LCA News and Discussions

parshuram · Post by **parshuram** » 27 Jun 2010 11:00

it means that other then cockpit modifications LsP 4 is already the one for weaponization etc ?

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 27 Jun 2010 16:21

Thanks for posting the aviation week interview...with people like these at helm of affairs, we are in good hands...when you are constantly ashamed of a country that produces the likes of Rundi-Dottys and Prakash Karat's, PS comes like a whiff of fresh air...

The key sentence is right there in the first paragraph of the interviewer's summary:

..(PS) says the technological knowledge gained through the Tejas program is sure to make India a force to be reckoned with in all future military plane-making missions.

That is it. Reminds me of 'concept cars' that auto companies show in trade shows - many of them never get released to production but key concepts make their way into commercial vehicles.

At the very least (this is NOT a disparaging comment on Tejas Mark I), the LCA program will be the mother of a dozen future programs that will produce outstanding aircraft...each lesson learnt should be and hopefully will be institutionalised and applied for future.

And we need leaders to do that...

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 28 Jun 2010 01:51

Air Force says DRDO stalling Tejas fighter engine.

IAF feels DRDO fronting for French engine, citing ‘joint development’.

India’s Tejas light fighter is failing to meet performance targets, largely because of an underpowered engine. And, the Indian Air Force (IAF) believes the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is actively stalling the process of choosing a new engine.

A furious IAF, which urgently needs the Tejas to replace its retiring MiG-21 squadrons, has complained in writing to the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The IAF report says that even as the Aeronautical Development Agency, or ADA — which oversees the Tejas programme — is choosing between two powerful, modern engines from the global market, the DRDO has confused the issue by throwing up a third option: An offer to resurrect its failed Kaveri engine programme, this time in partnership with French engine-maker, Snecma.

The IAF report, currently with the highest levels of the MoD, makes two points. First, since the DRDO has been unable, for over two decades, to deliver a Kaveri engine that can power the Tejas, the ongoing procurement — of either the General Electric (GE) F-414, or the Eurojet EJ200 engine — should go ahead.

The IAF’s second objection is even more damning for the DRDO: Snecma, the IAF charges, has already developed the heart of the engine it is offering, an uprated derivative of the M88-2 engine that powers the French Rafale fighter. The DRDO, therefore, will not co-develop the engine, but merely provide Snecma with an indigenous stamp. In reality, the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), the DRDO laboratory that has laboured for decades on the Kaveri, will hardly participate in any “joint development”.

Further, says a top IAF source, a Kaveri engine based on Snecma’s new core will leave the Tejas short of performance, providing barely 83-85 Kilonewtons (KN) of maximum thrust. In contrast, the GE and Eurojet engines already short-listed for selection provide 90-96 KN, a significant advantage. The source says sneaking in the underpowered Kaveri-Snecma engine through the GTRE back door will damage the LCA project.

For the IAF, the performance of the new engine is crucial. It has agreed to accept the Tejas into service as soon as the fighter obtains its Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) in December, even though the Tejas does not yet fly, climb, turn or accelerate fast enough. The IAF’s accommodation is based on a promise from the ADA that a new, more powerful engine will overcome all the Tejas’ current performance shortfalls.

Senior IAF officers explain that the DRDO needs the Tejas project to endorse the Kaveri-Snecma engine because Snecma insists on a minimum assured order of 300 engines as a precondition for partnering GTRE in “joint development”. Since India’s futuristic Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) — the other potential user of a Kaveri-Snecma engine — has not yet been sanctioned, only the Tejas programme, with some 120-140 fighters planned, provides the numbers needed for satisfying Snecma.

The IAF will buy two squadrons (42 fighters) of Tejas Mark 1, which use older GE F-404 engines. In addition, five squadrons (110 fighters) of Tejas Mark 2 are planned, which will be powered by a new engine. Given that each Tejas could go through 2-3 engines during its lifetime, the LCA Mk 2 will actually need 200-300 of the new engines.

Contacted by Business Standard, the DRDO declined to comment on the subject.

Business Standard has already reported (December 12, 2009, “Kaveri engine comes alive; will power Indian fighters”) that the MoD is backing Kaveri-Snecma as a new engine for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). That report was corroborated on May 13 by Defence Minister A K Antony, who told Parliament that the Kaveri “requires to be optimised for lower weight and higher performance so that it can be used for the Tejas and possibly for Indian next generation combat Aircraft.”

But there are mixed signals from the establishment. In the same statement, Antony also talked about the possibility of engine import. And the ADA chief, P S Subramaniam, has told Business Standard: “There are many Tejas already flying that will soon need new engines and we will use the Kaveri-Snecma engines for those. The Tejas Mark 2 will be powered by either GE F-414 or the EJ200.”

According to ADA sources, both the GE and Eurojet engines have fully met the technical requirements for the Tejas Mk 2. The Eurojet EJ200 is the more modern, lighter, flexible engine and has impressed the IAF. The GE F-414 is significantly heavier, but provides more power. The Indian tender for 99 engines (plus options) demands that all engines after the first 10 be built in India.

Rampy · Post by **Rampy** » 28 Jun 2010 02:17

^^what bull is this. ajai sahab is doing Intial Arjun on tejas and kaveri now or what???

ven though the Tejas does not yet fly, climb, turn or accelerate fast enough. The IAF’s accommodation is based on a promise from the ADA that a new, more powerful engine will overcome all the Tejas’ current performance shortfalls.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jun 2010 02:34

In a digital era, when news travels faster than digits, it is very hard to discern the truth.

Just a few days ago the story was that the (snecma based) Kaveri would be a good fit as a replacement engine for the LCA. The idea being that each LCA would have to go through a number of engines, so let us start with a GE/EADS engine and then when the time came to replace an engine use the Kaveri.

Now it seems someone wants to replace the GE/EADS with the (snecma based) Kaveri up front.

For one, IF this is true, this is another move by the French (after the proposed sale of Rafales outside the M/MRCA contest). It is laughable to expect an upfront order of 300 engines to "partner'. They are after all being paid the full amount are they not? I wonder why would a minimum number of engines matter to them? IF Snecma gets paid in full and India builds only 2 engines why would they be concerned?

OR, could it be a DRDO game?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Jun 2010 03:44

Just as I foretold,that vested interests are sabotaging Tejas' new engine with a view toward the MMRCA deal to.Time for AKA to cut the crap and listen to the IAF.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 28 Jun 2010 04:16

I wish that IAF and DRDO would act more maturely and not bicker in public like immature institutions. Over the past few months it has seemed that DRDO has delayed selecting the engine but it was assumed that the delay was due to the "MRCA dog and pony show" that will probably drag on for another decade if the past is used as a yardstick. The IAF is also involved in the MRCA and its delay. So why blame only DRDO?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 28 Jun 2010 04:18

Will LSP 6 have the revived Kaveri?

vina · Post by **vina** » 28 Jun 2010 08:13

Hmm. The IAF have a point. The engine decision should be made pronto and the MKII with the EJ200/GE F414 should be inducted in time to meet operational requirements.

However, "rejecting" the Snecma/Kaveri on the grounds that DRDO will play "no role" in the development is not exactly true. While the core might be French, the low pressure spool will be Indian. There is no two ways about it. If you want the core technology , you should have minimum number of orders to make it worthwhile. It wont be as if anyone is going to pay $1b or whatever the value is upfront to Snecma or anyone. It will get amortized over the number of engines made.

The Eurojet /GE folks have made it clear that they are not going to share any hot section technology. The French have a core, and will need an enhanced core if the UAE Rafale with it's 90KN requirements are indeed true. Maybe Snecma/Kaveri with a guaranteed joint development period of 4 years for the UAE Rafale and also LCA MKII (replacement engine) can be justified.

I think the problem is basically this. For EJ/GE to be able to guarantee the best offer (commercial,manufacturing etc) for their engines, they will need the guarantee of the selected engine for the life of the LCA. They will not set up manufacturing here otherwise.

That "guaranteeing" volumes where the fight between the IAF and GTRE is and that is what Diyar Shook Law does not talk about or lets fall between the cracks.

IAF just doesn't want to order the initial 100 engines as an import and be done with it and expose the program to future risks. The rub is in the "import 10 engines and build the rest in India".

For GTRE/DRDO, some has to make a strategy big picture call. IFF India wants a fighter engine and spin offs, we need the MCA program and guaranteed no of orders. The GTRE/Snecma engine should target the MCA and have a minimum thrust rating of 95 to 100 KN.

Best case for all will be to tell EJ/GE, look, foggedabout this 100. There is a total of close to 1500 engines on offer + spin offs over the LCA + MCA programs+ other programs. So if either of you play ball and help out with the core for the 100 KN MCA engine, you get a larger share of a larger cake. If that happens, we can safely ditch Snecma and invest in a full manufacturing line for the EJ/GE (whichever makes it) and build around it.

But that kind of thing will require the Babus and Netas to actually in the MoD take their thumbs out of their a**es and start making decisions. This is a big picture strategy call. We know the record of those monkeys there in making these sorts of calls and decisions. This is a classic kind of decision making that will tie any Boor-o-Cracy into knots. Here the Yindoos will tie their undies and dhoties into a Goridon knot that simply cannot be undone.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Jun 2010 10:00

The IAF is well justified in delinking the Mk2 engine from other programs of DRDO so that things do not get further delayed in the already delayed program.

Linking it to the perpetual in competition MMRCA , Flights of Fancy called AMCA and the still born child "Kaveri" will do nothing much then delay the Tejas Mk2 program from operational needs of IAF.

The decision for the new engine for Mk2 should have been made by March 2010 from previous reports of Ajai , lets hope sanity exists and they (MOD) takes the views of IAF and goes ahead with quick selection of suitable engine for Tejas Mk2

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 28 Jun 2010 10:59

Vipul wrote:Air Force says DRDO stalling Tejas fighter engine.

IAF feels DRDO fronting for French engine, citing ‘joint development’.

I dont know whether Ajai is batting for the IAF or Eurojet. From his blog:

The EJ200 engine, which powers the twin-engine Eurofighter, is the front-runner in the contest to power the single-engine LCA Mk 2. Also in contention is the GE F-414. In these photos, a demonstration team at the ILA 2010 in Berlin replaces a Eurofighter engine in 35 minutes.

. How could that information is available, if the said agency is stalling the programme.

India’s Tejas light fighter is failing to meet performance targets, largely because of an underpowered engine. And, the Indian Air Force (IAF) believes the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is actively stalling the process of choosing a new engine.

A furious IAF, which urgently needs the Tejas to replace its retiring MiG-21 squadrons, has complained in writing to the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The IAF report says that even as the Aeronautical Development Agency, or ADA — which oversees the Tejas programme — is choosing between two powerful, modern engines from the global market, the DRDO has confused the issue by throwing up a third option: An offer to resurrect its failed Kaveri engine programme, this time in partnership with French engine-maker, Snecma.

The IAF report, currently with the highest levels of the MoD, makes two points. First, since the DRDO has been unable, for over two decades, to deliver a Kaveri engine that can power the Tejas, the ongoing procurement — of either the General Electric (GE) F-414, or the Eurojet EJ200 engine — should go ahead.

The IAF’s second objection is even more damning for the DRDO: Snecma, the IAF charges, has already developed the heart of the engine it is offering, an uprated derivative of the M88-2 engine that powers the French Rafale fighter. The DRDO, therefore, will not co-develop the engine, but merely provide Snecma with an indigenous stamp. In reality, the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), the DRDO laboratory that has laboured for decades on the Kaveri, will hardly participate in any “joint development”.

This is not the first time this kind of report was filed. Ever since the current Chief assumed office, this trait was all over, whether it is in public meeting or throu media leak. Ofcourse media wallas might be having a good time.

Further, says a top IAF source, a Kaveri engine based on Snecma’s new core will leave the Tejas short of performance, providing barely 83-85 Kilonewtons (KN) of maximum thrust. In contrast, the GE and Eurojet engines already short-listed for selection provide 90-96 KN, a significant advantage. The source says sneaking in the underpowered Kaveri-Snecma engine through the GTRE back door will damage the LCA project.

Who is this TOP IAF source who doesnt seems to have a top. If IAF rejected the current GE engine which has similar thrust profile as insufficient for the future Mark-II, how is that Snecma-Kaveri engine could be selected if it will provide similar thrust profile. If this is the case, will it not be easy for the IAF to reject them at first go without need for any deliberations?

Of course, where it is expected that logic has a place in these type of leaked reports.

For the IAF, the performance of the new engine is crucial. It has agreed to accept the Tejas into service as soon as the fighter obtains its Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) in December, even though the Tejas does not yet fly, climb, turn or accelerate fast enough. The IAF’s accommodation is based on a promise from the ADA that a new, more powerful engine will overcome all the Tejas’ current performance shortfalls.

Only knowledgable people associated with the project knows how far this statement is true. Is it not we heard that Tejas clocked the ever fastest speed at sea level by any aircraft operated by India . Ok let me rest.

Senior IAF officers explain that the DRDO needs the Tejas project to endorse the Kaveri-Snecma engine because Snecma insists on a minimum assured order of 300 engines as a precondition for partnering GTRE in “joint development”. Since India’s futuristic Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) — the other potential user of a Kaveri-Snecma engine — has not yet been sanctioned, only the Tejas programme, with some 120-140 fighters planned, provides the numbers needed for satisfying Snecma.

As usual, it is assumed 'ulta'. Some prespective on this. At the intial stages of negotiation, it was revealed that Snecma was expecting royalty for the all the future Kaveri engines. This restriction is to limit this royalty figure.

The IAF will buy two squadrons (42 fighters) of Tejas Mark 1, which use older GE F-404 engines. In addition, five squadrons (110 fighters) of Tejas Mark 2 are planned, which will be powered by a new engine. Given that each Tejas could go through 2-3 engines during its lifetime, the LCA Mk 2 will actually need 200-300 of the new engines.

Good job.

Contacted by Business Standard, the DRDO declined to comment on the subject.

Why would you expect them to respond, if your questions are silly. On the otherwise, do you expect it will be a good slugfest if drdo jumps into the ring ?

Business Standard has already reported (December 12, 2009, “Kaveri engine comes alive; will power Indian fighters”) that the MoD is backing Kaveri-Snecma as a new engine for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). That report was corroborated on May 13 by Defence Minister A K Antony, who told Parliament that the Kaveri “requires to be optimised for lower weight and higher performance so that it can be used for the Tejas and possibly for Indian next generation combat Aircraft.”

Ah! Genius....gr8, if MOD is backing Kaveri-Snecma, why you are reporting DRDO is stalling the programme. Is it hard to understand it could have been done under the auspicious of the MOD ?

But there are mixed signals from the establishment. In the same statement, Antony also talked about the possibility of engine import. And the ADA chief, P S Subramaniam, has told Business Standard: “There are many Tejas already flying that will soon need new engines and we will use the Kaveri-Snecma engines for those. The Tejas Mark 2 will be powered by either GE F-414 or the EJ200.”

Thanks for reporting the other side of the story. As you said, it is from the establishment and not drdo alone. It is always mixed signal, gentleman, whether it is ASAT or engine.... and pls dont throw your Diplomancy 101 lecture on this too like you have done with your buddy Mathews.

According to ADA sources, both the GE and Eurojet engines have fully met the technical requirements for the Tejas Mk 2. The Eurojet EJ200 is the more modern, lighter, flexible engine and has impressed the IAF. The GE F-414 is significantly heavier, but provides more power. The Indian tender for 99 engines (plus options) demands that all engines after the first 10 be built in India.

You are now doing the job for the IAF, huh ? Can this not be called as 'fronting' for the Eurojet by IAF and you and you are not hand wringing the system throu forced media leaks to foreclose the outocme?

Sir, are you into your old ways? I was expecting much better from you, Sir!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Jun 2010 11:08

Kanson wrote:[

<SNIP>

India’s Tejas light fighter is failing to meet performance targets, largely because of an underpowered engine. And, the Indian Air Force (IAF) believes the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is actively stalling the process of choosing a new engine.

A furious IAF, which urgently needs the Tejas to replace its retiring MiG-21 squadrons, has complained in writing to the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The IAF report says that even as the Aeronautical Development Agency, or ADA — which oversees the Tejas programme — is choosing between two powerful, modern engines from the global market, the DRDO has confused the issue by throwing up a third option: An offer to resurrect its failed Kaveri engine programme, this time in partnership with French engine-maker, Snecma.

The IAF report, currently with the highest levels of the MoD, makes two points. First, since the DRDO has been unable, for over two decades, to deliver a Kaveri engine that can power the Tejas, the ongoing procurement — of either the General Electric (GE) F-414, or the Eurojet EJ200 engine — should go ahead.

The IAF’s second objection is even more damning for the DRDO: Snecma, the IAF charges, has already developed the heart of the engine it is offering, an uprated derivative of the M88-2 engine that powers the French Rafale fighter. The DRDO, therefore, will not co-develop the engine, but merely provide Snecma with an indigenous stamp. In reality, the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), the DRDO laboratory that has laboured for decades on the Kaveri, will hardly participate in any “joint development”.
This is not the first time this kind of report was filed. Ever since the current Chief assumed office, this trait was all over, whether it is in public meeting or throu media leak. Ofcourse media wallas might be having a good time.

<SNIP>

Which trait are you talking about here? And how is news report related to the ACM's Office? Can you susbtantiate your assertion or are we expected to put up with your flights of fancy?

It is quite obvious that you've nothing to add to the discussion or present an analysis or counterpoint but must indulge in mud slinging. Please argue on the merits of the case and not some primal urge to throw mud at the Services at the first opportunity.

BTW, considering the content and out-of-context reply, that smiley is in real bad taste.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 28 Jun 2010 11:20

rohitvats wrote:
It is quite obvious that you've nothing to add to the discussion or present an analysis or counterpoint but must indulge in mud slinging. Please argue on the merits of the case and not some primal urge to throw mud at the Services at the first opportunity.

How you come to know that it is on the primal urge to throw mud at the Services that too at the first opportunity ? Can you susbtantiate your assertion or are you expected me to put up with your flights of fancy everytime you wanted to show your loyalty to the Services? Are you not bordering on the slight of indecency just becoz my view point is different from yours. Care to explain ?

BTW, considering the content and out-of-context reply, that smiley is in real bad taste.

Gr8, you have the option to ignore.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Jun 2010 12:02

Kanson wrote:
rohitvats wrote:
It is quite obvious that you've nothing to add to the discussion or present an analysis or counterpoint but must indulge in mud slinging. Please argue on the merits of the case and not some primal urge to throw mud at the Services at the first opportunity.

How you come to know that it is on the primal urge to throw mud at the Services that too at the first opportunity ? Can you susbtantiate your assertion or are you expected me to put up with your flights of fancy everytime you wanted to show your loyalty to the Services? Are you not bordering on the slight of indecency just becoz my view point is different from yours. Care to explain ?

I see that you've very conviniently side stepped the question asked of you - Let me repeat in case you missed out the first time - Which trait are you talking about here? And how is news report related to the ACM's Office? Can you susbtantiate your assertion or are we expected to put up with your flights of fancy?

If you actually had any logical reason reason to write ^^^ and back up the same with facts or even assertions, you'd have answered the question - the fact that you don't, shows the urge to write something - even random to bash the services. When challenged - all you do is write more nonsense in defence of nonsense you wrote first.

As for the loyalty to the services - the fact you bring up this point shows the parochial mindset and associated reasoning. And how you treat a debate.

What likes of you forget on either side of the debate is that it is not about Services or DRDO+Scientific Community - it is about the country. But somehow, we need to take sides with either - no matter what. Why can't the discussion be on the merit of the case at hand? Is that too hard to follow?

As for the different POV, can you show me what is my POV on the discussion at hand? Did you come across any post from me on the current news item? I am asking you for your reason(s) to write what you wrote - which you've not cared to put forth - because I doubt there are any except for writing for the sake of it.

Asking you or someone (posters on BRF) to be more cautious when making allegations against Services and that too against the Office of ACM in this case, is not an indication of my POV on the subject at hand - it is basic courtsey which needs to be extended to the every human being, no matter what his standing in the society or whether he wears OG to work or civilian clothes.

This is the crux of the matter here - entrenched positions which polarize every debate and makes it "Us versus Them" - where Us or Them are Defense Services or the DRDO, depending on the association - direct or otherwise. Why can't a news item or point of argument be discussed and debated on the merit of case at hand - without first ascribing motive(s) to either party and bringing in the historical baggage?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 28 Jun 2010 14:06

rohitvats wrote:
Kanson wrote: How you come to know that it is on the primal urge to throw mud at the Services that too at the first opportunity ? Can you susbtantiate your assertion or are you expected me to put up with your flights of fancy everytime you wanted to show your loyalty to the Services? Are you not bordering on the slight of indecency just becoz my view point is different from yours. Care to explain ?
I see that you've very conviniently side stepped the question asked of you - Let me repeat in case you missed out the first time - Which trait are you talking about here? And how is news report related to the ACM's Office? Can you susbtantiate your assertion or are we expected to put up with your flights of fancy?

If you actually had any logical reason reason to write ^^^ and back up the same with facts or even assertions, you'd have answered the question - the fact that you don't, shows the urge to write something - even random to bash the services. When challenged - all you do is write more nonsense in defence of nonsense you wrote first.

As for the loyalty to the services - the fact you bring up this point shows the parochial mindset and associated reasoning. And how you treat a debate.

What likes of you forget on either side of the debate is that it is not about Services or DRDO+Scientific Community - it is about the country. But somehow, we need to take sides with either - no matter what. Why can't the discussion be on the merit of the case at hand? Is that too hard to follow?

As for the different POV, can you show me what is my POV on the discussion at hand? Did you come across any post from me on the current news item? I am asking you for your reason(s) to write what you wrote - which you've not cared to put forth - because I doubt there are any except for writing for the sake of it.

Asking you or someone (posters on BRF) to be more cautious when making allegations against Services and that too against the Office of ACM in this case, is not an indication of my POV on the subject at hand - it is basic courtsey which needs to be extended to the every human being, no matter what his standing in the society or whether he wears OG to work or civilian clothes.

This is the crux of the matter here - entrenched positions which polarize every debate and makes it "Us versus Them" - where Us or Them are Defense Services or the DRDO, depending on the association - direct or otherwise. Why can't a news item or point of argument be discussed and debated on the merit of case at hand - without first ascribing motive(s) to either party and bringing in the historical baggage?

In this long post did you care to answer my Q of how you come to know that i'm throwing mud with the primal urge at the first instance ? Do you know what trait i'm talking about ? How is that without knowing what trait i'm talking abt you rushed at the first instance to smear me as i'm throwing mud with primal urge ? Are you not bringing some kind of baggage of history here? Is that not the correct way forward is to tender an apology for this indiscretion before attemtping to get a clarification on the trait i'm referring?

While broadly, i'm not disagreeing to what you trying to say, your attempt on moral lecturing of what to do or not to and how the argument to be conducted on the merit basis, etc would have gained credit in the eyes of people like me, if you have shown that by examples or lived by your words. In order the cut the verbose, and to be simple and effective in putting my point, let me quote you words from another thread with your permission.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 93#p895793

"I'm no expert on these matters.", "I comment only as far as I know - and I make doubly sure about the facts before posting."

Saying this, you lectured, "That is all I ask of everyone." and then went to add...

"The question is - then why tom-tom the mythical short and unpaved runway performance of C-17?"

In return, may i ask, how is that while declaring youself as not an expert on these matters and asking everybody to follow your example, suddenly made a U turn to say C-17 short unpaved runway performance is "mythical". To use such strong words and describe that as myth, you must either be an expert armed with data or a Boeing representative. Are you making an argument based on facts ? If you are not an expert why you are taking such strong position.

So my advice to you is go easy on this moral posturing. If you really want everyone to take your word seriously and you intended to make a difference, then live by example before giving this kind of lecture. Yes, we know, ACM is a human being and criticizing is part of life and we do that in day to day life and it doesnt mean that we are not giving respect where it is due. Thanks for patiently reading my reply. At the sametime, i'm looking forward for a cordial relationship with you and everyone.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 28 Jun 2010 14:08

Vivek K wrote:Will LSP 6 have the revived Kaveri?

There is a possibility. At least in one instance, an official remarked of trying to put Kaveri as early as possible.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 28 Jun 2010 14:11

PratikDas wrote: Mrinal has mentioned earlier that a lot has been already been achieved and Aroor's post seems to tangentially acknowledge that with a meagre "radar has begun development in the country". The Tx/Rx module is to the AESA as the single crystal blade is to the Kaveri.

May be we should request Mr. Mrinal saab, to explain his views on this. Sir will you indulge...

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Jun 2010 14:55

Kanson wrote: In this long post did you care to answer my Q of how you come to know that i'm throwing mud with the primal urge at the first instance ? Do you know what trait i'm talking about ? How is that without knowing what trait i'm talking abt you rushed at the first instance to smear me as i'm throwing mud with primal urge ? Are you not bringing some kind of baggage of history here? Is that not the correct way forward is to tender an apology for this indiscretion before attemtping to get a clarification on the trait i'm referring?

This is quite hilarious - in case there was substance in what you wrote (and which I questioned), all you had to do was write couple of lines with your data-points or anecdotes and that would have been end of it. If what you'd posted had merit and substance, it would have easily shown me in bad light, no?

But as I see, the answer is still not forthcoming - you're reinforcing the image here and not providing arguments to the contrary. So, please get down from the high horse and put your money where your mouth is.

As for me bringing in some kind of baggage - my position is amply clear and has been articulated by me quite clearly. So, no need to second guess what my motives here - they are pretty explicit.

While broadly, i'm not disagreeing to what you trying to say, your attempt on moral lecturing of what to do or not to and how the argument to be conducted on the merit basis, etc would have gained credit in the eyes of people like me, if you have shown that by examples or lived by your words. In order the cut the verbose, and to be simple and effective in putting my point, let me quote you words from another thread with your permission.

So, if someone asks you to be more cautious in your posting spree it becomes moral lecture? A bit touchy, are we?

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 93#p895793

"I'm no expert on these matters.", "I comment only as far as I know - and I make doubly sure about the facts before posting."

Saying this, you lectured, "That is all I ask of everyone." and then went to add...

"The question is - then why tom-tom the mythical short and unpaved runway performance of C-17?"

In return, may i ask, how is that while declaring youself as not an expert on these matters and asking everybody to follow your example, suddenly made a U turn to say C-17 short unpaved runway performance is "mythical". To use such strong words and describe that as myth, you must either be an expert armed with data or a Boeing representative. Are you making an argument based on facts ? If you are not an expert why you are taking such strong position.

Well, first and foremost, you've made those quotes out of context - but then I don't expect much. If this is how you debate - by twisting the posts, well, guess there is not much one can do.

Secondly, in case you don't know something does not mean others don't too - so, stop second guessing me what I know and don't. In case you're interested in C-17 unpaved runway performance, ask the question in C-17 forum and it will be answered.

So my advice to you is go easy on this moral posturing. If you really want everyone to take your word seriously and you intended to make a difference, then live by example before giving this kind of lecture. Yes, we know, ACM is a human being and criticizing is part of life and we do that in day to day life and it doesnt mean that we are not giving respect where it is due. Thanks for patiently reading my reply. At the sametime, i'm looking forward for a cordial relationship with you and everyone.

You really crack me up - rather than answering the question asked of you and settling the debate for once and all, you dig up a post of mine and try to somehow discredit me? The fact that it has no relevance to the debate at hand and how all this originated is lost to you - and that "moral lecturing" (as you put it) and questioning someone (me) on data points is completely different? That one post (yours) is about BS passing of as fact while mine, in case it is wrong (which it is not), it getting the facts incorrect? And that you've quoted the whole thing out-of-context is but a insignificant fact.

Desperate attempt to preserve H&D, is it?

vic · Post by **vic** » 28 Jun 2010 16:38

vina wrote:Cross posting from LCA thread.

However, "rejecting" the Snecma/Kaveri on the grounds that DRDO will play "no role" in the development is not exactly true. While the core might be French, the low pressure spool will be Indian. There is no two ways about it. If you want the core technology , you should have minimum number of orders to make it worthwhile. It wont be as if anyone is going to pay $1b or whatever the value is upfront to Snecma or anyone. It will get amortized over the number of engines made.

The Eurojet /GE folks have made it clear that they are not going to share any hot section technology. The French have a core, and will need an enhanced core if the UAE Rafale with it's 90KN requirements are indeed true. Maybe Snecma/Kaveri with a guaranteed joint development period of 4 years for the UAE Rafale and also LCA MKII (replacement engine) can be justified.

IIRC It seems that core will be from France and LP will be new developed in France & inspired by Indian Kaveri. Reads as everything will be French.Also IIRC EJ offered Single Crystal tech, deep ToT and or help in Kaveri for extra moolah. And in any case, French are also not doing ii for cheap. I have been saying for some time that some of the so called JVs are single vendor / non tender imports.DRDO & IAF should invite both EJ & Snecma for competitive bids and ask the total price for all our related requirements being:-

1. LCA Mark2 engine

2. Deep ToT plus tech like Single crystal, blisk, TBC etc

3. New Kaveri

4. Kaveri off shoots

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 28 Jun 2010 16:49

Does this mean the Kaveri-Snecma is ToT to a greater extend even when only for the core as explained by Vina? A ToT would make economic sense only if there is a large order to reduce the unit cost.

If we are paying for the technology why should the number of engine ordered matter to Snecma. Doesn't that sound fishy?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jun 2010 18:25

Please continue Kaveri (Snecma) related discussion in the Kaveri thread.

Thx.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 28 Jun 2010 20:40

Kanson wrote:
Vipul wrote:Air Force says DRDO stalling Tejas fighter engine.

IAF feels DRDO fronting for French engine, citing ‘joint development’.
this has to be read in conjunction with this article.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2009/12/ ... power.html
But, unexpectedly, the Kaveri has gotten off the floor. Business Standard has learned that the MoD --- apprehending that Eurojet and GE would hang back from providing India with critical engine technologies, even if Transfer of Technology (ToT) was mandated in a purchase contract --- now wants to co-develop an engine in India rather than manufacturing one under licence. The DRDO’s Gas Turbine and Research Establishment (GTRE), which has a design partnership with French engine-maker, Snecma, has been asked to design a more powerful Kaveri successor.

A Snecma-GTRE joint venture to develop the upgraded Kaveri is likely to be announced during President Nikolas Sarkozy’s visit to India in early 2010.

Minister of State for Defence, Dr Pallam Raju, has confirmed to Business Standard, “It is important for India to have indigenous capabilities in engine design. And having invested so many man-hours of work into the design of the Kaveri engine, it would be a national waste to fritter away or dilute those capabilities…. (Snecma) is willing to co-develop an engine with us; they are willing to go beyond just transfer of technology. It is a value-added offer that gives us better technology than what we would get from ToT from Eurojet or GE.”

Amongst the key engine technologies that India needs is that for Single Crystal Blades, which significantly enhance turbine performance within the incandescent confines of a jet engine combustion chamber. The MoD suspects that this technology, worth billions of dollars, will not be fully transferred by Eurojet or by GE.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 28 Jun 2010 20:42

rohitvats wrote: Desperate attempt to preserve H&D, is it?

Well, you can anytime call my bluff by tendering an apology for the broadside you committed...

in case you don't know something does not mean others don't too - so, stop second guessing me what I know and don't.

All i'm asking is to follow your own words...this fracas started becoz your attempt to second guess me...

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 28 Jun 2010 21:18

On the AESA front for the LCA...some perspective...

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/01/in ... craft.html

Air Chief Marshal PV Naik, in his first interaction with the ADA last year, seemed to nitpick on indigenous radar capability, more than anything else when it came to the topic of the MCA. Sources say he was deeply incensed when given a brief on the Multi-mode Radar (MMR), pioneered by the Electronics Research & Development Establishment (LRDE) for the LCA Tejas programme. In a chat with the director of the ADA, he said the next aircraft that the agency designed and built, needed to be centred around an Indian active array combat radar. In fact, the LRDE has already proposed a second radar (deriving from the MMR) for the MCA, with technological spin-offs currently being gleaned from its partnership with Israel's Elta. But Naik didn't buy that. He said it didn't matter what the DRDO was learning from who at this stage. When it came down to putting the nails in, he said he wanted a fully Indian radar on the MCA.

While configuration fructifies, the following work has begun on the MCA in full earnest: DARE, Bangalore has appointed a special team to begin identifying avionics and cockpit packages for the first prototype vehicle, and will supply this in published form to the ADA by July 2010. This will include cockpit electronics, cockpit configuration, man-machine interface, mission console systems and computers/software with a focus on data fusion and modular architecture. The LRDE will, in about the same time frame, provide a separate project proposal for an all new radar, to be re-designated for the MCA, as a derivative of the MMR currently being completed with technology from Israel's ELTA. LRDE will independently look in the market for a partner for active array technology, though it communicated to ADA in June 2009 that it had sufficient R&D available to build a reliable AESA prototype with assistance from Bharat Electronics Ltd and two private firms based in Hyderabad.

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 29 Jun 2010 00:25

I remember a team had come from Pratt & Whitney and examined Kaveri and commented "the design is 100% pure Indian". Ofcourse they did not help us with the remedies to overcome the problems engine had then faced. That comment was enthralling though not a happy one. It meant the Indians could reinvent the wheel. The time frame of development is geometrically narrowing, in the sense, 0 to 1.5% development consumes "X" time and 50% to 100% also consumes just "X" time. But 1.5% to approximately 50% consumes "5X" time. We are nearer to 50% capabilities, we are just one "X" time away from success. We had shown that in the space science.

Those who lament failure may be stating the "TRUTH", but they are not helping. Be patient, encourage the losing boxer in the ring, he is taking all the blows and still fighting. The brighter quality in him is "He refuses to quit even in the face of defeat"

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 29 Jun 2010 01:32

The IAF has a very valid point. The initial induction of the Tejas should not be held hostage to the Kaveri.

When and if the Kaveri is up and running, the next Mk of Tejas could incorporate it. This program has suffered too many delays. The bird needs to be i the end-user's hand soon to have any meaning.

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 29 Jun 2010 01:56

In a way my arguments are not related to the topic. MiG 29 had entered service, seen upgrades and will eventually be phased out with out seeing combat in the Pakistani or Chinee airspaces. We are destined to survive with out the use of even half the potentiality of our Army / Navy / Air Force. No politician between MMS and Rahul has the requisite steel balls and spine to wage a war, and that is true for the next 50 years atleast, even if 1000 Kargils 10000 Parliament attacks and a miilion Mumbai attacks take place. It is not important to see the quick entry of Tejas in the service of IAF to be later maintained by cannibalisation; but it is essential to see Tejas entering real combat with assured service spares and indigenous maintenance. The Tejas is not likely to be battle tested in the near foreseeble future of 50 years, with our kind of politicians. So why not allow Kaveri take its own time and help indigenous capability???? EJ200 or 414 will definitely delay Kaveri's prospects, in fact they may kill Kaveri alltogether.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Jun 2010 02:03

Telang wrote:I remember a team had come from Pratt & Whitney and examined Kaveri and commented "the design is 100% pure Indian".

Can you tell what time frame was that visit. Lot of these visit is to access the Indian capabilities and then to tighten controls further so that India will never get the right 'enabling' know how. There is long term focus on India to deny the critical 'know how'. Also there is hel to PRC to keep up with India and maybe even ahead of India - space/nuke

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 29 Jun 2010 02:18

Acharya wrote:
Telang wrote:I remember a team had come from Pratt & Whitney and examined Kaveri and commented "the design is 100% pure Indian".
Can you tell what time frame was that visit. Lot of these visit is to access the Indian capabilities and then to tighten controls further so that India will never get the right 'enabling' know how. There is long term focus on India to deny the critical 'know how'. Also there is hel to PRC to keep up with India and maybe even ahead of India - space/nuke

IIRC, the Pratt and Whitney team's visit was on our behest, and it was a very short visit. The news item suggested that even the hosts were surprised of the quick return of the team. Your conjecture on their hidden agenda could be right.

As for "denial of critial know how", the original question is who gave the Boings, Pratt & Whitneys and Rolls Royce the "knwhow" in the first place?? They learnt the knowhow themselves, and if that is true, we can also give ourselves the knowhow. I dont think God has been so partial that all the intelligence and knowhow are reserved for the Western brains, and rest of the world should only get it when they condescend to pass on the same. I am always happy whenever knowhow is denied, because that exactly has been the context which forced us to develop the knowhow ourselves.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 29 Jun 2010 02:24

I remember a team had come from Pratt & Whitney and examined Kaveri and commented "the design is 100% pure Indian". Ofcourse they did not help us with the remedies to overcome the problems engine had then faced. That comment was enthralling though not a happy one. It meant the Indians could reinvent the wheel. The time frame of development is geometrically narrowing, in the sense, 0 to 1.5% development consumes "X" time and 50% to 100% also consumes just "X" time. But 1.5% to approximately 50% consumes "5X" time. We are nearer to 50% capabilities, we are just one "X" time away from success. We had shown that in the space science.

I thought they were from GE...An article was published some ago referring to a visit made by leading US designers. (Paraphrasing here) They pulled their best designers, even the ones that were in retirement and had them come down to BGL to look at "Kaveri". Apparantly instructions were issued to just look at see but not offer any suggestions. They looked at the engine and made some general comments about the soundness of the design but nothing more...and went back.

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 29 Jun 2010 02:41

@ Telang

Future scenario building works on the principle of 'think of the best, but be prepared for the rest'. There are chances that we may not face any war in the next 50 years. However, at the same time, there are chances that we might end up facing a war on the Northern as well as the Western border simultaneously. One has to think about all types of scenarios, while formulating the key strategic policies of the country.

In my humble opinion, decoupling the Kaveri program with LCA is a very prudent and a pragmatic step. This will make sure that our Air Force gets the much needed LCAs on time. When the Kaveri engine is ready, it can always be used in AMCA. Moreover, who knows after using LCA for sometime, our Air Force may feel the need of ordering more of these cute killers. Kaveri (if ready) can also be used for these follow on orders of LCA.

Furthermore, so far there has been no indication from any quarter that suggests that Kaveri program is going to be killed. It has just finished its tests in Russia successfully. Variants of Kaveri are going to be used by our Navy and they can also be used by Railways, UAVs etc. We also know that India is trying to increase kaveri's thrust with Snecma's help. So let is leave it here itself. There is no point in going overboard and assuming that Kaveri program will be killed.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2010 02:56

Telang,

No one is saying that the Kaveri (team) should not be given support.

However, if this team is on life support that does not mean that LCA should be placed on life support. Granted that the ideal situation should be LCA + Kaveri, but that is an ideal situation. No use mixing the two totally different issues - for the LCA can survive without the Kaveri for some time to come. De-link them. Else the Kaveri could drag the LCA down with it - note that India does not have complete capability to whatever she pleases when it comes to air craft engines. On P&W - they did not have to come all that way to tell us that the sun rises from the East. "the design is 100% pure Indian" - sure, without a proper core to support the LCA? That statement by itself has no meaning WRT the final Kaveri.

On the MiG-29 and politicians - I am not too sure what you are stating. MiG-29 were used (Kargil) as far as I know. Besides their never being used - that is good. That is how insurance policies work - pay a monthly premium and hope you do not have to use the policy. On politics - change the party in power!!

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 29 Jun 2010 03:33

I re-read my own posts.

I did not mention any thing about Kaveri project being shelved or etc.; of course the project will go on. If EJ200 and 414 are blocked, the Kaveri project will move on much, much faster.

In the meanwhile the Tejas can move from Mark II to Mark XX on 404 engine, upgrading avionics, radar, ECM, ECCM, Air Frame, weapon systems, other varients etc., with out going into serial production, that way Tejas moves on and Kaveri too moves on till both are suited to each other.

I believe India shall acquire the capabilities to produce its own aero-engine. I modify NRao's statement: "note that India does not have complete capability to whatever she pleases when it comes to air craft engines." partially by restating "Yes, as on today India does not have complete capability when it comes to air craft engines, but the country would soon develop that capability."

I rest my arguments here, any more responses from me will be boring and purely argumentative. I stated my stand and respect the disagreement.

Thanks for the engagement.

Telang

negi · Post by **negi** » 29 Jun 2010 05:29

Why make the Kaveri team scape goats when the elephant responsible for the mess is 'Gobermund'. The very fact that GTRE has to run to CIAM Moscow for exploratory high altitude tests shows the kind of seriousness this entire project is being run with. All this talk of JV with SNECMA is fine and dandy (btw is it JV or just consulting ?) . My question is where is our in house equivalent of CIAM Moscow ? If we do not have a full fledged test rig and associated facility established in India , where and how will the new engine be developed in India ? If the engine has to be shipped overseas for exploratory altitude tests then we will be only adding more time to already delayed engine programme. We are already sourcing the turbine blades from SNECMA going to CIAM for high altitude testing HTF will we achieve self reliance in TF engine development if we don't even have test facilities to test an already built engine ?

The 'entity' responsible for IAF's procurement goofups and delay in domestic weapons development is our Gobermund , it makes little sense to pitch IAF and DRDO against each other over this issue. GTRE unlike a private entity cannot float a RFP to OEMs to set up a wind tunnel and associated facility for engine development nor does it have the financial muscle to rope in foreign consultants to solve the outstanding issues and add to that every decision that it takes will have to be approved in triplicate by Gobmint .

To substantiate even if we assume DRDO agrees for the option to let Tejas MKII be powered with GEF414/EJ200 I am pretty sure Gobmint will take ages to finalize and sign a deal with one of the aforementioned entities (unless F414 comes via FMS) , Kaveri will be dragged along and IAF would have to be contend itself with incremental order of MKIs .

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 29 Jun 2010 10:37

GUYS, THIS IS LCA THREAD.

please discuss poor Kaveri in its respective ("Kaveri & aero-engine discussion") thread.

Vikram W · Post by **Vikram W** » 29 Jun 2010 10:52

Also remember here that the Shakti engine put in the Dhruv helicopter was also a total Snecma engine , with only an Indian name. who are these ppl fooling ?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Jun 2010 11:08

Telang wrote:
As for "denial of critial know how", the original question is who gave the Boings, Pratt & Whitneys and Rolls Royce the "knwhow" in the first place?? They learnt the knowhow themselves, and if that is true, we can also give ourselves the knowhow.

They got it after the during the WWII and after the war from the german designs. THey had to start somewhere. India has to do similar things.

History of aircraft engines

1633: Lagari Hasan Çelebi took off with what was described to be a cone shaped rocket and then glided with wings into a successful landing
1848: John Stringfellow made a steam engine capable of powering a model, albeit with negligible payload
1903: The Wright brothers commissioned Charlie Taylor to build an inline aeroengine (12 horsepower) for the Wright Flyer
1906:Traian Vuia flew his first airplane "Vuia I" at Montesson on 18 March, achieving the first ever "only by on-board means" flight, without any "outside assistance", be it an incline, rails, a catapult, etc.
1908: René Lorin patents a design for the ramjet engine
1909: Roger Ravaud' Gnôme rotary engine in Henry Farman's aircraft won the Grand Prix for the greatest non-stop distance flown - 180 kilometres (110 mi) - and created a world record for endurance flight
1910: Henri Coanda displays the first jet powered aircraft at the second International Aeronautic Salon in Paris; he also tries to pilot the jet aircraft however he crashlands.
1911: Adams-Farwell's rotary engines powered fixed-wing aircraft in the US
1916: Auguste Rateau suggests using exhaust-powered compressors to improve high-altitude performance, the first example of the turbocharger.
1930: Frank Whittle submitted his first patent
1938: The German Heinkel HeS 3 turbojet propels the Heinkel He 178 into the air
1939-1942: The world's first turboprop - the Jendrassik Cs-1 - is designed by the Hungarian mechanical engineer György Jendrassik
1944: Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet, the world's first rocket propelled aircraft deployed
1947: Bell X-1 rocket propelled aircraft exceeds the speed of sound
1948: the first turboshaft engine, the 100 shp 782. In 1950 this work was used to develop the larger 280 shp (210 kW) Artouste
1949: The Leduc 010 the world's first ramjet powered aircraft flies
1950(late): Rolls-Royce Conway, the world's first production turbofan, enters service
1960s: TF39 high bypass turbofan enters service delivering greater thrust and much better efficiency

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Jun 2010 11:16

Telang wrote:The Tejas is not likely to be battle tested in the near foreseeble future of 50 years, with our kind of politicians. So why not allow Kaveri take its own time and help indigenous capability????

This kind of thinking is symptomatic malaise and is root of conflicts between different stake holders. This post should be archived for posterity and referred back to when ever there is a issue.

I dont think any thing really needs to be said in terms of critiquing the above, so self damning it is.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 29 Jun 2010 12:43

Sanku wrote:
Telang wrote:The Tejas is not likely to be battle tested in the near foreseeble future of 50 years, with our kind of politicians. So why not allow Kaveri take its own time and help indigenous capability????
This kind of thinking is symptomatic malaise with DRDO and is root of conflicts. This post should be archived for posterity and referred back to when ever there is a issue.

I dont think any thing really needs to be said in terms of critiquing the above, so self damning it is.

If you care, the same thinking was expressed by non other than Ajai Shukla himself during the Arjun/T-90 saga several years before when he identified himself as Arjun basher. This is not to do with DRDO or Army but emanated from the way Government/Politicians thinks and acts. Thats what Mr. Telang tried to imply when he refers the politicians from MMS to Rahul....as further this article captures http://www.newsinsight.net/archivedebat ... recno=2004

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Jun 2010 12:58

So Ajai Shulka said it, wow I am impressed, he also thinks that DRDO should not talk because "log kya kahenge" (what will people say) and quotes Matthew Hoey (of whom we should all be in awe of no doubt) to buttress the fact.

I am amazed that PoV can even be held. It should count for criminal negligence.