Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Sep 2009 00:29

and this new spec of 65 KN is the AB thrust ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Sep 2009 01:45

Rahul M wrote:and this new spec of 65 KN is the AB thrust ?

Unfortunately, looks like - yes.

I was under the impression that they had set the Kaveri to be close to, if not to exceed, the GE engine specs. Guess not. I must have been dreaming.

On googling I found a comment some place that the Germans had placed some aspects of the Kaveri around 1970s techs!!! So, I have to guess that that is a huge part of the road block (assuming that is true).

OT:
Reading tea leaves it looks to me that the MCA will roll into the FGFA, the LCA will reincarnate into a UAV for the most part, IF a newer engine is "found" (I am skeptical because these guys take eons to decide and then the next engine comes out, and they take more time to decide, then ............... cycle repeats) for the LCA, THEN they will induct some 120 (or so) LCAs. But, sorry to say this, I have a sinking feeling in the depths of my stomach. This seems to be a very badly managed project. "Finding" a suitable engine for the LCA could take some time, by that time the LCA could be outdated - understandably.

So, my prediction: FGFA, MRCA, MKI and UAV in about 15 years. Rest is change.

Discussion in respective threads please.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Sep 2009 01:51

so GTRE actually downgraded the specifications ? strange ! no change in the official pages too !

m mittal · Post by **m mittal** » 08 Sep 2009 01:52

::deleted::

Posted in relevant thread

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Sep 2009 01:56

mittal saab, could you please post this in the correct thread ?
I'm really getting tired of people posting OT stuff all over the mil forum.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 08 Sep 2009 02:06

The article says several interesting things:

a fully built Kaveri engine will be transported to a testing facility outside Moscow called the Gromov Flight Research Institute. Here, a giant IL-76 aircraft will have one of its four engines replaced with a Kaveri. Russian and GTRE experts will then evaluate the Kaveri’s performance while the IL-76 flies.

So the Russians have an airplane fitted out to test engines. Any reason why that plane can't come to Kerala (2 be precise, Bangalore)? The hawa above Bangalore is not halal for engine-testing?

Before the actual flight tests, Russian experts at Moscow’s Central Institute of Aviation Motors will run ground checks on the Kaveri’s performance, in conditions that simulate altitudes up to 15 kilometers (49,200 feet).

That's the answer, I guess. They are also going to run vacuum chamber tests. As I pointed out, this is not exactly magic - the maximum pressure difference between outside and inside is still less than 1 atmosphere. A standard cooking gas cylinder holds -what? 20 atmospheres? A standard compressed gas cylinder holds about 150 atmospheres. How tough is it to build the chamber and the provision to exhaust the 100kg/second that the Kaveri engine puts out? That requires another equivalent of a jet engine in power, but it need not be light and high-tech like an aircraft jet engine. Or they could get a couple of those big IL-76 engines and just set them up outside to pull the air through.

Business Standard visited the Kaveri ground test bed at GTRE, Bangalore, where Russian experts are finishing “pre-acceptance checks” on the Kaveri engine that is headed for their facilities in Russia. The giant turbofan engine , suspended from a ceiling bracket, was being revved up gradually. As it roared to a deafening crescendo, engineers monitored the Kaveri’s power output, watching carefully from behind a bullet-proof glass window.

So they already have 1-atmosphere test cells. Of course.

A 50-person GTRE team will travel with the engine to Moscow and participate in the flight trials over the next 3-4 months.” India has no facilities for altitude-testing and flight-testing jet engines. GTRE estimates it will take several hundred crore rupees to create such test facilities in India. Meanwhile, each test campaign in Russia costs Rs 50-60 crores.

Shows the level of seriousness of GOI, hain? Spend 50-60 crores (second time now, IIRC) to send your best 50 engineers on severe dislocation of families, to Moscow in Fall/Winter (Oh! Golleee!!) rather than invest about twice that and build the facilities in India so they can do this testing on a continuing basis with 10 or 20 engine models.

I agree, of course, that "clean-sheet start" is tough, and is totally unnecessary. There are hajaar junkyards where one can get full jet engines and components thereof, for engines with NOT MUCH LOWER, if not higher, performance than the Kaveri specs.

It's not a "giant turbofan" (I hope it hasn't expanded..). It has an advertised bypass ratio of 0.16, which is "leaky turbojet".

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 08 Sep 2009 02:27

N^3 sir, this article says that it will be tested on IL-76. IL-76's cruise speed is ~800kmph and at this speed i guess we cant even test the transsonic characteristics of the engine. Do you think this testing will yield more than what can be achieved in ground test cells which can simulate the conditions that the IL-76 may subject the engine to. On a related note, on wikipedia i found this

CFTE Engine Testbed

China Flight Test Establishment (CFTE) currently operates a flying testbed converted from a Russian-made Il-76MD jet transport aircraft to serve as a flying testbed for future engine development programmes. The first engine to be tested on the aircraft is the WS-10A “Taihang” turbofan, currently being developed as the powerplant for China’s indigenous J-10 and J-11 fighter aircraft. The #76456 Il-76MD, acquired by the AVIC 1 from Russia in the 1990s, is currently based at CFTE’s flight test facility at Yanliang, Shaanxi Province.

One more question i had was since we have had decades experience in engine maintenance-overhaul of airbus/boeing aircrafts cant we use one IA/AI aircraft to act as a flying test bed. What is special about the il-76? I guess we have enough documentation for instrumentation of the engine and the structural aspects for engine mounting on commercial airliners.As, you have said there seems to be a big hole when it comes to synergy between GTRE and others. I would like to mention I rate myself to be a 1/100 when it comes to jet engines.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 08 Sep 2009 02:56

The transonic part does not matter, since you can design an inlet for any speed. The engine itself is always inside an enclosure formed by the inlet/diffuser, nacelle, and maybe converging-diverging nozzle. The inlet/diffuser combo makes sure that the first stage fan (front of the engine) sees only a "flight speed" of about Mach 0.4 or so. So when the aircraft is at 49,000 feet at going 800kmph, the engine face thinks it is going at maybe 600kmph at 40,000 feet (I haven't done the calculations, just an example).

What is special about IL-76?
Big airplane, I guess, with 4 engines, so if one quits it's no problem. May be built to take a lot of bullets etc. in the fuselage as well. Also (just guessing here) it is a high-wing airplane, so the engineers can sit in window seat 34A or 34G and gaze out lovingly at their engine hanging right outside and watch the oil leaks etc. I always put the eye-cover on and go to sleep if I have to sit there on high-winged aircraft because the words

uncontained blade failure

keep bothering me.

But if one is doing engine tests, I suppose this is quite convenient. If they put the test engine on the inboard pylon - I wouldn't know.

In fact I am not quite sure what is the big deal with this "high-altitude" testing - why should the engine not work when the outside pressure is low? The pressure ratio is the same, after all, so the compressor has to work even less hard. Only answer I can think of is that the flame doesn't stay lit in the combustion chambers when the pressure is too low.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 08 Sep 2009 05:48

^^^ Dear Mr. N Cubus FWIW IIRC the 76 has been used for injun tests for a while I remember seeing a pic of this bootiful plane sporting some weird counter rotating prop injuns ityadi.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 08 Sep 2009 06:20

Built for air force, Kaveri engine chosen by navy

The indigenous Kaveri aircraft engine, soon to make its debut flight, lacks the muscle needed by India’s Tejas light combat aircraft, which the engine was designed to power. In its present form, the Kaveri will never power a modern fighter.

But the engine’s technology — developed by the Defence R&D Organisation, over two decades, at a cost of Rs 3000 crore — will not be wasted. The Indian Navy is snapping up the Kaveri for powering its growing fleet of warships.

Business Standard has learnt that the navy has officially informed the Gas Turbine and Research Establishment (the DRDO laboratory that developed the Kaveri) that naval warships will needs 40 Kaveri Marine Gas Turbines (KMGTs) over the next 15 years.

In an important signal of its support, the navy has agreed to fund 25 per cent of the cost of the KMGT project.

GTRE has developed the marine Kaveri by modifying the aero engine with a shaft, through which power can be delivered to a propeller. The navy has extensively tested these engines at Visakhapatnam and found that the marine Kaveri can deliver 12 Megawatts (16,000 Horsepower) of propulsion power.

Typically warships run on regular diesel engines; gas turbines (such as the Kaveri) are added on to provide “boost power”, needed for manoeuvring in battle. Contemporary gas turbines, such as the General Electric LM2500, provide India’s latest 5000-tonne Shivalik class frigates with 22 Mw of boost. The Kaveri’s more modest 12 Mw is sufficient only for smaller warships.

While the marine Kaveri’s basic performance has been established (even the PM has seen a demonstration in Visakhapatnam), the GTRE Director, Dr Mohana Rao, is not yet satisfied with the basic design.

“So far, the KMGT is just a spin-off from the aero version”, Rao told Business Standard in Bangalore. “I want to give the navy an engine with far greater endurance. An aero engine’s life is just 3000 hours; a marine engine’s life should be 30,000 hours. I must physically test the KMGT for at least 15,000 hours.”

GTRE is going ahead with developing 3-4 test engines and beginning trials within three years. The trials will be conducted in a marine environment, which will include high humidity, and prolonged exposure to salt.

“We plan to begin delivery in about 6 years”, says the GTRE Director, “We hope to keep the cost below Rs 25-30 crores, which is considerably cheaper than buying imported gas turbines.”

Earlier this year, the US State Department had stopped General Electric from fitting its LM-2500 turbines on the INS Shivalik, apparently because GE had not obtained proper permissions from the US government.

Other than the 40 KMGTs, the Indian Navy has also issued a letter, on 6 th April 09, laying out a requirement for 42 Gas Turbine Generators, or GTGs. These are de-rated versions of the marine Kaveri, which will be used for generating electrical power on warships. Each GTG generates 1.2 Megawatts of power.

The Indian Navy, an enthusiastic proponent of indigenisation, proposes to replace the diesel generators fitted on older warships with the Kaveri GTG. If it performs well over a period of time, the new-generation warships will also get electrical power from the Kaveri GTG. Currently, only the Rajput and Delhi class of destroyers use gas turbines for power generation.

vina · Post by **vina** » 08 Sep 2009 10:28

narayanan wrote:. Only answer I can think of is that the flame doesn't stay lit in the combustion chambers when the pressure is too low.

Compustion happens with highly Kombressed hawa only no?. I really don't see how combustion chamber lighting as a piraablem. Bigger piraablem is of course afterburner lighting at altitude I think due to very low pressure.

Mayuresh · Post by **Mayuresh** » 08 Sep 2009 10:51

1. I wonder why we are wasting money on testing a 65kn afterburning thrust engine in Russia when the IAF specifically wants a 95kn afterburning thrust? It is not like the Russian tests are suddenly going to increase the thrust!

2. How did the GTRE claim that they had completed the development of the engine if it can produce only 65kn afterburning thrust?

3. We should learn some lessons from China who has developed 2 fighters, but both have Russian engines, in spite of the fact that the Chinese could have thrown in much more than us in terms of resources the engine development. Let GTRE come up with a TD rather than promising to fit the engines on the LCA

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 08 Sep 2009 10:59

Mayuresh wrote:1. I wonder why we are wasting money on testing a 65kn afterburning thrust engine in Russia when the IAF specifically wants a 95kn afterburning thrust? It is not like the Russian tests are suddenly going to increase the thrust!

Let's attribute this to some Chankian moves by the hanud scientists. They have taken help from the yahuds and rassuds and made worlds most powerful engine at cheapest cost. After this the engine will have 110kn thrust while the weight will be only 1/2 tonne.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 08 Sep 2009 11:14

Let's attribute this to some Chankian moves by the hanud scientists. They have taken help from the yahuds and rassuds and made worlds most powerful engine at cheapest cost. After this the engine will have 110kn thrust while the weight will be only 1/2 tonne.

link please

adityap · Post by **adityap** » 08 Sep 2009 11:21

Mayuresh!!

I hope every understand that fact that we are not in the same league as US,Russia,France, UK, Germany and to some extent China(atleast they copy) in the Jet engine development ,

How can we make build a higher thrust engine with out perfecting the lower once

and tell me one thing or any guru over here.

"What was the initial Thrust Requirements placed by IAF"

I hope the development for the initial required engine has been done. and the road map was for that.
i would also blame the GTRE not doing a parallel program for a better one, at same time but still we have some thing in result.

my view of people commenting with out for sight.
-----------------------------------------------------
just for an example we have started buiding a small truck and after the chassis is decided and engine is decided and then the customer comes down and asks for multi-axle and heigher tounage truck who can achieve it in the same time frame.

we lack in foresight from day one.
we have no perception of our future enemy and geo-political situation
we lack the urge to be learner since we give up once we hit a road block.

and more over if we live in a society which has more nay-sayers and people with weaker will, grit and risk taking propensity.

with so many ills how can be we break the technological barriers

Mayuresh · Post by **Mayuresh** » 08 Sep 2009 11:48

sameer_shelavale wrote:
Let's attribute this to some Chankian moves by the hanud scientists. They have taken help from the yahuds and rassuds and made worlds most powerful engine at cheapest cost. After this the engine will have 110kn thrust while the weight will be only 1/2 tonne.
link please

Looks like you should mention "sarcasm alert" on this post

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 08 Sep 2009 12:33

Why we call debut flight, maiden flight, suhaag raat etc for the high altitude test? Wasn't it already done an HA test and fail?

The debut flight will be when it gets mounted on a Yell See Yeah and take it to the sky.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 08 Sep 2009 14:42

>>>In fact I am not quite sure what is the big deal with this "high-altitude" testing - why should the engine not work when the outside pressure is low?

I had always wondered why this frequent shuttle between Russia and India by GTRE staff...

why can't the Guvarmand set up a testbed at the Leh AFB? It will be around 20000 ft? if not anything,they can atleast do a 1 atmosphere test? and in winter, let them choke the inlet to the fan and restrict the airflow..I feel basic things can always be done.

But then GTRE may not know there is an AFB at Leh..and Air Force would have kept quiet about the existence of the base, for fear of them succeeding. Good synergy I must say.

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 08 Sep 2009 15:04

geeth wrote:>>>In fact I am not quite sure what is the big deal with this "high-altitude" testing - why should the engine not work when the outside pressure is low?

I had always wondered why this frequent shuttle between Russia and India by GTRE staff...
.

Actually this shuttle is a nice cloak to hide the co-development of the new generation engine. This engine will power the FGFA and later Moon missions. It is top secret.

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 08 Sep 2009 16:40

Business Standard has learned that Rolls Royce, and General Electric declined to partner GTRE, apparently unwilling to part with cutting-edge technology. US major, Pratt & Whitney, was willing only to provide consultancy. With only Russia’s NPO Saturn and Snecma in the game, the MoD has opted for Snecma.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isnt snecma going to provide the core? Dont think they will part with technology for that(one of the reasons the IAF rejected it) . Would have been better to go in with saturn or used P&W consultancy.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 08 Sep 2009 16:47

Kakarat wrote:Built for air force, Kaveri engine chosen by navy

Business Standard has learnt that the navy has officially informed the Gas Turbine and Research Establishment (the DRDO laboratory that developed the Kaveri) that naval warships will needs 40 Kaveri Marine Gas Turbines (KMGTs) over the next 15 years.

In an important signal of its support, the navy has agreed to fund 25 per cent of the cost of the KMGT project.

Had IAF shown such drive for indigenous development, Kaveri would have been flying today....

IAF and IA dont seem to learn from IN...

-Nitin

rudresh · Post by **rudresh** » 08 Sep 2009 16:52

will this engine ever power the LCA or it will be technololgy demonstrator for the country just like trishul sam

i think they should continue with its development and optimise it to the max

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Sep 2009 16:55

given the type of org (GTRE) is, and the resources and money they have, they have done a good job. i don't think they can do any better than what we have got from them. if you folks ask more, then pump in more money, more brains, better org structure and management. it calls for reinvestments by way of initiatives from public like us all. nothing can stop that indelible ink power.

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 08 Sep 2009 17:20

SaiK wrote:given the type of org (GTRE) is, and the resources and money they have, they have done a good job. i don't think they can do any better than what we have got from them. if you folks ask more, then pump in more money, more brains, better org structure and management. it calls for reinvestments by way of initiatives from public like us all. nothing can stop that indelible ink power.

Besides ISRO cant think of any public sector company having achieved much in a stipulated timeframe where R&D is concerned. The idea is to pump money into private enterprise instead of Govt. For every capable hardworking individual in a govt org there are 50 who just sit around doing nothing. Its the opposite in the pvt sector. It's high time we built up the pvt sector where cutting edge research needs to take place. It will take time but time and money needs to be invested in the same.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 08 Sep 2009 17:34

>>>Besides ISRO cant think of any public sector company having achieved much in a stipulated timeframe where R&D is concerned.

I don't think they have realised ANYTHING in stipulated time frame. For eg, when GSLV was delayed, nobody realised it, because satellites were sent to kourou for launch with Ariane rockets. Same with our cryo engine, satellites etc etc.

The problems encountered with GTRE is one of reliability of the products over its life cycle. This is not the case with rockets as it is one shot products - except satellites where we have considerable number of failures.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Sep 2009 17:41

nrshah wrote:
IAF and IA dont seem to learn from IN...

-Nitin

IN had no money and therefore had no other go than to build on local strengths. it was always the step-sister and the Indian leadership of old fogeys had (have?) no clue about the importance of a powerful navy as a wing of a powerful national armed forces.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 08 Sep 2009 18:17

shiv wrote:IN had no money and therefore had no other go than to build on local strengths. it was always the step-sister and the Indian leadership of old fogeys had (have?) no clue about the importance of a powerful navy as a wing of a powerful national armed forces.

Of course Shiv, but that was initial stage. Now, the way IN is supporting indigenous cause even after planners have realized its importance, it is setting an example for others to replicate.

I am just amazed to find pains IN is taking with all conventional ship yards which are already booked for commercial ships, lack of technology for reasons u mentioned, little budget, multi country sourcing, co ordination with DRDO... I can only wish IAF and IA can replicate.

-Nitin

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Sep 2009 18:42

Mayuresh wrote: 1. I wonder why we are wasting money on testing a 65kn afterburning thrust engine in Russia when the IAF specifically wants a 95kn afterburning thrust? It is not like the Russian tests are suddenly going to increase the thrust!

It is no use to toss this engine out. As one of teh articles has shown the 65KN engine can still be used for other systemS. This is not a total loss. It is a loss WRT the LCA, granted.

2. How did the GTRE claim that they had completed the development of the engine if it can produce only 65kn afterburning thrust?

Two items of interest here:
a) This engine has come in over weight and so has the LCA. So, from a "design" PoV, that is a failure - for sure. And, that has it's set of associated impacts
b) 65KN was teh designed and agreed thrust. So, from that PoV it is a success

Actually no use splitting hair at this point. Suspect the game plan be use the 65KN for naval and UAV use, and do whatever needs to be done to revive the LCA option.

3. We should learn some lessons from China who has developed 2 fighters, but both have Russian engines, in spite of the fact that the Chinese could have thrown in much more than us in terms of resources the engine development. Let GTRE come up with a TD rather than promising to fit the engines on the LCA

I think there are many arguments to this topic, including one where the Russians were willing to give everything and Non-DRDO/IAF/tech Indians (MoD?) did not accept the offer. It seems to me that India really does not need to reverse engineer or steal any thing (WRT engines). India, it seem to me, is very, very poor in project management and at times totally, absolutely lacks foresight. ????????????

Had IAF shown such drive for indigenous development, Kaveri would have been flying today....

a) when the LCA and Kaveri were conceived the tech-cycle was rather slow - it took X number of years to build an airframe and an engine, etc, etc, etc. In the recent past (5-10 years) things are moving pretty fast. I doubt anyone had the capability to foresee these set of events (even in the US, where technology moves rather fast). So, while the needs of the IAF moved, the Kaveri could not keep up with the needs. That said, I doubt India is set up to respond to quick tech moves - because India does NOT have the the support of R&D to make this happen
b) 65KN, after this Russian test, is flying - per design. It is complete. Just that NOW it does not meet the IAF's recs

My feel is that BR should push for a quick resolution of the newer kaveri for the LCA + MCA. Get Snecma in, do whatever needs to be done, and get it out in a few years, else that goal post WILL move. Cannot expect IAF to stand still for the techs to catch up.

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 08 Sep 2009 19:00

^^ As it has been pointed out many times in this & the LCA thread, the problem is with the GTRE leadership & as Rao saheb says Project Management skills. IMHO, one way to potentially solve this is problem for IAF to take a more active role in - regularly reviewing, pushing the GTRE team & forcing them to improve on their project management skills. This is something that IN seems good at doing, a pro-active approach from IAF might make a difference. my 2 cents.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Sep 2009 19:07

nrshah wrote:
shiv wrote:IN had no money and therefore had no other go than to build on local strengths. it was always the step-sister and the Indian leadership of old fogeys had (have?) no clue about the importance of a powerful navy as a wing of a powerful national armed forces.
Of course Shiv, but that was initial stage. Now, the way IN is supporting indigenous cause even after planners have realized its importance, it is setting an example for others to replicate.

I am just amazed to find pains IN is taking with all conventional ship yards which are already booked for commercial ships, lack of technology for reasons u mentioned, little budget, multi country sourcing, co ordination with DRDO... I can only wish IAF and IA can replicate.

-Nitin

IAF does seem to have changed quite a bit in recent years. not so the IA.

from showing more interest to the LCA, pre-ordering a sqdn before IOC is reached and promising at least five more, funding some of the LCH efforts from its own funds, recent activity at CABS and so on it is a long way from the "go hang yourself" attitude of the 80's and 90's. perhaps they realise that it is their stepmotherly attitude towards LCA that landed them in the falling sqdn strength mess in the first place.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Sep 2009 19:13

exactly srinivasan sahab, from what I hear much of the KMGT activity seems to be led by navy guys. they are pushing forward against all odds.

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 08 Sep 2009 19:31

question for the guru log here, as am relatively new here, does anyone in decision making roles read the many suggestions that get thrown up here? i.e. what impact do these discussions in BR have on defence, govt, policy circles?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Sep 2009 20:00

arunsrinivasan wrote:question for the guru log here, as am relatively new here, does anyone in decision making roles read the many suggestions that get thrown up here? i.e. what impact do these discussions in BR have on defence, govt, policy circles?

Assume they do and post.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 08 Sep 2009 20:34

Compustion happens with highly Kombressed hawa only no?. I really don't see how combustion chamber lighting as a piraablem. Bigger piraablem is of course afterburner lighting at altitude I think due to very low pressure.

My 6th cousin 4 times removed told me long ago that Yehoodi Hawa Fauj had issues like: zoom towards the sun to confuse infrared halal Faithfool SAM - engine flameout. I don't think that was musharraf-tandoor burnout onlee, since the issue was that if they couldn't get it re-lit, it was all finis.

You'd think even SDRE and YY should be able to convince jet fuel to catch fire, hain - but the flow moves at some speed even inside the main tandoors, even turbulent aag ki jaldi is only a few meter/s at best, so the flameholder etc. are pretty critical, and it must be possible for aag to go thanda as per the above. The "plasma jet igniter" was developed as a solution both in the musharraf-tandoor and in main tandoor. Reduces ignition delay by reducing the "rate-limiting" radical-creation step in the reaction, by dumping a lot of Ajaad Lal Kufr (phree radicals) created by sending spark across some suitable gas.

Maybe Bangalore tandoor does not have plasma igniters. This is yet another reason y they should have taken my advice and brought in pucca Ambassador Car mechanics to the Ell-See-Yay team. Very adept with gas welding torch to fix all problems.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 08 Sep 2009 21:21

NRao wrote:Quote:
Had IAF shown such drive for indigenous development, Kaveri would have been flying today....

a) when the LCA and Kaveri were conceived the tech-cycle was rather slow - it took X number of years to build an airframe and an engine, etc, etc, etc. In the recent past (5-10 years) things are moving pretty fast. I doubt anyone had the capability to foresee these set of events (even in the US, where technology moves rather fast). So, while the needs of the IAF moved, the Kaveri could not keep up with the needs. That said, I doubt India is set up to respond to quick tech moves - because India does NOT have the the support of R&D to make this happen
b) 65KN, after this Russian test, is flying - per design. It is complete. Just that NOW it does not meet the IAF's recs

I am sorry to disagree. It is about finding the measure to promote the development. Even KMGT does not satisfy the need of IN with respect to destroyers. They require some 22 Mw of power where KMGT currently delivers only 12Mw. In such situation, IN could have very well shelved its hand, like IAF from the project citing that it does not have enough power. But it still ordered around 40 of them along with 42 GTGs. 40 of them is huge figure considering naval ships hardly reach double figure mark as against few hundreds of fighters

Why can't kaveri aero could be modified for IJT? or for tank engines?? IAF and IA needs to find where the development could fit in. This way they can encourage the developers. I am sure if IRBM /ICBM were available from foreign countries - Russia/America, they would have said prithvi / Agni does not satisfy their requirements.

While this is not to justify DRDO, TALI DONO HATH SE BAJTI HAI...

-Nitin

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 08 Sep 2009 21:26

My question is...on a side note basis...why is the IAF specifying what thrust it wants from the LCA engine?
I mean, they are not the designer...they should only be specifying required performance characteristics (top speed for example) and how this is achieved (by aero redesign or by more thrust from a new engine) should be the designer/manufacturer's decision...not IAF

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Sep 2009 21:37

I am sorry to disagree.

No problem.

It is about finding the measure to promote the development. Even KMGT does not satisfy the need of IN with respect to destroyers. They require some 22 Mw of power where KMGT currently delivers only 12Mw.

You are right. No two ways about that. One: IN has done the best it can under the circumstances, and two) perhaps the 90+KN Kaveri (with Snecma?) (two of them?) will be good enough for a destroyer?

Point being that the effort is not total loss.

In such situation, IN could have very well shelved its hand, like IAF from the project citing that it does not have enough power.

Very surprised you make this argument.

IN HAS made the same argument that the IAF made: you yourself stated it: IN will NOT use it for their destroyer because it is under powered.

But it still ordered around 40 of them along with 42 GTGs. 40 of them is huge figure considering naval ships hardly reach double figure mark as against few hundreds of fighters

Really nice of them. But, IIRC the 40 is over some YEARS.

Why can't kaveri aero could be modified for IJT?

Bad fit I am told (on BR). IIRC Kaveri is too big for IJT.

or for tank engines??

Hmmm...... Cost of fuel. Support? Redesign of all our tanks? All of them? Dunno.

I would expect India to build a GOOD tank engine - doable, just cost is an issue per automotive engineers I have talked to.

IAF and IA needs to find where the development could fit in. This way they can encourage the developers. I am sure if IRBM /ICBM were available from foreign countries - Russia/America, they would have said prithvi / Agni does not satisfy their requirements.

One thing at a time? Even that being a challenge in India?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Sep 2009 21:56

Raveen wrote:My question is...on a side note basis...why is the IAF specifying what thrust it wants from the LCA engine?
I mean, they are not the designer...they should only be specifying required performance characteristics (top speed for example) and how this is achieved (by aero redesign or by more thrust from a new engine) should be the designer/manufacturer's decision...not IAF

who says they are ?
IAF has specified the performance requirements and the LCA developers realised that they can't achieve it with the kaveri.

secondly, IAF involvement if it happens in a constructive way is a good thing, not one to be scoffed at.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 08 Sep 2009 22:06

nrshah wrote:
I am sorry to disagree. It is about finding the measure to promote the development. Even KMGT does not satisfy the need of IN with respect to destroyers. They require some 22 Mw of power where KMGT currently delivers only 12Mw. In such situation, IN could have very well shelved its hand, like IAF from the project citing that it does not have enough power. But it still ordered around 40 of them along with 42 GTGs. 40 of them is huge figure considering naval ships hardly reach double figure mark as against few hundreds of fighters

Read the article carefully first, A General Electric LM2500 produces 22MW and it is not the requirement for KMGT to produce 22MW. The LM2500 is a derivative of GE CF6-6 aircraft engine, the maximum thrust of CF6-6 is 178 kN

rudresh · Post by **rudresh** » 08 Sep 2009 22:16

if cf 6 generates max thrust of 178 KN and marine version 22 MW

then marine kaveri generates 12 mw that means it gives out about 97 KN
i think 65 KN is the dry thrust of the engine

regards
Rudresh