I want tell you one thing, in different topics repetitively discussed that for us "decades we havent picked up anything" does not stand a logic. Decade back we do not have require industrial base + tech denial mode + and lots of other factor. These all are discussed to death. So please do not bring these matters again and again.

Also for gurus after reading this K issue on this thread for so long time there was a Q from a gentleman which is not yet answered.... I am rephrasing it below.

1. All aero engine designed in way that it has future development scope i.e. de-rated. How come GTRE people designed K with just the speck given. Is not it a natural way for them to see a bigger picture of requirement of higher thrust.

2 I would like to put the same Q here again.

hariks wrote:This may be a naive question so Gurus please clarify why this may not be a valid option.
If SC blades are the only problem with Kaveri, can't the blades alone be made by a foreign firm with the required metallurgical expertise given the specifications? Also it seems SC blades are needed for sustaining the higher thrust, but can high thrust be demonstrated with the directionally cast versions for short periods of time, so that it is clear that SC blades are the only issue to be solved?

Gurus please answer this two. It will help all of novice like us to have good over view.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Feb 2009 14:36

not a guru by any means but I'll try and answer :

1. All aero engine designed in way that it has future development scope i.e. de-rated. How come GTRE people designed K with just the speck given. Is not it a natural way for them to see a bigger picture of requirement of higher thrust.

both are my educated guesses, so take it FWIW
>> if you compare the specs of the GE f-404 and the kaveri, you'll find that the kaveri's targeted performance already pushes the envelope of the performance quite a bit. given that kaveri has already achieved a substantial part of that target means that we have actually managed to run a bit before we even learnt to walk !!
going beyond that with our background could have been a case of trying to win an olympic gold w/o learning to walk properly.
also, not being an engine expert I can't be sure, but I suspect that flat rating requirement of the kaveri has something to do with its inability to scale up performance.
the engine gurus can correct me if I'm wrong.

This may be a naive question so Gurus please clarify why this may not be a valid option.
If SC blades are the only problem with Kaveri, can't the blades alone be made by a foreign firm with the required metallurgical expertise given the specifications? Also it seems SC blades are needed for sustaining the higher thrust, but can high thrust be demonstrated with the directionally cast versions for short periods of time, so that it is clear that SC blades are the only issue to be solved?

again, this is a guess but I think a good one.

SC tech remains the well guarded family silver kind of tech that no company is willing to part with. that I'm sure is well known.

now, why would an engine manufacturer part with pre-fabricated SC blades made to GTRE's specifications fully knowing that it is a critical part and the project would come to a standstill w/o it ?? they would rather hold back the blades and may be sell whole engines or at the very least land up a plum consultant job ?
makes sense doesn't it ?

Dhanush · Post by **Dhanush** » 01 Feb 2009 19:36

This may be a naive question so Gurus please clarify why this may not be a valid option.
If SC blades are the only problem with Kaveri, can't the blades alone be made by a foreign firm with the required metallurgical expertise given the specifications? Also it seems SC blades are needed for sustaining the higher thrust, but can high thrust be demonstrated with the directionally cast versions for short periods of time, so that it is clear that SC blades are the only issue to be solved?
again, this is a guess but I think a good one.

SC tech remains the well guarded family silver kind of tech that no company is willing to part with. that I'm sure is well known.

now, why would an engine manufacturer part with pre-fabricated SC blades made to GTRE's specifications fully knowing that it is a critical part and the project would come to a standstill w/o it ?? they would rather hold back the blades and may be sell whole engines or at the very least land up a plum consultant job ?
makes sense doesn't it ?

This question is bugging me as well.

Rahul Sir, I take the liberty to analyse your theory in more detail. I hope you don't mind.
This would work only if the engine makers have some kind of cartel isn't it? Only then they can be sure that buyers will buy the engines directly rather than the blades. Why would engine manufacturers (other than the ones in contention GE, Eurojet), for example Russian manufacturers, not sell fabricated SC blades? They have nothing to loose in this game; they know very well that only GE404/GE414 or EJ200 fits LCA. For sure its not just selling fabricated SC blades, addition chai-biscoot consulting is part of it.

Neilz · Post by **Neilz** » 01 Feb 2009 22:04

hariks wrote:This may be a naive question so Gurus please clarify why this may not be a valid option.
If SC blades are the only problem with Kaveri, can't the blades alone be made by a foreign firm with the required metallurgical expertise given the specifications? Also it seems SC blades are needed for sustaining the higher thrust, but can high thrust be demonstrated with the directionally cast versions for short periods of time, so that it is clear that SC blades are the only issue to be solved?

Sorry Rahul ji, but I think the actual Question is not answered yet...

Q: "but can high thrust be demonstrated with the directionally cast versions for short periods of time, so that it is clear that SC blades are the only issue to be solved?" ... or simplify Q, is it anyhow possible to demonstrate even for a short period of time the actual capability of K, replacing SC blade with any other equivalent?

Because at this stage it will be a classic isolation test to get a confirm yes/no answer. Is the test technically impossible or this test is done but not a public info or is the test not done yet..... because the answer will give us a great insight about its future..... bcoz we all jingos are waiting for the D day..... success of K will be a milestone in indian technology. This answer may take the long discussion in this thread to a new direction altogether.

Also, your answer is true in concept... no one will give us that tech neither any customize blade. If we are really stuck for the SC blade then JV is useless....... as u said "plum consultant job"..... Also, in this thread long back some one provide info that we in fact made progress in SC tech and some pic of SC blade was also shown.

.................... well got that post..............

SaiK wrote:here is the old link about the ambitions:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/19 ... ition.html

and it was on trial heats on 2006 report from dmrl
http://www.midhani.com/downloads/anlrep0506-en.pdf - Trial heats of Supercast 247A (directionallysolidified Super alloy) required for Kaveri AeroEngine Blade/vane application
2005, the blade casting techs were shown to kalam saab.
http://www.drdo.org/pub/nl/oct05/president_dmrl.htm

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Feb 2009 22:50

dhanush, no need for those three letters after my name.

This would work only if the engine makers have some kind of cartel isn't it? Only then they can be sure that buyers will buy the engines directly rather than the blades. Why would engine manufacturers (other than the ones in contention GE, Eurojet), for example Russian manufacturers, not sell fabricated SC blades? They have nothing to loose in this game; they know very well that only GE404/GE414 or EJ200 fits LCA. For sure its not just selling fabricated SC blades, addition chai-biscoot consulting is part of it.

let me first assume that motivations on the part of eurojet/GE/SNECMA can be explained within the parameters of my last post ?

consider this :

Code: Select all

Russia 

a)sells SC tech to India --> India becomes independent in aero-engines -->loss for russia
b)does not sell SC tech --> two possible options :
i>sell customised SC blades --> LCA is succesful, IAF goes on to buy 200 of it. --> small, but significant monetary gain for russia but there is also the outside chance that India will learn quite some bit about SC secrets during customising, a big no-no.

ii>don't sell SC blades to India --> chances that LCA will flounder if the euros don't step up --> possible sale of russky a/c in future to fill in the gap -- a much bigger opportunity.
and if the MRCA goes to mig, that would be the icing on the cake !

Now tell me, would not you be ready to let go a small but sure gain for the chance of a much much larger one ?

that's how business works right ?

let me recount one bit of fact to demonstrate how the thinking works in the 'upper echelons' of countries. you decide if it is a cartel or not !

late 80's when IAF inducted the mig-29 and was extremely pleased with it(think of it as the su-30mki of those times, almost) russia offered India license production of a single engined derivative of the mig-29, sometimes called the mig-33(yes, the very same that gave birth to the JF-17) on one condition, scrap the LCA program !

and lets not forget that the americans had offered to move the entire assembly line of the F-20 tigershark to India(as a combat capable AJT candidate) but had one condition, scrap the LCA program !

Neilz, as a layman it looks a valid question to me but I'm really in no position to answer that one.

Dhanush · Post by **Dhanush** » 01 Feb 2009 23:41

Rahul M wrote:dhanush, ..........

Rahul, thanks for the gyan; I am now able to see some light at the end of the tunnel. I completely missed the big picture of this issue.

adarshp · Post by **adarshp** » 02 Feb 2009 00:38

Two quick questions for the gurus as I am not able to figure this one out from the research I have done thus far -

Was it ever mentioned which part of the SC blades fabrication bit are we falling short in? As I see it, there are 2 key things which need to be solved -
1. Identification and fabrication of the alloy which has temprature based handling characteristics which will allow it to be used to fabricate the SC blades. This in itself is a major engineering feat AFAIK, especially considering the fact that the turbine entry temprature goal for the Kaveri is 1800C plus.
2. Casting of the SC blades. As I understand this is also non trivial because you need to innovate casting techniques for a metal operating at such high melting points.

Do we know which one of the two points above we are stuck at?

Also, The wiki article on the Kaveri (and I dont know how correct it itself is) mentions that we have achieved turbine entry tempratures of ~1400C. This means about 25% shortfall. Again, I am not an expert in this field, but based on what I am reading now, it seems like different alloys show 'Creep' at different tempratures to melting point based on wether the fabrication is a SC blade or directionally solidified etc. As I gather SC blades will allow a super alloy to work and take load at 90% melting point. Which would mean that for the Kaveri we need to find one of two things -

1. Super alloy with melting point at ~2100C and be able cast into SC blades.
2. Super alloy with a higher melting point and which allow a directionally solidifed blade to operate at the 1850C we have defined as the TET goal. This may not help at all in the engine weight issue, but would still allow atleast the desired performance.

Is this essentially the challenge in front of GTRE? Thanks in advance, and in case this has been discussed already, can you please just point me to the article?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Feb 2009 01:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_engine_performance

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1985/PV1985_4041.pdf

adarshp · Post by **adarshp** » 02 Feb 2009 03:09

Thanks Sai.. This are interesting articles to read and understand what goes into designing a jet engine.

I was not trying to trivialize what would have gone into designing the Kaveri engine or knowledge inputs required even in project definition. However, most of the links you have given contain material which would have been used in the conceptual phase of defining Kaveri. I can see that we have moved way beyond that, and we are now at calibrating performance versus specs. This is what I was referring to. From what I read, the issue is with the turbine tempratures we are able to achieve and sustain. I have been assuming ofcorse that this is the basis of our claims that getting SC blades will allow the Kaveri to achieve the desired performance. I automatically deduced from this that we havent found any issues with the fundamental equations we employed in expected performance at various Operating tempratures, i.e, performance and current operating temprature of ~ 1400C is inline with out projections for that temprature. I am assuming that the performance shortfall we are facing now is due to the lower TET we are able to sustain rather than the basic equations we used being way off. Are you pointing me to these equations because the latter is the case, and we incorrectly predicted the performance of the engine we built?

I have been under the impression and certainly am hoping that there isnt a fundamental issue like that with the Kaveri. The issue is only (and I use 'only' in this context, not to trivialize the work required) that we are not able to fabricate the blades to fully exploit the temprature range (melting point) the super alloy permits. If this is one of the mysteries of the current situation and no one knows for sure, please let me know and I will wait for more details to come out. Otherwise, please let me know if it is the alloy of the casting aspect where we need to close the gap.

Many Thanks!

babbupandey · Post by **babbupandey** » 02 Feb 2009 07:44

russia offered India license production of a single engined derivative of the mig-29, sometimes called the mig-33(yes, the very same that gave birth to the JF-17) on one condition, scrap the LCA program !

and lets not forget that the americans had offered to move the entire assembly line of the F-20 tigershark to India(as a combat capable AJT candidate) but had one condition, scrap the LCA program !

Rahul, what is the source of this information, please? If it is true then it is troublesome, to say the least, the clout amrikis and russkies have in India. Asking a sovereign nation to stop a legitimate development - looks balderdash! But yet, I have learnt never to wave anything aside on face value.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Feb 2009 08:00

its not india specific. its the strategy they follow everywhere. Germany (worlds 3rd largest eco then and 'core' nato member) was forced to cancel its prototype format stealth UCAV called Lampyridae in early 1990s shortly after a american team was sent for talks on the project.

http://home.xmsnet.nl/hdejong/curious/Lampyridae.htm
http://home.xmsnet.nl/hdejong/curious/conspiracy.htm

they will sell their mothers to keep their arms industry ticking.

be 300% aware that all these talks of joint projects is just to id our best people,
take them out of the indian defence industry and exert political pressure through
hidden sanctions and other demands through their lackeys in our political system.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Feb 2009 12:18

Rahul, what is the source of this information, please? If it is true then it is troublesome, to say the least, the clout amrikis and russkies have in India. Asking a sovereign nation to stop a legitimate development - looks balderdash! But yet, I have learnt never to wave anything aside on face value.

nothing too secret, I'm afraid ! mainstream journals from the 80's.
the single engine mig-29 story was definitely from frontline and was narrated by a retd. IAF officer, Air Cmde or AVM IIRC.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 02 Feb 2009 13:05

Rahul M wrote:
Rahul, what is the source of this information, please? If it is true then it is troublesome, to say the least, the clout amrikis and russkies have in India. Asking a sovereign nation to stop a legitimate development - looks balderdash! But yet, I have learnt never to wave anything aside on face value.
nothing too secret, I'm afraid ! mainstream journals from the 80's.
the single engine mig-29 story was definitely from frontline and was narrated by a retd. IAF officer, Air Cmde or AVM IIRC.

These need to be taken with a pinch of salt IMHO. There is no "verifiable" way any country can say "stop project X if you buy Y from me". What stops India from secretly continuing with LCA AND running the assembly line for Mig33? The typical method is actually more subtle - once the domestic project acheives a measure of "success", approach the end client with a "cheaper" alternative. The Russians for example approached the IA with Tochka once the Valiant project seemed to make headway. Thankfully, we didnt bite in this case and went on with the IGMDP..