LCA News and Discussions

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 01 Oct 2010 00:12

AFAIK, the EPE (Enhanced Performance Engine) is the one with 15% extra thrust. The EDE offers enhanced durability and less fuel consumption only.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 01 Oct 2010 01:09

American engine to power LCA - Ajai Shukla

...
In the initial commercial bids, opened in mid-September, Eurojet ($666 million) had bid lower than GE ($822 million). But, after two weeks of intensive evaluation by a defence ministry price negotiating committee, GE has been ruled the cheaper option.
...
DRDO insiders say the price negotiating committee held several meetings for clarifications with Eurojet and GE representatives since the commercial bids were opened. After factoring in these clarifications, the GE engine was found to be cheaper.
...

Top DRDO officials emphatically reject any suggestion that US pressure had resulted in turning around the decision in favour of GE. “We had to factor in several expenses that the companies had not included in their bids. This is not surprising, since this was an extremely complex bidding process. But, after we evaluated and added in all expenses, GE was the cheaper vendor,” said a senior DRDO official.
...
...
Eurojet has not given up hope. Said Eurojet Business Development Executive Paul Herrmann: “We remain optimistic about this tender. Over the next year, I believe the Indian defence ministry will encounter problems in obtaining US sanctions for transfer of technology relating to the GE engine. And, if GE fails to meet these Indian requirements, the contract will come to us.”
...
...
Defence ministry indicate that negotiations with GE will continue at least until mid-2011. Thereafter, the US company would be given 121 days (plus an allowable extension of two months) to obtain permission from the US government to transfer technology to build the engine in India.

Wow, a delay of 1 year at the least!! And if the US govt declines the ToT permission, then back to drawing board again, and EJ will then definitely jack up the price! Not to mention the time taken to redo the design for EJ200 at that time!

Nirmal · Post by **Nirmal** » 01 Oct 2010 01:25

Arya Sumantra wrote:
suryag wrote:my stupid brain's chankian wave.

Buy engines from GE get TOT. Award MMRCA to euro guys get TOT for engines. Use these two TOTs and make super T in India.
Don't get yours and others hopes high. Such things are possible when you are ruled by leaders for whom nation's interests are paramount above their own wallets. If honest they(leaders) do not have stupid notions like sleeping with enemy and strategic partnerships with a nation that is itself trying to shaft you pushing all putting obstacles for your R&D institutions, pushing anti-national NGOs, agro-imperialist foodgrain companies selling grains with terminator-gene, giving freebies to your enemy, controlling your systems through kill-switches, looking after rights of your terrorists through HR ngos and bribed mediahouses etc. Monetary blackmailing(russkies, french...) is far more tolerable than political blackmailing.

Austin wrote:I think the EJ200 being lowest bidder etc etc was a paid news by vested interest , now formal statement from DRDO clears the doubt.
Not possible. Oiropeans would be themselves concerned about unkil giving a phone call to delhi and changing their lead. They would themselves not put any statement about premature victory.

Will CAG be kind enough to publish the true quoted prices to the public atleast let's confirm whether MoD is really right on this.

Austin wrote:^^ TOT was never a requirement for new engine , else it would cost a bounty if ever there was an honest TOT attempt by any of the winners.
and
chackojoseph wrote:It doesn't matter which is best engine, it matters which is good enough for us with a good price.
Who says? Are we not struggling in our attempts to build our own jet engine. Like that we will never acquire any defence know-how because no ToT will always be cheaper than some ToT. And they will cite L1 and unkil wins everytime. Unkil has been aghast at the very idea of ToT and we give them a winning formula !!!

chackojoseph wrote:We use GE-LM engines on Indian Aircraft Carrier. Why not LCA?
We have some dependence, so we should become even more dependent ?

Singha wrote:the europeans do not have a single engine fighter application for the EJ200.
That is exactly the reason why Tejas MK2 should have been based on EJ200. The plane would get full support for export to 3rd countries and not fall into competition with their own planes. Now we have a plane that will be compared with Gripen everytime a customer shows interest. How intelligent of our planners? Yes, I know talking about Tejas exports is premature but even after we satisfy our internal demands there will be a huge number of countries who will not be able to afford 5th gen planes(at least not their entire fleets) and will continue to buy affordable 4th gen alternatives.

Whilst I fully acknowledge the fact that USA has on more than 2 occasions drawn the rug from under our feet, I am veering to the opinion that USA has learnt from those 2 experiences and is unlikely to repeat them knowing fully well the reprecussions that will follow. Now coming to this 'armtiwisting' bit: from what I read the decision was taken jointly by ADA/HAL/IAF/IN/MoD. So it can hardly be called arm twisting. Now the last point why GE 414 was selected in place of EJ200 is not just the price but 414 is a working reality whereas EJ200 engine is a paper project and we don't know if it will come through in the form it is expected and in the time frame that is being touted. Seems to me GE414 is a 'safer' bet besides the L1 (if that is true-I personally have my doubts). We must also remember USA is our major trading partner hence it is only reasonable to support them by buying from them in return and not imitate China which only sells but close thier market for reciprocal imports. Now coming to ToT: I fail to comprehend why we should wait 9/12 months to see if GE get US sanction permitting it to transfer ToT. why can't they do that now and find out if it ON or OFF before we announce who the winner of this bid is. This criteria should have been built in the biding contract.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 01 Oct 2010 01:26

There are some real bright silver lines that no one can afford to ignore here.
Silver line #1 IAF/MOD are firmly behind Tejas mk2 and now that we have ordered 100 engines we will have atleast 80-90 birds. So all the naysayers of tejas can now take a one way hike now that we will have atleast 140 birds(80-90 + existing 47 based on 404)
Silver line #2 I hardly know anything about engines, but it is highly likely that Kaveri's underlying design is very similar to the 404/414 and it makes great sense to learn from a finished product of the same genre and reach there quickly to make a tejas export variant that has kaveri for its legs

The most ideal situation would have been to buy 100 each from both the vendors and learn and make an engine better than the two. Only if pigs had wings may be

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Oct 2010 01:31

putnanja wrote:Wow, a delay of 1 year at the least!! And if the US govt declines the ToT permission, then back to drawing board again, and EJ will then definitely jack up the price! Not to mention the time taken to redo the design for EJ200 at that time!

You said it. What were they thinking to come up with such ridiculous terms and conditions.
India is the only country which keeps its own programs hostage to such crazy things for time delay. After all that we India saw with the original sanctions, the refused consultancy for the LCA and what not, and other similar delays our genius strategists go and come up with this.

RonyKJ · Post by **RonyKJ** » 01 Oct 2010 01:54

putnanja wrote:American engine to power LCA - Ajai Shukla

...
In the initial commercial bids, opened in mid-September, Eurojet ($666 million) had bid lower than GE ($822 million). But, after two weeks of intensive evaluation by a defence ministry price negotiating committee, GE has been ruled the cheaper option.
...
DRDO insiders say the price negotiating committee held several meetings for clarifications with Eurojet and GE representatives since the commercial bids were opened. After factoring in these clarifications, the GE engine was found to be cheaper.
...

Top DRDO officials emphatically reject any suggestion that US pressure had resulted in turning around the decision in favour of GE. “We had to factor in several expenses that the companies had not included in their bids. This is not surprising, since this was an extremely complex bidding process. But, after we evaluated and added in all expenses, GE was the cheaper vendor,” said a senior DRDO official.
...
...
Eurojet has not given up hope. Said Eurojet Business Development Executive Paul Herrmann: “We remain optimistic about this tender. Over the next year, I believe the Indian defence ministry will encounter problems in obtaining US sanctions for transfer of technology relating to the GE engine. And, if GE fails to meet these Indian requirements, the contract will come to us.”
...
...
Defence ministry indicate that negotiations with GE will continue at least until mid-2011. Thereafter, the US company would be given 121 days (plus an allowable extension of two months) to obtain permission from the US government to transfer technology to build the engine in India.
Wow, a delay of 1 year at the least!! And if the US govt declines the ToT permission, then back to drawing board again, and EJ will then definitely jack up the price! Not to mention the time taken to redo the design for EJ200 at that time!

Couldn't agree with you more. I think DRDO in choosing least costly bid has committed a huge blunder. They should have just gone with the vendor whose technology is available for transfer right away and not conditional on their government's approval. If we have to go back to EJ a year later, that will definitely not be from a position of strength.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 01 Oct 2010 02:06

I have noticed that a lot of posters are more concerned about TOT and engine growth prospects in future.However in my opinion the most important question regarding GE engines is whether we can use the aircrafts using these engines(LCA MK-2 and probably MMRCA) to initiate operations against an enemy.

I will give you an example.Suppose in 2016 we suffer a terrorist strike and hopefully by then GOI has finally gathered enough willpower to attack Pakistan which has been identified as the chief perpetrator.Can we use LCA mk2 and MMRCA using GE engines for carrying out attacks on Pakistan without coming under sanctions from USA.

In other words the question in front of us is whether we will retain our freedom of action as far as using these engines are concerned.

No doubt USA has the most advanced aerospace technologies to offer today but if we cannot use them when we want to, it has zero value for us.

P.S. In my opinion even the europeans will not offer TOT to our desired levels.I do not think for a moment that after investing so much in their engine project they will offer us the complete knowhow on a platter(even if we are ready to pay a lot of money for it).

Finally a word of advice from my side to our defence establishment.Plese do not depend on any single vendor for any technology.In this case please continue to develop the Kaveri and its enhanced versions so that we have enough options to counter the unpredictable nature of USA.

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 01 Oct 2010 02:12

I like your comments a lot darshan especially the one about not stopping the kaveri under any circumstances because it is our blood and sweat

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Oct 2010 02:14

suryag wrote: The most ideal situation would have been to buy 100 each from both the vendors and learn and make an engine better than the two. Only if pigs had wings may be

That is not an ideal situation my friend. It is not easy to just put engines inside airframes. Nobody would go for such designs. A good part of the airframe requires changes.

As regards to GE414 vis-a-vis EJ-200, I don't know well enough about engines to comment. Could some enlightened soul please describe a few things which I read so often in past few comments:
1. EJ-200 is a more advanced engine. How does one say that? Based on Power to weight, materials used, number of stages, being able to add a light TV?
2. GE-414 ExE has no more room for development whereas as Ej-200 has. How is this defined?
3. On what basis can we say that TOT from EU would have been more forthcoming than US? History is against both of them
While answering please provide technical details. Please avoid speculations.

I am just happy that at least one engine has finally been chosen. As long as everybody in the know (I have read no confrontation on that regard till now) said that anyone would fit the bill. I hope they can stick to this decision and roll out the Tejas MkII by 2014.

God speed the LCA MkII. Would love to see some scale drawings or CFD models. I am itching to see the new wings and intakes.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 01 Oct 2010 02:36

indranilroy wrote:
suryag wrote: The most ideal situation would have been to buy 100 each from both the vendors and learn and make an engine better than the two. Only if pigs had wings may be
That is not an ideal situation my friend. It is not easy to just put engines inside airframes. Nobody would go for such designs. A good part of the airframe requires changes.

As regards to GE414 vis-a-vis EJ-200, I don't know well enough about engines to comment. Could some enlightened soul please describe a few things which I read so often in past few comments:
1. EJ-200 is a more advanced engine. How does one say that? Based on Power to weight, materials used, number of stages, being able to add a light TV?
2. GE-414 ExE has no more room for development whereas as Ej-200 has. How is this defined?
3. On what basis can we say that TOT from EU would have been more forthcoming than US? History is against both of them
While answering please provide technical details. Please avoid speculations.

I am just happy that at least one engine has finally been chosen. As long as everybody in the know (I have read no confrontation on that regard till now) said that anyone would fit the bill. I hope they can stick to this decision and roll out the Tejas MkII by 2014.

God speed the LCA MkII. Would love to see some scale drawings or CFD models. I am itching to see the new wings and intakes.

Indranil ji.I will not be able to answer your first question as I haven't studied these engines myself.

However coming to your second question I think it is bullshit that there is no room for future development in GE414 engines.Just check out the following link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_El ... evelopment

The F414 continues to be improved, both through internal GE efforts and federally funded development programs. By 2006, GE tested an Enhanced Durability Engine (EDE) with an advanced core. The EDE engine provided a 15% thrust increase or longer life without the thrust increase. It has a six-stage high-pressure compressor (down from 7 stages in the standard F414) and an advanced high-pressure turbine.[6] The new compressor should be about 3% more efficient. The new high pressure turbine uses new materials and a new way of delivering cooling air to the blades. These changes should increase the turbine temperature capability by about 150 °F (66 °C).[7] The EDE is designed to have better foreign object damage resistance, and a reduced fuel burn rate.[8][9]
The EDE program continued with the testing of an advanced two stage blade-disk (Blisk) fan. The first advanced fan was produced using traditional methods, but future blisk fans will be made using translational friction welding with the goal of reducing manufacturing costs.[7] GE touts that this latest variant yields either a 20% increase in thrust or threefold increase in hot-section durability over the current F414.[6] This version is called the Enhanced Performance Engine (EPE) and was partially funded through the federal Integrated High Performance Turbine Engine Technology (or IHPTET) program.[8][10]
Other possible F414 improvements include efforts to reduce engine noise by using either mechanical or fluidic chevrons and efforts to reduce emissions with a new trapped vortex combustor.[7] Chevrons would reduce engine noise by inducing mixing between the cooler, slower bypass air and the hotter, faster core exhaust air. Mechanical chevrons would come in the form of triangular cutouts (or extensions) at the end of the nozzle, resulting in a "sharktooth" pattern. Fluidic chevrons would operate by injecting differential air flows around the exhaust to achieve the same ends as the mechanical variety. A new combustor would likely aim to reduce emissions by burning a higher percentage of the oxygen, thereby reducing the amount of oxygen available to bond with nitrogen forming the pollutant NOx.
As of 2009, the F414-EDE is currently being developed and tested, under a United States Navy contract for a reduced specific fuel consumption (SFC) demonstrator engine.[11][12]

Just go through it and you will find that a lot of development is still taking place.

As far as your third question is concerned once again the assumption that EU will go for complete TOT while GE will not has no ground.In fact no company would give you the complete TOT for any system that they have developed painstakingly.Engine development is not that easy.It also depends on what is the definition of TOT.

As I stated earlier the question that we should be asking is whether our Freedom of Action will be maintained if we go with American engines.As far as technology is concerned I am sure that their product is good enough

Dharma · Post by **Dharma** » 01 Oct 2010 02:53

Hi all,Firstly i would like to say that this is my first post at bharat-rakshak and its great to be finally be a part of this awesome community of fellow Indians.I find the decision of the government, to procure U.S engines is very interesting and rational from strategic POV.

Secondly, if we look at our spending power in terms of U.S dollars, it is easy for china to match us. however, strategic realities entails that while we are in a position to leverage with the US on defense procurements, its insanely difficult for china to do the same.It is a better advantage for us to source technology which cannot be easily matched by the chinese.Ofcourse we have been met with US sanctions in the past but current realities imply that If U.S were to ignore India like before they would lose their strategic leverage in a few decades.As i understand that even now, most of our indigenous systems use US technologies like gps for tracking etc..It is only rational we strengthen our relationship with the US on this front,It is even likely if the MMRCA deal goes to the US to keep their industry alive.Also,Europe has little leverage owing to many factors geopolitically such as economy etc.If there is instability in EU in the future(such as economic front) it would severely curtail our advantage as their consortium of member nation may even possibly push for TOT with our neighbours in desperation at extreme circumstances.This would also give us access to civilian nuclear technology while we develop our thorium based reactor and reserves for energy security amid near certain oil disruptions if there is a confrontation.we also benefit from learning with the help of their senior engineers as we redesign the air frame to suit these engines and might help us as we revamp our kaveri engines

Thirdly, i believe the PAK-FA development with the russians has ensured that we would procure defense technology from the russian defense consortium along with many other tech like the subs in the future,thus currently this deal with the US would not mean the russians would be left out in the future..Thus also upgrading our combat capabilities as the new fifth generation aircraft is integrated into our air force.

Finally,If the US TOT fails to take away, and we end up procuring Eurojet engines while still maintaining a degree of soft leverage with the US that we had tried and given them preference over other suppliers.It ends up as a better situation than we ignore US currently in the broad sense..and given that honorable minister A.K.Antony at the helm we can be little more certain that interests of India would not fade so easily on to the background

This is what i think,kindly correct me if you disagree and i would like to discuss other perspectives as well...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Oct 2010 03:06

Darshan .. please do away with the "ji" when you address me ... frankly, I am not used to it.

Darshan, could you please explain what you mean by "Freedom of action". Once we have the planes, how is the US going to stop us? I understand that parts are going to be a problem, because no matter how deep the ToT, HAL/GTRE will never make all the parts in house for business sense. In that case, we would fall short of parts after the reserves run out. But that would be the case for EJ-200 also. I mean it is much more easy for US to arm twist the EU to stop providing parts as well. I don't believe in the kill-switch theory. So in lieu of my thoughts in that direction I can't understand how we would be more curtailed with GE engines rather than with the EJ engines.

I know about the EDE and the EPE changes. Thank you, none-the-less for providing it. I don't know much about engines, but I do know little. I fail to understand how people suddenly start calling one design to have saturated while another is not. Hence I want to learn how such a conclusion is arrived. N^3 are you listening, I heard a few snores from you a few months back. Please come out of the hibernation and provide your inputs.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 01 Oct 2010 03:19

What seems to have happened is that someone paid for or leaked a wrong story to Suman Sharma and Ajai Shukla and their articles were taken as being the gospel truth by others who reproduced it and us BRFites who swallowed it up hook, line and sinker. This was a sure-fire way of raising a stink where they might be none in the first place. The Eurojet response clearly shows that they are not contesting that they were L1- that would've been the first sign that they were wronged in this deal. That they graciously accepted the result shows that they would've known that they were not L1. No big company will let go of a possible billion $ deal if it itself believed that it was cheated.

Besides, those saying that the F-414 is at the end of its development or that GE is not focusing on it anymore are completely wrong. Just a couple of days ago I posted an article that mentioned how GE was about to test a modified F-414 variant with ceramic blades that could possibly shave off nearly 250-500 kgs from the engine due to reduced cooling requirements and also improve fuel burn. Besides, what is the F-414 EPE engine if not a brand new variant of this engine ? Which other fighter features it ?

If the Tejas Mk2 gets the F-414 or F-414-EPE has anyone even bothered to think about what it will do to its T/W ratio as compared to the Ej-200, which BTW, might have required ballast or equipment to be shifted to the back from the front, as the CG would've shifted once a lighter engine was fitted ? That ballast alone might well have eaten up any weight benefits from the engine itself. Consider that the F-414 is hardly much heavier than the F-404-IN20 and you'll see how impressive the results can be..

Regarding the Ej-200, the most impressive aspect of it was its percieved ease of maintenance, combined with a very modern design. But it was not certified for single engine operation and consequently would've required more work than the F-414. There is a TVC Ej-200 in the works, but the Tejas Mk2 doesn't need TVC at all. Where is the higher (100 to 110+ kN) Ej-200-X version ? When current Typhoon partners are either reneging on previous commitments or busy trying to offload their own committed Tranche T2 and T3 Typhoons onto other nations (Italy and Britain for instance) and somehow get rid of their earlier T1 variants (like Italy), what does that say about future investments into a higher thrust variant of the Ej-200 ? I'm afraid, the EU defence budgets are shrinking and this will have a marked effect on their defence competitiveness in the future. When they cannot fund cutting edge research to become production realities due to a lack of budget allowance from their home markets, that puts a big question mark on their cost-competitiveness, because they'll ask their export customers to fund every new feature, every new upgrade. Already we see that on the Mirage-2000 upgrade that costs nearly $40 million per fighter including weapons, when an F-16 upgrade to similar standards is almost 1/4th lesser in price.

And before people even talk about that Ej-200-X higher thrust version, keep in mind that these future variants will not cost anything less than many hundred million $ or a billion $, which more than likely we will have to shell out money for as well as others who might be interested in taking advantage of it..the Snecma- M-88-3 is an example where France is asking the UAE to shell out a couple of billion $ to get a higher thrust engine and radar and avionics improvements. Without a firm commitment from a customer like the USN or USAF, the cost of any upgrade or future development is going to be prohibitive and our money doesn't grow on trees either.

I personally am just very happy that the selection is done after all the delays, that the F-414 with single engine certification is available and hopefully the Tejas Mk2 prototype can now move ahead with full steam. Local production will at least ensure that the F-414 will be nearly fully maintainable in India itself, with rotables and other spares available from our own assembly line. That is what the ToT is for- to make sure that India can support the F-414 equipped Tejas Mk2 fleet on its own mostly.

ToT from this deal that would eventually get the Kaveri up and running was not going to be given by either GE or Eurojet, not without a huge payout. Those who believe otherwise are living in a land of dreams. Companies don't just hand over their crown jewels to their customers without there being a "going-out-of-business" sale or without extracting a major fee. Not unless you have the next-generation of your bread and butter product already ready to go on sale. The requirements that both companies would've had to reply to the RFP on would've been the same- supply X engines off the shelf and then set up assembly line in India to assemble and then eventually licence build (from raw materials) all the remaining engines for a licence fee.

What this deal does is gives the Tejas Mk2 team a final engine that they can work with, so that the configuration can be finalised without any more dilly dallying..and a GE team that they've worked with for more than a decade now. The F-414 is an extremely reliable engine, one that produces the thrust required to make the Tejas Mk2 achieve the performance that the IAF has set for it, and importantly, there is a higher thrust F-414 derivative just up ahead (the F-414 EPE) if the IAF so desires. The only con may be that it will definitely require US approval for exports, but realistically, exports are the last concern. Let the IAF first induct it in the numbers it should.

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Oct 2010 03:34

As someone has said:

Anonymous said...
...

This decision can also mean that India wants the best of both US n EEC.It may also be a consolation to USA for losing out MMRCA competition to EF.EF have promised 100% ToT which means tech related to the engines. So guys it's a good decision as we will be getting the best of both worlds.

If things happen the way I am thinking, then India will have access to state of the art Jet engine tech of France (Kaveri), EEC (EF - Ej200), USA (GE414) and Russia (PAKFA).No other country in the world can claim access to such advanced technologies from so many different sources.

Dharma · Post by **Dharma** » 01 Oct 2010 03:35

@kartik
Thanks for the very interesting perspective on technical front.It is necessary to note that as this deal also helps us towards better strategic partnership with the U.S in the long term and hence a very beneficial deal for both India and the U.S..especially considering obama's visit this november

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 01 Oct 2010 03:48

^^^Nirmal and Kartik

Agree with your views. The likelihood of US sanctions is not as great as it used to be and you have to weigh it against the here and now: Is it real and available right now? If not, the LCA MK2 is going to be delayed and we are all going to be talking about follow-on orders for the MRCA because the MiGs, M2Ks and Jags have been retired.

Also, I don't for a moment believe this bit about EJ-200X being sanction proof. There will be some component that is only available from the US or where the US buys so much of it from a European supplier that they will find reason to delay deliveries to us.

Put the Pakistan question aside. We are not going to fight the pakis when they are doing such a great job of fighting themselves and everyone else.

The real fear of US sanctions IMHO relates to any nuke tests by us in the future and it's a valid fear. However, if we really need to test again, we have to bide our time. If any of the P-5 test as they did in 1996, we too should test within that same time window. It would be very hard for the US to impose sanctions in that context especially if you've got Boeing, LM and GE as your lobbyists. Jeff Immelt of GE is on record as souring on the PRC and he's looking to India for $10bn of sales--he is an asset to us. Use him. MMS,SMK and Meera Shankar are not in the same league.

I worry more about the EU (particularly Germany) slapping 'go slows' on us in any rumble with the PRC. Just Google on how (by their own admission) dependent the Germans are on the PRC.

JMT

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 01 Oct 2010 03:56

I hope as part of airframe modifications for GE-414, they also increase the length of the airframe, a la Gripen. That will give more space for additional fuel and for additional avionics computers etc that may be required in future.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Oct 2010 04:02

Kartik, you have put down what I wanted to say (almost verbatim) ... Thank you so much.

If I am to read between the lines DRDO hints at even if the LCA Mark II order goes to 200 (I have a strong feeling that it will), then we would get the GE414s for them as well. What is the chance the HAL will get export orders with Kaveri when IAF is not fielding it itself. All export orders most probably will be with the GE engines.

I have one more question (had it for a while). What happens when we re engine the Mark IIs. I can see an upgrade of 414 going in again. How will Kaveri be fitted into operational airframes? Are the mounts exactly the same (highly unlikely, right)? PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG (I am not shouting, I am just desperate to be proven wrong on this).

Kaveri for MCA only, then? And for heaven's sake I wish they don't stop working on getting it right. Even if it sees operation usage from 2020 only.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Oct 2010 04:17

srai wrote:As someone has said:

Anonymous said...
...

This decision can also mean that India wants the best of both US n EEC.It may also be a consolation to USA for losing out MMRCA competition to EF.EF have promised 100% ToT which means tech related to the engines. So guys it's a good decision as we will be getting the best of both worlds.

If things happen the way I am thinking, then India will have access to state of the art Jet engine tech of France (Kaveri), EEC (EF - Ej200), USA (GE414) and Russia (PAKFA).No other country in the world can claim access to such advanced technologies from so many different sources.

If you ask me, we will have nothing barring what we learn and pay for through Kaveri.

As Kartik rightly says, why are you expecting others to give you their bread and butter.
1. Snecma: IAF says the core from Snecma involves no ToT, just a replacement! I have absolutely no doubt in that, if you ask me.
2. Eurojet: If there has been problems with ToT with the Hawk, forget getting 100% ToT on Eurojet engines.
3. I have absolutely zero hopes of getting 100% ToT from GE from the GE414 deal. They didn't even take up consultancy for Kaveri with consultancy fees! I mean why would they give it to us.
They didn't give it to Sweden or to EADS!
4. We are building AL-31FP from raw materials with 100% ToT. What is outcome on our engine building capacity. It's not just us. China has reverse engineered everything, but the engines.

So trust me, nobody will give it us in a platter, we have to learn it on our own. Kaveri is the only way out. I hope GTRE guys are burning some midnight oil.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 01 Oct 2010 04:49

IndranilR^^^
".... They didn't even take up consultancy for Kaveri with consultancy fees! I mean why would they give it to us."

Actually, as with the the Naval LCA, the problem with the consultancy was that if performed, it came under ITAR, IOW, EUMA all that stuff for what is an Indian product. IIRC, it was the Indian side that then said "No Thanks!"

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Oct 2010 04:52

indranilroy wrote:...
If I am to read between the lines DRDO hints at even if the LCA Mark II order goes to 200 (I have a strong feeling that it will), then we would get the GE414s for them as well. What is the chance the HAL will get export orders with Kaveri when IAF is not fielding it itself. All export orders most probably will be with the GE engines.

I have one more question (had it for a while). What happens when we re engine the Mark IIs. I can see an upgrade of 414 going in again. How will Kaveri be fitted into operational airframes? Are the mounts exactly the same (highly unlikely, right)? PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG (I am not shouting, I am just desperate to be proven wrong on this).

Kaveri for MCA only, then? And for heaven's sake I wish they don't stop working on getting it right. Even if it sees operation usage from 2020 only.

40 LCA MK.I (2 sqdns @20 a/c each) - engine GE-404IN20
90 LCA MK.II (5 sqdns @18 a/c each) - engine GE-414 (99 engines + 100 options)
90 LCA MK.III (5 sqdns @18 a/c each) - engine ? (either they use the 100 options for this batch or will use Kaveri)
------------------------------
220 LCA total (which matches the original intent of the IAF)

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Oct 2010 05:21

Cosmo_R wrote:IndranilR^^^
".... They didn't even take up consultancy for Kaveri with consultancy fees! I mean why would they give it to us."

Actually, as with the the Naval LCA, the problem with the consultancy was that if performed, it came under ITAR, IOW, EUMA all that stuff for what is an Indian product. IIRC, it was the Indian side that then said "No Thanks!"

I know about this ... I just reported the outcome

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Oct 2010 05:25

srai wrote: 90 LCA MK.III (5 sqdns @18 a/c each) - engine ? (either they use the 100 options for this batch or will use Kaveri)

I hope then that Kaveri K-whatever aims for 100+ KN and gets comparable in weight. IAF won't select it otherwise (I wouldn't blame them). I believe we have 9 to 10 years to get there. I feel for the GTRE boys. No orders in sight and a stiff competition to match in their first go to get their first. It is not going to happen in 9-10 years unless the GTRE guys work their backs off.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 01 Oct 2010 05:28

indranilroy wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:IndranilR^^^
".... They didn't even take up consultancy for Kaveri with consultancy fees! I mean why would they give it to us."

Actually, as with the the Naval LCA, the problem with the consultancy was that if performed, it came under ITAR, IOW, EUMA all that stuff for what is an Indian product. IIRC, it was the Indian side that then said "No Thanks!"
I know about this ... I just reported the outcome

Fair enough. So here's how the Russians the $$$ oriented no sanctions guys reacted on Iran:

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/ar ... epage=true

Point is as we all agree, unless you make it yourself from soup to bolts, you're vulnerable. The Russians held us up on of all things tyres for the Sukhois. Not political but IP!

No permanent friends no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests. We can't emote.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Oct 2010 05:32

^^^ Exactly my point

. Just decide cold heartedly what's best for us (and that does include geo-strategic issues) is what I have been saying for long

.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Oct 2010 05:35

Seems like 99% of the opinion stands for EJ200 rather(sad). Any idea what was the actual quote or how much lower was the GE quote.

OTOH, I am afraid the cost was way too much different for them really not consider EJ200s. If it was Obama's pressure, then IAF must really think about using them under pressure at the right time. FDAEC controlled engines could be directed by satellite links can not be ruled out.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Oct 2010 06:08

^^^ There is fair amount of electronics in non-FADEC engines to hide a switch.

If there is a switch, there has to be some kind of a passive receiver (or a transceiver). This is a hardware device. How can one hide that? But a thorough search would always reveal it!

Like in the case of the Boeing 767-300ER for the Chinese President Jiang Zemin. When the jetliner, refitted in San Antonio with special amenities for Jiang, was due to make its maiden voyage, Chinese officials discovered more than two dozen electronic listening devices embedded throughout the plane, including in the presidential toilet and in the headboard of his bed.

As I said, there has to be a physical device for listening to commands. One can only attempt to hide it. If our integrators fail to see it, then ....

nash · Post by **nash** » 01 Oct 2010 06:30

just one thought came to my mind .....

few days back IAF were saying DRDO is blocking engine selection for LCA ...... so probably DRDO/IAF discuss this thing and decide that they will go for GE , which probably they refuse later because of TOT and by that time Kaveri cam into the picture..

Just my thought...

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 01 Oct 2010 07:04

Covering this is getting interesting. Got GE Aviation's response to the announcement and to Eurojet's claims of being the better engine...

GE Aviation Reaffirms Commitment to F414 Engines; Rejects Eurojet Claims as Pointless

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 01 Oct 2010 07:04

SriSri wrote:Covering this is getting interesting. Got GE Aviation's response to the announcement and to Eurojet's claims of being the better engine...

GE Aviation Reaffirms Commitment to F414 Engines; Rejects Eurojet Claims as Pointless

Posting the interesting quotes here...

GE Aviation's response to this unusually strong statements by their European competitors:
...As for the Eurojet claim of having a better engine, it is a pointless argument of words. The F414 is very successfully powering the F/A-18 Super Hornets and like its predecessor, the F404 engine, the F414 will be a prominent fighter jet engine in its thrust class for many decades to come. In addition, the F414 will continue to receive the latest technology infusions developed by GE Aviation, which spends $1 billion (U.S.) in research and development each year...

GE Aviation refused to comment on the deal itself and termed the situation "premature" as the specifics of this deal are still to be worked out. "GE Aviation is very hopeful that the decision will be to power the HAL Tejas with the F414." GE Aviation told India Defence (india-defence.com).

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 01 Oct 2010 07:36

Arya Sumantra wrote:Who says? Are we not struggling in our attempts to build our own jet engine. Like that we will never acquire any defence know-how because no ToT will always be cheaper than some ToT. And they will cite L1 and unkil wins everytime. Unkil has been aghast at the very idea of ToT and we give them a winning formula !!!

We have some dependence, so we should become even more dependent ?

See, even Europeans are prone to sanctions. Eurojet is not from france or russia. You must understand that US can turn a blind eye for its interest, not Europe. Europe is as dangerous as US. Its best to take the lowest and best option currently.

When you go to buy a car, you don't buy the best car available, for ex Ferrari. You buy what is best suited for you in terms of price and performance. its true for military too. They too go for same parameters. But. if the price of tea is high, they go for coffee etc. GE-414 suits tejas needs. Its cheap etc.

There is no dependence, we have tied with snecma for kaveri. So, there seems to be no dependence issues here.

nrshah wrote:Paging Chacko, Aroor, Ananth Krishnan...

Guys will you do us a favor of asking DRDO / DM and babus, what have they thought of regarding attempts to hold deliveries... just as consultancy was stopped?

Knowing the inner working of purchase descision, and the fact IAF the customer was behind the 414, its pointless to ask.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 01 Oct 2010 08:01

Gaur wrote:^^
LCA's limitation of top speed to MACH 1.8 has nothing to do with thrust. Nor is the "fatter" body and "smaller" intakes the cause for the mach 1.8 limit. To go to MACH 2 and beyond, the aircraft needs variable geometry inlet. This 'greatly' increases complexity. So, it would be more complex to manufacture and maintain. Also, the cost would go up.
As the era of high speed interceptors is long gone, mach 1.8 is deemed sufficient for modern fighters when considering the complexity to benefit ratio.
So, IMO, there is little chance that the top speed will go higher for mk2. It is not a big enough issue.

exactly. it also adds weight. All of the 4th generation fighters (and the 3rd gen JF-17) have fixed geometry inlets which reduces cost and maintenance while restricting max speed, which is not considered the most important criterion nowadays anyway.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 01 Oct 2010 08:06

Vikram W wrote:Lowest bidder wins LCA engine deal :

Alas, Eurojet doesnt know how business is done in India.

You have to liason, pay off babus , and then bids are opened for a pre-view and you can put in a lower bid

so who cares if EJ was a better engine. ( and how do we know certain scribes who proclaimed EJ victory were not on EJs payrolls either)

Buddy, the Europeans are no blooming angels who are having to deal with India for the first time. such snide remarks don't stand up to facts- Rolls Royce which is a part of Eurojet has had decades of experience dealing with India. They lost because their bid was costlier..last minute bids don't work- they indicate that they were aware of the GE bid price and adjusted their bid accordingly. If the MoD and the Price Negotiating Committee went down that path, we'd see another 6 month delay at the very least.

And better engine by what standards ? Do you say that on the basis of a comparison for the number of hours flown by each and failures, down time or maintenance man-hour requirements for each ? Its a newer engine and lighter, but that doesn't make it a superior engine just by that, after all it does produce lower dry and AB thrust as well.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Oct 2010 08:27

The C-17 is a bad deal because it is more expensive than the alternative. The F-414 is a bad deal because it is less expensive than the alternative.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Oct 2010 08:29

the sharktooth/wavy pattern along the edge of engine exhaust cowl is seen in some boeing 737s as well in India. said to reduce noise.

there was no realistic timeline option beyond F414G or EPE - the EJ-200-v2 is nowhere in sight and member nations have no real need or funds for it.

F414G is available *today* at needed thrust number and GripenNG is flying with it - there should be no more delay in ADA team making the best
possible Mk2 packed to the gunwales with advanced weapons and sensors like EL2052-I.

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 01 Oct 2010 08:42

Singha wrote:F414G is available *today* at needed thrust number and GripenNG is flying with it - there should be no more delay in ADA team making the best
possible Mk2 packed to the gunwales with advanced weapons and sensors like EL2052-I.

+1 .. Well said!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Oct 2010 09:15

Really, I am aching to see a glimpse of the Tejas Mark II.

But Singhaji wasn't it supposed to have an indigenous AESA radar, work on which had already commenced etc. etc.?

EL/M-2052 ... where did this news come from?

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 01 Oct 2010 09:27

indranilroy wrote:
srai wrote: 90 LCA MK.III (5 sqdns @18 a/c each) - engine ? (either they use the 100 options for this batch or will use Kaveri)
I hope then that Kaveri K-whatever aims for 100+ KN and gets comparable in weight. IAF won't select it otherwise (I wouldn't blame them). I believe we have 9 to 10 years to get there. I feel for the GTRE boys. No orders in sight and a stiff competition to match in their first go to get their first. It is not going to happen in 9-10 years unless the GTRE guys work their backs off.

Yea right!!! In 2050 maybe. They need to get in a private partner who can throw money around and hire the best brains in the business.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Oct 2010 09:32

^^^ I have not given up hope

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 01 Oct 2010 10:09

Applying some twisted logic, me thinks all this has brightened the chances of teh Rafale for the MMRCA

.