Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Daedalus · Post by **Daedalus** » 16 Dec 2009 21:31

aditp wrote:Wallah, Grand ayatollah mullah enqoob-ud-din-al-gas-turbiney may pardon the young SDRE mujahid's haraam attempt to tread on his turf.

You see, a turbojet / turbofan engine built for high speed flight employs axial flow compressor / turbine design for their relatively low drag. However, stage compression ratio being lower, several compressor stages are required ~ which increases the length before combustion chamber.

Aft of the combustion chambers, the axial turbine extracts the bare minimum work from the garam hawa that is required to keep the compressor or the turbo pankha running. This is followed by a longish tube called jet pipe to streamline the turbulent hawa from turine exit before nozzle entry.

Jihadi logic : lesser the work taken out of the hawa by the turbiney, lesser the prejjer drop, more garam the hawa at nojjle entry, more the scope for higher thrust = halal injun perphormance.

therephore --> axial combrejjar + turbiney (more length) = halal dejine for high speed flight

Turboprop

underlying priciple : Convert as much energy to mechanical work as possible to drive large pankha - whether for hawaijahaj or helikaptar.

Now, since much leeser amount of air passes through the the injun (okay it does, but only to the extent of 10% or so), drag induced by the compressor is not mucch of an issue. So one tends to use a centrifugal compressor for more compact front end dejine. Ditto for the turbiney - again centrifugal disc type turbiney. Now remember, dejine has been made to extract as much work as possible. This means the hawa at turbine exit will be very thandha and slow speed onree. No need to stabilize the flow through a jet pipe and no nojjle.

Overall shorter dejine onree, while ensuring all power of the jihad is being routed to the pankha by a halal shaft.

If you create a turboshaft out of the Kaveri, at best the turbine will be replaced. Replacing the compressor also, will be tantamount to an all new engine. No point there. Better start a new injun project with a separate jihadi team.

Clear hain?

Yes and thank you.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Dec 2009 21:37

aditp, thanks for that lesson. I was expecting something like this given that there are very few turbofan <===> turboprop designs and none in the last couple of decades that I could find.
all turboprops/turboshafts were designed from scratch.

of course a smaller kaveri will still be useful !

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Dec 2009 22:05

there was a report by klimovs doing research on introducing plasma for increased thrust and decrease drag. any thoughts there from our halal designers?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 16 Dec 2009 22:06

Here is a picture of a modern compact turboshaft engine: T800 for helicopters.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Dec 2009 22:09

enqyoob wrote:Here is a picture of a modern compact turboshaft engine: T800 for helicopters.

originally destined for ALH, then sanctioned in the aftermath of POK2. (oops, I hear that's a swearword nowadays on BR !)

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 16 Dec 2009 22:29

SaiK wrote:there was a report by klimovs doing research on introducing plasma for increased thrust and decrease drag. any thoughts there from our halal designers?

plasmas are highly ionized mass streams. From what I recall, russian research in this area was directed at achieving fluidic thrust vectoring. ie changing the direction of plasma flow by application of electric fields.

negi · Post by **negi** » 16 Dec 2009 22:32

From what I recall such propulsion methods were employed by Ru for space craft like Zond-2 , not relevant to the area of jet propulsion or any form of propulsion system which needs to operate within earth's atmosphere.

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 16 Dec 2009 22:45

negi wrote:From what I recall such propulsion methods were employed by Ru for space craft like Zond-2 , not relevant to the area of jet propulsion or any form of propulsion system which needs to operate within earth's atmosphere.

Ion thrust engines. They provide very low thrust, but sustain it for extremely long periods of time. Months !!!!

Daedalus · Post by **Daedalus** » 16 Dec 2009 22:49

aditp wrote:
SaiK wrote:there was a report by klimovs doing research on introducing plasma for increased thrust and decrease drag. any thoughts there from our halal designers?
plasmas are highly ionized mass streams. From what I recall, russian research in this area was directed at achieving fluidic thrust vectoring. ie changing the direction of plasma flow by application of electric fields.

I think the to deflect high velocity charged particles the power requirements are enormous. We as in humans have not come across a portable power source with enough energy to achieve this in areas of high gravitational field. But in space as negi said where gravitational fields are low enough we have been using these kind of propulsion, called ion thrust engines, for quite some time now. May be in future IAF might field a star ship like aircraft carriers in the ocean, now I would like to see that.

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 16 Dec 2009 23:07

Daedalus wrote:
I think the to deflect high velocity charged particles the power requirements are enormous. We as in humans have not come across a portable power source with enough energy to achieve this in areas of high gravitational field. But in space as negi said where gravitational fields are low enough we have been using these kind of propulsion, called ion thrust engines, for quite some time now. May be in future IAF might field a star ship like aircraft carriers in the ocean, now I would like to see that.

Ion thrusters for space propulsion and fluidic thrust vectoring for jet engines are quite delinked topics. For fluidic thrust vectoring, yes the power requirements are enormous.Maybe thats why the MKI still has mechanically vectored thrust

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Dec 2009 23:10

we need gyroscopic devices or gravito-electric coupling to decrease the G eh!~

jus kidding

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 17 Dec 2009 06:35

Doesn't the Coanda effect qualify as "fluidic" thrust vectoring? In addition to this, there are several approaches for using actuators of various sorts to cause large jet deflection (actuation has to be applied close to the jet exit corners) where the control power is very small.

But these are still a bit iffy if you depend on thrust vectoring to save your life, and techniques that work in the lab under quiet, steady conditions may not work so well when there is a lot of vibration, noise etc.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Dec 2009 10:47

Rahul M wrote:
enqyoob wrote:Here is a picture of a modern compact turboshaft engine: T800 for helicopters.
originally destined for ALH, then sanctioned in the aftermath of POK2. (oops, I hear that's a swearword nowadays on BR !)

I have installed that in my Porsche.

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 18 Dec 2009 00:14

enqyoob wrote:Totally halal, sweet as the ghazals of shrilleen. But note that I am powerless, no pun intended, to save you from Pingrej-Predator Al J-Gunullah etc.

If Kabini Kore is Konverted to turboshaft, it will be like the Original George Washington Axe: new handle, new blade, new pin, but otherwise totally original. Then again, based on performance figures, one could argue that the Kabini may not be designed for a jaldi-hawa jehadi-hawai-jehaj, but may be optimized for a marine engine. JUST KIDDING!!

Rahul M wrote:aditp, thanks for that lesson. I was expecting something like this given that there are very few turbofan <===> turboprop designs and none in the last couple of decades that I could find.
all turboprops/turboshafts were designed from scratch.

of course a smaller kaveri will still be useful !

Praise be to S.M. Yahya of madarasa-i-hind-i-takneek at dilli and his fatwas in "Turbines, Compressors and Fans" - available on google books also. Provides vital concepts in extremely lucid fashion. Faint memories from sleepy lessons at SDRE institute of technology

sum · Post by **sum** » 30 Dec 2009 10:26

DRDO gets nod for French tie-up for Kaveri project

BANGALORE: The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has been given the go-ahead by the government to take up an offer of French firm Snecma to ‘partner’ with the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) for jointly developing the Kaveri aero engine.

Senior GTRE officials told The Hindu that talks with Snecma “could start early next year.” The Kaveri’s eventual user, the Indian Air Force now appears to have softened its opposition to the tie-up, they said.

The Rs. 2,839-crore Kaveri engine programme was launched in 1989, specifically to power the Light Combat Aircraft, Tejas, now under development at the DRDO’s Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA). In 2005, the GTRE indicated that it would not be able to develop the Kaveri engine on its own.

Interestingly, the government’s nod, which is expected to cost the exchequer at least Rs 1,000 crore, comes nine months after a team, headed by Air Vice-Marshal M. Matheswaran and comprising officials from the ADA, the IAF and the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, submitted a report that stated that an engine developed jointly by Snecma and the GTRE would not meet the IAF’s performance requirements. The IAF also wanted the Kaveri project delinked from Tejas programme.

According to informed sources, members of the Matheswaran team were critical of the French passing off their existing and fully developed ‘Eco’ engine core. This, the team felt, would not give India the engine core design knowledge or even control over it. It also pointed out that the design technology being handed out would take years to come.

Based on the report, the French offer was put on the backburner with even officials from Snecma stating that the “chapter was closed.” But the IAF for reasons not yet clear, appear to have reversed its stand.

Snecma, which indicated that an engine run of at least 250 is required to make their offer economically viable, agrees that an existing core would be at the heart of the Snecma – GTRE Kaveri engine.

It, however, denies it would take years for handing over the design technology. It will take at least five years before the first production engine comes out.

And the saga continues...

vina · Post by **vina** » 30 Dec 2009 10:58

sum wrote:DRDO gets nod for French tie-up for Kaveri project
And the saga continues...

Yawn... More Chai Biskoot, more trips to Phrance, more "committees" of "IAF,ADA, GTRE" and other "eminent scientists" , and declarations that it will be done in a "fast track" 3 months before the contract is signed .. Heard all this before, sounds familiar ?

Yeah .. Yeah..

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

This just confirms the old sterotypes of bureaucracies in general and the Indian Babu Monkeys in particular. With such tortured decision making , it is no wonder that mostly nothing gets done and if it all anything happens, it is something miracluous.

Bheem · Post by **Bheem** » 30 Dec 2009 11:49

By all indications this is another deal to screw the Indian tax payer. By some accounts / rumours:-

1. It is just re-labelled Snecma engine M-88-3

2. We will not set up any new labs

3. No R&D will be done in India

4. No codes will be developed in India

5. Most of the components of engine will be imported from france

6. Even spare parts will be continued to be imported from france

7. We will be paying france to Impove its engine while they will laugh at us.

8. Worse than Shakti engine deal

9. Very limited new manufacturing facilities will be set up;-

Let it be called RAPE of Indian Taxpayer

DRDO gets nod for French tie-up for Kaveri project

Ravi Sharma

Kaveri engine programme is to power LCA Tejas

“Initially, about 100 Snecma-GTRE Kaveri can be produced”

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

BANGALORE: The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has been given the go-ahead by the government to take up an offer of French firm Snecma to ‘partner’ with the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) for jointly developing the Kaveri aero engine.

Senior GTRE officials told The Hindu that talks (still talks) with Snecma “could start early next year.” The Kaveri’s eventual user, the Indian Air Force now appears to have softened its opposition to the tie-up, they said.

Interestingly, the government’s nod, which is expected to cost the exchequer at least Rs 1,000 crore.....

According to informed sources, members of the Matheswaran team were critical of the French passing off their existing and fully developed ‘Eco’ engine core.

This, the team felt, would not give India the engine core design knowledge or even control over it. It also pointed out that the design technology being handed out would take years to come.

Snecma, which indicated that an engine run of at least 250 is required to make their offer economically viable, agrees that an existing core would be at the heart of the Snecma – GTRE Kaveri engine.

It, however, denies it would take years for handing over the design technology. It will take at least five years before the first production engine comes out.

Snecma chairman and chief executive officer Philippe Petitcolin told The Hindu: “Yes we first stated a 15-year period to hand over the design technology, but now we have indicated that the technology can be given as fast as the Indians can assimilate it.” (which means can be more than 15 years also, everybody is learning from brahmos & gorky stupidity)

GTRE director Mohan Rao said the capabilities of “the existing French core will be enhanced to suit the IAF’s requirements.” Loookie lookie GTRE talking, ya we ....read french will enhance the engine, but stick us will the bill

Further comments

I say around US$ 200 million for tech

Around US$ 1000 Billion for engine parts

Around US$ 2000 billion for spare parts over 30-40 years.

And in return we get to call M-88-3 a kaveri-2. In any case this engine may not be suitable for MCA so another deal for M-88-4 + TVC.

As we already importing 100+50 engines for LCA, why not go for deep tech import which I understand has been offered by EJ, they are just asking extra money for deep tech import. Atleast that engine exists, with Snecma will be taken for a ride for 5 to 15 years before we get our hands on the tech.

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 30 Dec 2009 12:13

Ripe is the time for Grand Ayaotllah Enqyoob-Ud-Din-al-Gas-Turbiney to deliver his next sermon.
...and Vina ji to play some shrill music

Bheem · Post by **Bheem** » 31 Dec 2009 09:35

Tejas engine offset offers come in

Saturday, December 12, 2009 3:34 IST

Bangalore: European aerospace company Eurojet and America's General Electric submitted offset proposals for their bids for light combat aircraft Tejas engines to the ministry of defence on Friday, a day before the deadline expires -- December 12.The Indian government invites offset proposals from bidders of defence and civil aircraft deals.

Since the offset programme of the Indian government will require transfer of the key technology, the two aerospace companies need clearances from their respectively governments or regional economic organisations.

"In their proposal, they (Eurojet) have accepted to transfer key technology. They have also mentioned in the same note they can discuss transfer of other technologies too," the source said.

According to him, if the European engine maker offers 100% transfer of technology, the price of its bid would shoot up; "Then its bid would not be competitive."Eurojet has said it would form a joint venture with Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd or some private company to fulfill its offset obligation.

Rather than having two half baked contracts, one with Snecma for M-88-3 called kaveri-2 and another with Eurojet or say RR, better to have deep import of technology from EJ by paying extra.

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 31 Dec 2009 10:11

Bheem wrote:
Tejas engine offset offers come in

Saturday, December 12, 2009 3:34 IST

Bangalore: European aerospace company Eurojet and America's General Electric submitted offset proposals for their bids for light combat aircraft Tejas engines to the ministry of defence on Friday, a day before the deadline expires -- December 12.The Indian government invites offset proposals from bidders of defence and civil aircraft deals.

Since the offset programme of the Indian government will require transfer of the key technology, the two aerospace companies need clearances from their respectively governments or regional economic organisations.

"In their proposal, they (Eurojet) have accepted to transfer key technology. They have also mentioned in the same note they can discuss transfer of other technologies too," the source said.

According to him, if the European engine maker offers 100% transfer of technology, the price of its bid would shoot up; "Then its bid would not be competitive."Eurojet has said it would form a joint venture with Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd or some private company to fulfill its offset obligation.
Rather than having two half baked contracts, one with Snecma for M-88-3 called kaveri-2 and another with Eurojet or say RR, better to have deep import of technology from EJ by paying extra.

Yeah make that pass the muster of the 3Cs - CBI, CVC & CAG

Risk taking is a phrase that doesnt exist in the bureaucratic dictionary

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 31 Dec 2009 11:33

Bheem wrote: Rather than having two half baked contracts, one with Snecma for M-88-3 called kaveri-2 and another with Eurojet or say RR, better to have deep import of technology from EJ by paying extra.

I'd say Kaveri-2 for future MCA and off-the-shelf engine for Tejas (F-414 or EJ200) but of course no one seems to care about making products actually operational assets these days... I'm so tired with all the slow-cooking R&D programs with dubious foreign help.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 Dec 2009 14:58

sum wrote:DRDO gets nod for French tie-up for Kaveri project
And the saga continues...

IMVHO, this has little to do with the Tejas, everything to do with the MCA + MRCA - welcome Rafale (God willing!)

CM.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Dec 2009 19:21

dorai wrote: I'd say Kaveri-2 for future MCA and off-the-shelf engine for Tejas (F-414 or EJ200) but of course no one seems to care about making products actually operational assets these days... I'm so tired with all the slow-cooking R&D programs with dubious foreign help.

perhaps you will feel a little less tired if you actually read what is the current decision regarding LCA engine and not depend on half baked comments.

what you propose is the very track they are following,
GE F404IN20 for Mk1
winner of EJ-200 vs GE F414 for Mk2
Kaveri-2 for future projects
only caveat is that IFF the kaveri-2 is ready with all bells and whistles required by IAF and LCA team within the time for integration with Mk2, then it will be considered. I don't see how that is a bad step, it gives an incentive to the kaveri team to hurry up.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 31 Dec 2009 19:41

I remember IAF telling that the even the modified Kaveri is not suitable to LCA M2 I think there are also issues with regards to the French willingness to involves us in development etc. So wht we are gaining by this ??? Looks like waste of money to me.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 31 Dec 2009 20:15

Rahul M wrote:GE F404IN20 for Mk1
winner of EJ-200 vs GE F414 for Mk2
Kaveri-2 for future projects
only caveat is that IFF the kaveri-2 is ready with all bells and whistles required by IAF and LCA team within the time for integration with Mk2, then it will be considered. I don't see how that is a bad step, it gives an incentive to the kaveri team to hurry up.

If Kaveri-2 satisfies the requirements of AF then ADA could asked not to exercise the option of procuring additional 49 engines from EJ/GE. Kaveri-2 could potentially be used in the place of 414/200 for those LCA Mk-2 Trache 2 aircraft and very-real possibility of additional Mk-2 orders at a later stage .

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 31 Dec 2009 21:09

The question is then - does GTRE have the capability to step up and accomplish this task? This question is not meant to cast any aspersion to GTRE itself. However, it (the question) comes to mind based on the failures/inability to overcome technological barriers (that other nations were able to overcome) in the past 5 decades of GTREs existence. Maybe the 5 decades bit is unfair however, it must be stated since GTRE has been in existence since 1959. In this period perhaps GTRE lacked the funding to attract and retain talented people. The fact remains that in this time, GTRE has not delivered an operational (good or bad) aero-engine. The Kaveri Marine may perhaps be the silver lining of the organization's existence and therefore it maybe wise to re-focus at least a part of GTRE as a marine GTRE.

The question (and this perhaps cannot be asked too gently) is can GTRE deliver this time around, and that too in quick time? The GOI and IAF are finally showing some sense - giving GTRE the money and a chance. A BRFite should interview GTRE brass and find out. Is there a timeline for Kaveri-2 and are there defined goals and metrics to gauge success or failure. Too often we see GOI/PSUs give dates like - we will accomplish this in about 4 years. Then it changes to we will deliver by the end of next year, which becomes, by summer of next year....... GTRE must stop giving false hope. If they sense failure, then there should not be a cover up. If there is a success, it must be broadcast to all and sundry.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Dec 2009 21:20

A common thread for Boeing/LM/Snecma, WRT ToT, seems to be "IF India can absorb technologies, then .................."

I would not expect too much from them. Not because they are unwilling to part with some high tech stuff.

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 31 Dec 2009 21:45

We never learn, one more junk will be added to junk yard. Just like HF-24 under powered , over weight Tun Tun

DOnt make just buy...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Dec 2009 21:56

Narayana Rao wrote:I remember IAF telling that the even the modified Kaveri is not suitable to LCA M2 I think there are also issues with regards to the French willingness to involves us in development etc. So wht we are gaining by this ??? Looks like waste of money to me.

IAF hasn't said any such thing. they will be stupid to say something like that when the exact specification of kaveri-2 itself is not final yet.
how is developing something in-house at a fifth (conservatively tenth would be more like it) of the cost of buying engines from abroad for the next 30 years a waste of money ?

people do seriously underestimate the complexity of a modern turbofan. abroad, the designers just have to create the design and a well-oiled machinery of components manufacturers will start churning out individual pieces according to the designer's specifications. In India, not are there NO such component manufacturers, the scientists themselves have to scour everywhere on the face of the planet to get the items even to get the basic design running. expectedly few items they manage to get will match their specifications. the on-going sanctions regime doesn't help at all. no country and I mean no country wants to sell individual items that may help us make our own engine. they would rather sell the complete engines to us. what's more, no pvt manufacturer in India is ready to make a few items for a test run and the GTRE people end up doing that too, when it is not their job in any way.
what they have managed to achieve in spite of the problems is credit-worthy. it may not get a score of 100/100 but a 80/100, surely.

so yes, go ahead and cancel the $ 500 mn to 1 bn budget of kaveri, scrap the program because it is such a waste of money and best of luck spending $ 10 bn over the next 20 years buying foreign jet engines. that saves costs surely ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Dec 2009 22:01

Umrao Das wrote:We never learn, one more junk will be added to junk yard. Just like HF-24 under powered , over weight Tun Tun

DOnt make just buy...

someone reported this post. my request to that person is please read it again.
what it says is same as what most of us are saying even if worded differently. I don't find it objectionable.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 31 Dec 2009 22:09

Rahul M wrote:people do seriously underestimate the complexity of a modern turbofan.

Rahul though I can appreciate your sentiment, how many decades can we sit behind that excuse?

abroad, the designers just have to create the design and a well-oiled machinery of components manufacturers will start churning out individual pieces according to the designer's specifications. In India, not are there NO such component manufacturers, the scientists themselves have to scour everywhere on the face of the planet to get the items even to get the basic design running. expectedly few items they manage to get will match their specifications.

If tech is developed and there is a market, industry will appear.

what they have managed to achieve in spite of the problems is credit-worthy. it may not get a score of 100/100 but a 80/100, surely.

Is it? The IAF doesn't agree or does it? The IAF is not ready to accept the lower thrust Kaveri.

so yes, go ahead and cancel the $ 500 mn to 1 bn budget of kaveri, scrap the program because it is such a waste of money and best of luck spending $ 10 bn over the next 20 years buying foreign jet engines. that saves costs surely ?

What do you suggest instead? Wait 30 more years for GTRE to make a turbofan? There is a BRF saying - " either shit or get off the pot". that seems to apply to GTRE. We are prepared to give them a second chance and will hail them as heroes if they can get it done this time in 4 years.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Dec 2009 22:24

Vivek K wrote:
Rahul M wrote:people do seriously underestimate the complexity of a modern turbofan.
Rahul though I can appreciate your sentiment, how many decades can we sit behind that excuse? {when have I asked someone to sit behind that sentiment ? yes the program was seriously mismanaged but I don't see how looking at it as an abject failure (which it is not) solves our problem.}

abroad, the designers just have to create the design and a well-oiled machinery of components manufacturers will start churning out individual pieces according to the designer's specifications. In India, not are there NO such component manufacturers, the scientists themselves have to scour everywhere on the face of the planet to get the items even to get the basic design running. expectedly few items they manage to get will match their specifications.
If tech is developed and there is a market, industry will appear.
{chicken and egg problem. if, but, will happen doesn't solve the problem of the designers trying to create test items NOW does it ? very very few firms create these items, sometimes one single firm supplies to *all* western engine makers. these are not available to us.

how will demand that will 'appear' in say, 2020 solve the problem of the people trying to create an engine today ?}
what they have managed to achieve in spite of the problems is credit-worthy. it may not get a score of 100/100 but a 80/100, surely.
Is it? The IAF doesn't agree or does it? {how do you know if the IAF agrees or not ?} The IAF is not ready to accept the lower thrust Kaveri. {and so ? IAF will not accept anything below 100% of what it asked for and rightly so. GTRE has failed to achieve that but it HAS achieved something. should we simply throw it away ? what good will that do ?}
so yes, go ahead and cancel the $ 500 mn to 1 bn budget of kaveri, scrap the program because it is such a waste of money and best of luck spending $ 10 bn over the next 20 years buying foreign jet engines. that saves costs surely ?
What do you suggest instead? Wait 30 more years for GTRE to make a turbofan? { you are saying the same thing I'm, viz. the kaveri should be continued but yet you are throwing ridiculous barbs like "30 years" at me ! man you are a funny guy ! }......

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 31 Dec 2009 22:56

Rahul bhai, everyone's patience is worn thin with GTRE and the lack of visible, acceptable of progress with the Kaveri (now Kaveri-1). Since the 80s GTRE has been throwing stuff about a world class GTVX-37U or something that will be a world-class engine. Now in 2010 we are planning for K-2 with the actual status of K-1 still unknown except for the KMGT (the silver lining). Therefore it is better to restructure GTRE. The KMGT should be vigorously pursued with the IN and export. The turbofan folks should be re-organized under a proven leader (HAL engine division or some other). The IAF will have to set up a monitoring schedule with the revamped GTRE and perhaps embed some of its own folks in the team to keep it truthful and headed in the right direction and in a quick time frame.

Funny or not, the impact of this failure on the LCA program is significant.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Dec 2009 23:07

well, I would like to see out aircraft fly off with our own engines, whether they be designed at Gas Turbine Research Establishment or pindi channa engine works.

about the various promises thrown about, it's true many were over over ambitious but forget those. check the actual dates and then decide how poorly they have performed. announcing unrealistic dates was a bad tactic but that shouldn't cloud our judgement. GOI always provided subsistence funding (I heard just today that this was true till kargil. MOD (mis)managed GTRE on its own and kept DRDO out of the loop. only after kargil were they given reasonable funding. even then the money is still pittance compared to what any other country invests) secondly GTRE couldn't have predicted the impact of the tech denial regime until they actually faced the problems.
none of this factors can be ignored whatever be the legit gripe with the program. give everything its due.

at the moment, we want to have desi engines. GTRE is the only runner in that race, there is no second or third competitor. it is also reasonably close to the finish line. tell me what other solution you have ?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 01 Jan 2010 00:00

Kargil was 10 years ago. All I am saying is that if we stick with the same failed recipe, we should not expect a different result. Adding Snecma to the mix is the new part but why will the French solve the tech barrier for us? Don't they stand to gain more by making billions from selling engines to us? Or have they suddenly found their charitable inner self?

hariks · Post by **hariks** » 01 Jan 2010 01:49

"ToT as fast as GTRE can assimilate..." If GTRE is close to the latest tech and/or they have smart people this should be a matter of months rather than years. I wonder what the missing pieces are that GTRE needs
a) alloy compositions
b) process tech to make SC blades
c) design of the engine core itself
d) some CFD fundas
e) all of the above

If the answer is e, then it is disappointing and composition of GTRE itself will need to be looked into. If it is a+b, then MDNL folks have to rise to the challenge. Smart guys should be able to figure out item c by reverse engineering some other engines that we have.

I still believe that India needs to have the tech to design & manufacture competitive jet engines whether it is ready for LCA MkII time or not. MCA, other future projects all will need that kind of tech. I wonder why they don't outsource some of these problems to IITs (especially c and d if they need?)

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Jan 2010 02:34

Vivek K wrote:Kargil was 10 years ago. All I am saying is that if we stick with the same failed recipe, we should not expect a different result. Adding Snecma to the mix is the new part but why will the French solve the tech barrier for us? Don't they stand to gain more by making billions from selling engines to us? Or have they suddenly found their charitable inner self?

kargil was ten years ago, this is 2010. our firms and labs are still under sanctions, MOD still takes half a decade to clear any funding and even that trickles in.
GTRE has a working turbofan that produces 80% of its intended thrust. (*)
that is the only difference from 1999 that I can see as far as jet engine development in India is concerned.
the ingredients are same with only one having shown improvements. if you have any ideas for a new recipe with that please let us have those. IOW, what's the alternative ?

(*)one primary reason being that some materials that were needed in the project were not developed (by MDNL, not GTRE) from what I can see GTRE more or less held up its end of the burden, albeit with big delays and some cost over-run. IMHO it's not a complete success but it is as certainly not a complete failure as well, unlike what you say.

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 01 Jan 2010 09:08

Sanctions etc are all worn out excuses, No one (foreign country) with or with out sanctions is going to part with Technology.

The point is how our super duper scientists have failed to deliver period.

Heck tata today has full blown advertisement for its New truk in TOI print version

India"s First World truck
brought to you by Tata motors

Italian Design
European and Korean Engines
Mexican Chasis
Japanese and Korean Sheet metal Dies
German and American gear Boxes
Sweedish fabircation

Totally Indigenous ( tothe country in which the components were mad I believe)
Sound Horn
Ok Tata

(PS tata has experience in Trucks for eons)

Ashutosh Malik · Post by **Ashutosh Malik** » 01 Jan 2010 10:07

Hi Wishing everybody a wonderful 2010!

About this indigenous business, I would have a few points to make. Of course, this is without prejudice to the idea that India needs to be self sufficient in strategic manufacturing and technology.

1) Tata's bought out Daewoo's Truck business - so what they do in Korea is Tata. And that is what the change is about on how Indian companies are now confident about and have money to buy companies and technology wherever available and when needed.
2) No Indian company has built very heavy trucks - Indian economy really didn't need them earlier, & transporters couldnt have really afforded them as well, earlier. No business gets into something just to prove a point about how indigenous they are - they are there to make money. So now that the economy needs and supports heavy trucks, they will be brought it, manufactured, etc. etc. So if Tatas or Mahindras are getting either into buying companies or having Tie-ups and/ or importing what they can cheaper from outside they would not just go on a trip to make everything indigenous. I think we do need to go beyond this hype about import substitution. Competitive advantage is what it should be about.
3) Nothing nowadays, worldwide, is about getting it done in one place. Wherever it is cheaper it is brought from - whether it is sheets or tyres or anything else for that matter. In fact, if it helps, India is respected more in Hi Tech Manufacturing and Hi Tech Design, than China!

While I completely agree with the idea of climbing the technology ladder and having strategic sufficiency in technologies and manfucturing, we as a nation need to probably get over this trip of indigenous for every possible thing. And we need to get more self-confident about what we do and not get into a inferiority complex trip when we import something, everytime.

Best regards.

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 01 Jan 2010 10:25

no no with so many World beaters IIT graduates of superior class than MIT Caltech Stanford, Max Planck institute beater BARC...

Why need collobrations in the age of mega flop computing power of CDAC?

where did South Koreans get the tech to make trucks?
Where did Sweedish get their tech from.

Boss we are more symbolic than substance.

Public sector I can forgive because 65% reserved candidate not deserved candidates the rest My uncles and Aunts beta beti get the jobs..

No not in private sector.

Heck we need collobrators for Motor cycles, Bjaja which( boasted) largest scooter manufacturer has to go Kawasaki begging. no no not in 2000 agreed in 1950 ok tata.
latest M&M UV has American Diesel single cylinder engine, where as I have seen in Rajasthan some farmer make a truck out of Usha sationary diesel engine a falt bed truck carrying 25 plus passengers on volcanic roads at break neck speed of 15 Kmph. Thats called ingenuity and indiginous. During mansoon it (the Usha engine) may go back to pump water and irrigate.