Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Jan 2011 04:36

Can they take existing Kaveri and use two of them and create a new attack aircraft? May be a fatter LCA.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 30 Jan 2011 04:54

ramana wrote:Can they take existing Kaveri and use two of them and create a new attack aircraft? May be a fatter LCA.

Vivek Ahuja had made a beautiful sketch of such an aircraft here:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 77#p993077

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Jan 2011 05:25

ramana wrote:Can they take existing Kaveri and use two of them and create a new attack aircraft? May be a fatter LCA.

I would think it is possible, but not probable. The options/alternatives should be far better in all respects.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 30 Jan 2011 07:56

ramana wrote:Can they take existing Kaveri and use two of them and create a new attack aircraft? May be a fatter LCA.

This should be possible, but the time to start work on that aircraft was in the mid 00s if the projected in service date was to be 2015. A similar project today will result in first flight by 2015 and in service by 2018 at the earliest. By which time the both the Mk 2 and the MRCA will be in service in good numbers.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 30 Jan 2011 10:23

nachiket wrote:
ramana wrote:Can they take existing Kaveri and use two of them and create a new attack aircraft? May be a fatter LCA.
Vivek Ahuja had made a beautiful sketch of such an aircraft here:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 77#p993077

The above suggestions crops every 2-3 months. Hopefully, this suggestion would rest in peace this time.

I would quote Rahul M from “Design your own fighter” thread on 05 Dec 2010 01:41

Rahul M wrote:moreover, if you try to design a twin engined tejas you will end up with something very much like the AMCA. the question then would be would you prefer to design a fighter to the best of your abilities or would you design a sub-capable fighter (at about the same money and effort) just for the sake of making a twin engined LCA ?
IOW, AMCA is the twin engined LCA you are talking of. if you follow its evolution from the early 2000's this will become all the more clear. they started off with an idea very similar to yours but with better understanding of their own capabilities and the needs of tomorrow the design has evolved to its present version.

akimalik · Post by **akimalik** » 30 Jan 2011 13:50

Vivek K wrote:Can the Kaveri be used to re-engine the Mig-27s? Or the 29s?

Hi Vivek,
some cursory googling suggests that the engines of the Mig 27 - the Tumansky R29B 300 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumansky_R-29) and the Kaveri K9 are not compatible. Neither the dimensions, weight nor power output of these two engines are comparable. hence this may not be a possibility.
Rgds,
a

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Jan 2011 17:18

nachiket wrote:
Rahul M wrote: you misunderstood the post. in BR's context the particular words used are not quite urdu but pingreji, which is a BR subculture of sorts. this might help you understand matters. http://sites.google.com/site/brfdiction ... ounciation
Rahul, Ashutosh wasn't replying to my post about Benis language. It was another where I asked him to post in the OT thread because his post here would probably be deleted. Can't find those posts anymore.

I know, I moved those posts.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jan 2011 18:18

If you are making a fatter LCA, then might as well make it an interim AMCA like how they did Mirage 4000. Make sure your MTOW and T:W and other specs are obtained and signed off from IAF garus.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 30 Jan 2011 18:47

IAF needs three types of fighters i.e., one for lightweight multirole aircraft another a Medium weight multirole aircraft and a Heavy multirole aircraft for its future just like USAF have F-16s & F-15s so Tejas clearly fitts for the lightweight category & AMCA will for Medium aircraft and there is no need of twin engined Tejas since it will make induction of AMCA further delay

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Jan 2011 20:31

KC,

The idea, I think, was to force feed LCA with Kaveri, while keeping the resulting "LCA" still "Light". IF the Kaveri is underpowered, then use two of them to power the LCA.

It was not meant to compete with the sibling.

The idea is actually enticing, but perhaps not practical in the current scheme of things. May be it is a good project for some advanced college students - with Gov soft funding.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 30 Jan 2011 20:51

B_Ambuj wrote:
The above suggestions crops every 2-3 months. Hopefully, this suggestion would rest in peace this time.

I would quote Rahul M from “Design your own fighter” thread on 05 Dec 2010 01:41

Rahul M wrote:moreover, if you try to design a twin engined tejas you will end up with something very much like the AMCA. the question then would be would you prefer to design a fighter to the best of your abilities or would you design a sub-capable fighter (at about the same money and effort) just for the sake of making a twin engined LCA ?
IOW, AMCA is the twin engined LCA you are talking of. if you follow its evolution from the early 2000's this will become all the more clear. they started off with an idea very similar to yours but with better understanding of their own capabilities and the needs of tomorrow the design has evolved to its present version.

True, and Rahul's perspective is really appreciated. But, there is another perspective, the DRDO is over reaching - again - and in the interest of delivering a usable product within acceptable time frame, costs and risks, an alternative approach, such as scaling up the LCA with an under rated twin engined aircraft may be a better approach. So an iterative approach, rather than leaps.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jan 2011 21:06

Perhaps Mk3 a twin engined LCA for staging a AMCA platform, interesting as Rao garu says, many IITians and institutional participation. Not as a usable platform but pure TD, especially in the areas of reduced weight, high woven composites (la CFM), T:w, reduced IR signature, etc.

This project can start right away actually.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 31 Jan 2011 04:47

Posting in full, k prasad's entire post (pure gold, must say) from AI09 ...

k prasad wrote:Ok.... this is the GTRE story - (someone come up with sad music plz).... from the Aeroseminar.

An overview of the Kaveri situation was provided by the GTRE director, T. Mohan Rao, who was accompanied by his senior scientists. The hall was packed, and the language and tone of his speech was sadly self-depracating and pleading. Almost as if DRDO has also started losing faith - he had to explain whats going on and why its happening. Sad to see, but there are clear silver linings in the story.

1. He pointed out that the change in IAF requirements and the increase in all up wt by 2 tons killed the Kaveri as they knew it, simply because it could not in any way be able to achieve the new requirements... he was quite angry that they had been blamed for what was obviously not their fault, ie, a low-performing Kaveri for the updated reqs. Bypass Ratio is 0.16 to 0.18... he pointed out that if it had to meet the new stds, the bypass would have to be at least 0.35 to 0.45.

2. 4 Cores and 8 Kaveris built, 1800 hrs testing done.

Thrsut demonstrated: 4774 kgf dry (design value reached). 7000 kgf reheat (2.5-3% shortfall)

3. Pressure ratio - 21.5 overall.

Fan - 3 stage, 3.4 pressure ratio, Surge margin>20.
Compressor 6.4 pressure,Surge>23.
Combustor - efficiency >99%, high intensity annular combustor. Pattern factor of 0.35 and 0.14

Note: These are ACHIEVED values.

4. The present Kaveri will not power combat LCAs, although it will be fitted to an LCA within 9 months. The new program, which is the Kaveri with Snecma Eco core of 90kN will be used. The preslim design studies and configuration have beeen completed.

5.Birdhit requirements of 85% thrust after hit at 0.4-0.5 Mach have been shown and achieved.

6. He pointed out the major factor in delays being them not being given enough infrastructure and testing facilities - Govt has not given funds, babus have sat on them. Instead, they have had to go to CIAM in Russia and Anecom in Germany for tests.

He mentioned that this was the biggest problem - one of the issues they have was in engine strain and the blade throws - they tried to isolate all the causes for 3 yrs, but only when they took it to CIAM for the Non Intrusive Strain Measurement (NSMS) tests did they realize that there were excess vibrations of the 3rd order of engine frequency being developed.... imagine if the facility was there in india.

Then, the compressor tests also, it was only at the Anecom that they could see that the 1st 2 stages were surged by 20%, while the rest were "as dead as government servants" (his quote - shows how low on confidence they are i guess). He pointed out that that would have saved a lot of time and money if that facility was in india. They have since fixed the issue.

Then, the afterburner tests, (the much highlighted high altitude failure) at CIAM - the reqt is for 50% thrust boost over dry thrust at 88% efficiency. The K5 prototype failed in 2003, after working perfectly in the GTRE. They realized that they could not achieve lightup at high altitudes (Dry thrust worked ok).

They took anothe new engine block and the afterburner worked perfectly and has been certified to 15 km.

7. The good news..... they will conduct complete engine trials in CIAM in March. If these trials are successful (and they are highly confident), the Kaveri will be integrated on the LCA within 9 months.

The KADECU FADEC system with manual backup has also been fully certified.

8. The bad news again - The present requirements would need the core to pump out 15-20% more power, which is impossible... hence the eco. Not that there is anything wrong with the core.

He mentioned that otherwise, the Kaveri has met the original requirements, or will meet within the next month, and is good for all other uses except a "combat LCA" - ie, CAT, LIFT, LCA Trainer, etc.

9. When asked where we lack, he mentioned 4 key areas

a. BLISK - integrated single Blade and Disk
b. Single Crystal blades - he categorically said - We do not have that tech at all.
c. Thermal Barrier Coatings - TBC - very critical for high temp engine operation. A talk on this by an American Indian prof attracted a house full audience. He mentioned that this is highly critical and export controlled, so they dont have it.

The last two points were mentioned by Dir, DMRL as one of their areas of research, but I was not able to quiz him on it. PLEASE QUIZ ANY DMRL GUYS U MEET ON THIS.

Mohan Rao appealed that people should realize that this tech takes time, and money, and more importantly, willpower and support.... its not being given by foriegn nations, so if we have to develop, it needs support. This stance found strong support from Saraswat, Sundaram and Selvamurthy in the closing ceremony.

They are not looking at TVC just yet, and it is in the hands of other labs at the moment.

However, the ADE presentation on UCAVs showed a future Indian UCAV (2015) with no tail (MCA design), a non-conventional wingform, and a 3 axis TVC.

10. OK, some nos....

Fan - Successful tests at CIAM
Compressor: (nos in brackets are design values)

6 stage axial flow, 3 stage variable vanes with IGVs.
Corr. tip speed ~370 m/s
Inlet diam: 590 mm

Mass flow: 24.13 kg/s (24.3)
Pressure: 6.42 (6.38)
Efficiency: 85.4% (85%)
Surge %: 21.6 (20% designed)

Combustor:
Has undergone aero testing at CIAM
K8 V4 combustor is close to design.

Turbine:
Pressure = 3.6
Mass flow function= 1.1
Isentropic eff = 85%
Max. TET = 1700K

Is a success, has met design.

11. Future uses:

Navy - KMGT - 1 MW for small ships being developed, 5-6 MW KMGT is a sucess and runs on Diesel, instead of the usual kerosene aviation fuel.

The railways also wants a 7-8MW CNG run engine, which will be a challenge in terms of fuel supply, rather than teh combustion itself, which shouldn't be a problem.

Any qns???

Pls note the the thrust reported in 2009 in the above post by GTRE director, T. Mohan Rao viz. Dry: 4774kgf - 46.82KN and Wet: 7000kgf - 68.65KN.

Now fast-forward to 2010-2011, and we have this:

From the hindu
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/techno ... 127075.ece

“In recent times, the engine has been able to produce thrust of 70-75 Kilo Newton but what the IAF and other stake-holders desire is power between 90—95 KN.

“I think with the JV with Snecma in place now, we would be able to achieve these parameters in near future,” they said.

So already around 8% growth in wet thrust achieved (alongwith around 10% growth in dry thrust) - these can't be achieved without improvement in the compressor or turbine or both efficiency.
So justifiably a very good effort and something that GTRE needs to pride itself with.

But to go to 81KN stage will require anothe 7% growth in thrust which will have to involve further tweaking the compressor stages.

IMO the mass flow rate *may* continue to be the issue (no published figure so far - the above indicates the compressor mass flow) which can be resolved by increasing the compressort stage pressure ratios - i.e
1) either by making the compressor lighter (improved materials etc., so it rotates faster from the same power from turbine)
2) or by enhancing the aerodynamic efficiency of the compressor (which anyway was a compromised one, as nobody wanted to manufacture the originally designed fan-blades due to increased manufacturing complexity given the low volumes involved)
3) or by increasing the turbine efficiency (so going for higher TET but DS blades wouldn't work and will require SCB tech or by improving the blade-cooling tech)
None of the above are very easy paths to pursue and is actually the technology gen for the contemporary engines.

Talking about 90-95KN etc (interestingly, no mention of the dry thrust) is futile without goig thru the above-mentioned hoofs and, nobody would like to part with their knowhow before they themselves have moved onto the next generation technology itself.

My 2 cents, take FWIW only ...

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 31 Jan 2011 05:58

^^^ It was a known fact from 2008.

http://www.livemint.com/2008/08/1923534 ... pment.html

Mohana Rao: We have a functional engine, but there is a slight shortfall in performance. It has achieved dry thrust of 4,600kg and reheat thrust of 7,000kg in Bangalore, which is around 3,000ft above sea level. So, it would be around 5,000kg dry thrust and 7,500kg reheat thrust at sea level. The engine is short of thrust by 400kg and overweight by around 150kg. Also, we still have to perform long- endurance tests of the engine to run for many hours.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 31 Jan 2011 06:49

30-35% foreign intake in kaveri is not bad, its is not necessary to make engine fully with Indian components main thing is to operationalise the engine since it has already taken too long.

it is already known that our people can't deliver it on time so if engine is build with 30-35% foreign components and it delivers what has been asked even at this stage its a great achievement,if this had been done before our country would have been mass producing kaveri by now.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 31 Jan 2011 07:12

yeah, here when they talk about thrust especially to the media.

they don't really multiply by 9.8 but just round it off with a 10.

So there is no "growth" of 7 percent in that period.

The 70-75 KN is what the Kaveri has managed to do.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 31 Jan 2011 09:21

The confusion arises in using the thrust figure reached in Bangalore which is around 3000 ft above Sea level instead @ sea level.

7000 kgf ----> ~68 KN (Bangalore)
7500 kgf ----> ~75 KN

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 31 Jan 2011 09:31

@ 75KN we are in level similar to that of what other engine majors achieved in 1980s for comparable engines. Initial GE F404 produced somewhere in this range. Snecma M88-2 is around 75 KN.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 31 Jan 2011 09:50

The confusion arises in using the thrust figure reached in Bangalore which is around 3000 ft above Sea level instead @ sea level.

7000 kgf ----> ~68 KN (Bangalore)
7500 kgf ----> ~75 KN

Arre haan bhai.
What I mean to say is that when talking to the media they generally multiply by 10 and come up with 70 KN for bangalore and 75 KN for sea level.

In everyday talk they seldom use 9.8.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 31 Jan 2011 09:59

Oh ok bhai.

>>In everyday talk they seldom use 9.8.
ture.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jan 2011 10:55

would the present Kaveri when certified for good MTBF be a parallel track to pursue for powering stuff like future AJT, re engine of Hawk airframe, IJT-mki etc.

vina · Post by **vina** » 31 Jan 2011 11:02

The confusion arises in using the thrust figure reached in Bangalore which is around 3000 ft above Sea level instead @ sea level.

7000 kgf ----> ~68 KN (Bangalore)
7500 kgf ----> ~75 KN

That is halaal for normal YinJins. But we were told time and again by the folks concerned that the Kaveri was "flat rated". So is it flat rated 7000 kgf , or flat rated 7500 kgf ?.

If it is flat rated, the engine is basically constrained like holding it by the scruff of it's neck and 7500 kgf in Bangalore Kerala, is the same as 7500 kgf Bangalore Karnataka by Madrassa Math in that case and similarly for 7000 kgf.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 31 Jan 2011 11:09

>>would the present Kaveri when certified for good MTBF be a parallel track to pursue for powering stuff like future AJT, re engine of Hawk airframe, IJT-mki etc.

I guess, it is very much possible without reheat.

>>@ 75KN we are in level similar to that of what other engine majors achieved in 1980s for comparable engines. Initial GE F404 produced somewhere in this range. Snecma M88-2 is around 75 KN.

Once we master what we are currently pursuing, it is easier to move into F-414. But problem will be in reaching the stage F414-EDE(Enhanced Durability Engine). This is where Snecma help solves the problem. Snecma M88-3(eco)/4E/?? is similar to F414-EDE.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 31 Jan 2011 12:09

vina wrote:
The confusion arises in using the thrust figure reached in Bangalore which is around 3000 ft above Sea level instead @ sea level.

7000 kgf ----> ~68 KN (Bangalore)
7500 kgf ----> ~75 KN
That is halaal for normal YinJins. But we were told time and again by the folks concerned that the Kaveri was "flat rated". So is it flat rated 7000 kgf , or flat rated 7500 kgf ?.

If it is flat rated, the engine is basically constrained like holding it by the scruff of it's neck and 7500 kgf in Bangalore Kerala, is the same as 7500 kgf Bangalore Karnataka by Madrassa Math in that case and similarly for 7000 kgf.

Vina saar, nothing you do not know. Flat rating is done for a margin where it is considered necessary. Of course one can have universal flat rated engine by flat rating the F-135 for 80 KN thrust.

I think what they have done is keeping a margin in inlet temp. If Z is the max inlet temp permissible, the rating will be done at Y, where Z-Y is the margin. So the thrust is measured at Y and then converted to sea level.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 31 Jan 2011 14:07

Price negotiations for JV for fighter engine in advanced stage

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 31 Jan 2011 14:25

vina wrote:
The confusion arises in using the thrust figure reached in Bangalore which is around 3000 ft above Sea level instead @ sea level.

7000 kgf ----> ~68 KN (Bangalore)
7500 kgf ----> ~75 KN
That is halaal for normal YinJins. But we were told time and again by the folks concerned that the Kaveri was "flat rated". So is it flat rated 7000 kgf , or flat rated 7500 kgf ?.

If it is flat rated, the engine is basically constrained like holding it by the scruff of it's neck and 7500 kgf in Bangalore Kerala, is the same as 7500 kgf Bangalore Karnataka by Madrassa Math in that case and similarly for 7000 kgf.

Flat rating when GTRE talks about it, is not that there is no loss in hot and high conditions, but that the loss is less than loss in comparable engines.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 31 Jan 2011 14:33

Once we master what we are currently pursuing, it is easier to move into F-414. But problem will be in reaching the stage F414-EDE(Enhanced Durability Engine). This is where Snecma help solves the problem. Snecma M88-3(eco)/4E/?? is similar to F414-EDE.

and may the EDE effort finally yield an EPE!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jan 2011 14:54

imo PMO should authorize HAL to produce say 4 more tejas Mk1 as flying testbeds, 2 for the original Kaveri which they can tinker with and derate for other applications as well as test desi hot section efforts, while the remainder 2 would be flying testbeds for the kaveri-scnema JV engine. all of these can be owned by GTRE/HAL, based out of bangalore and employ retired test pilots if they be willing.

the data points learnt from testing the original kaveri in a fighter will be invaluable later on...and cost far less than flying it in a big IL76.

we should also buy such a specially modified IL76 from russia alongwith the ground test infra seen in gromov research center and build it up around the HAL airport to close the maya chakra once and for all - cleanse all our sins forever in the holy waters of the kaveri.

flying the desi engine in parallel with the bideshi cross-breed will help to keep foreign 'partners' under control and playing within the desired ruleset....more the progress we show in desi efforts, more locked gates to 'gora only clubs' will be thrown open and yindu invited inside the sumptuous members lounges.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 Jan 2011 17:46

The Kaveri has a thrust of around 65 kilo newton (kN), while 90 kN or more is required to power the LCA for optimal performance.

<>

Prahlada declined to reveal the estimated cost of the Snecma-GTRE project, but said the new engine will be comparable in pricing and performance to the GE-414.

Again not saying the 100kN word. mmmm

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 31 Jan 2011 18:38

SaiK wrote:
The Kaveri has a thrust of around 65 kilo newton (kN), while 90 kN or more is required to power the LCA for optimal performance.
<>
Prahlada declined to reveal the estimated cost of the Snecma-GTRE project, but said the new engine will be comparable in pricing and performance to the GE-414.

Is that symbol represents Blade and Chalice protecting the "Holy Grail" of delivering GE-414 in the guise of Kaveri?

Sentence of import is

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd will manufacture the engines in India. Prahlada said the agreement is to make 100 engines in the first batch

and linked to

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd will produce the engine and all future aircraft engines in India would be from the joint venture.

from this link http://www.livemint.com/2008/08/1923534 ... pment.html

Earlier IAF headed board was against the clause of "all future engines". Lets see how things pans out.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 31 Jan 2011 18:55

What exactly are we going to gain by the GTRE-Snecma joint venture that we don’t have now other than an imported core with a limited growth potential?

Basically, we are moving away from a 100% desi engine to a hybrid one. So, some of the critical know-how that was gained over the years will be lost. We are taking a shortcut to success I am afraid - not good in the long run. Perseverance is the key in this game.

We've got to get a breakthrough in critical technologies - SCB/Thermal Coatings ourselves if we ever want to be an aerospace major - no one will squander away their trump cards for even a large amount of $$$. This demands some major investment from the country.

Unfortunately, the babus sitting in MOD neither have neither the vision nor the inclination to do it.

vic · Post by **vic** » 31 Jan 2011 19:32

Re kanson

Would the phrase “all future engines” means engines for LCA, AMCA, UCAV or its wide enough to encompass engines for MRTA, PAKFA, MLH etc??

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 01 Feb 2011 22:09

^ Its for LCA, AMCA etc where we use engines developed with the know how from french contribution.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 01 Feb 2011 22:11

>> and may the EDE effort finally yield an EPE!

Yes, and this is the fine tuning that Snecma will do to Eco core, i think.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Feb 2011 22:30

P. Chitkara, Its time to get a real product and not an illusive tech demonstration for feel good press releases. By this action India will have a working jet engine that is useful for their needs.

Earlier same logic was used to stall potential collaborations.

Singha , As usual good risk mitigation plan. Don't know if the PMO, RM, IAF will agree or not. One more good out of that is it keeps up the HAL line personnel skills rentention.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 02 Feb 2011 14:38

I guess I was not clear enough in my earlier post. I am all for getting a real-working engine into the program. However, what is missing is the time boxed roadmap for:

1. Overcoming the shortfalls experienced during the kaveri program (SCB/Thermals etc...)
2. Incorporate any new learning from the JV to this program
3. Establishment of test facilities
4. Producing variants/upgrades/new classes of the engine

Sanctioning 100Cr without these takes us back to the square one. I hope I am clearer now. If a roadmap does exist I would like to know it.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 02 Feb 2011 20:18

^ As far as i see, our guys are not forthcoming, not revealing exactly, totally, what they have done, what they do and what they plan to do.

We don't know in absolute terms whether the french deal is intermediary or it is going to hang across our neck for ever.

Their position is understandable, as they are in negotiations and i can expect this ambiguous state to continue till the MMRCA deal is finalized and probably till we get what was promised all from the french deal as well as from the MMRCA deal.

As far as the roadmap is concerned, it is said that there is such roadmap exists for Kaveri for powering AMCA, LCA, UCAV(Aura) etc (official statement) and thrust planned is around 95 KN ( we dont know whether it is flat rated or not).

I guess bit premature to talk anything concrete on this front.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 03 Feb 2011 22:50

Maximum take off weight of Rafale (C/D) seems to be 24,500 kg and it is being powered by 2× Snecma M88-2 turbofans with Thrust with afterburner of 75.62 KN

From the above fact can’t the 2 Kaveri with the current thrust of 75 KN be good enough for 20,000 – 22,000 kg MCA ? Why 95 KN class Kaveri is becoming an absolute necessary for MCA ?

Note : I am not saying Kaveri will not grow up further. May be the thrust for a stealth fighter is more.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 04 Feb 2011 00:02

P Chitkara wrote:I am all for getting a real-working engine into the program. However, what is missing is the time boxed roadmap for:

1. Overcoming the shortfalls experienced during the kaveri program (SCB/Thermals etc...)

What if you give them a time bound road-map and at the end of their allotted time they haven't achieved what they set out to accomplish ? Just because you set a time-table and crack the whip doesn't mean they can deliver.

What is missing is private defense research companies where bright people are paid well and given enough freedom and resources to overcome these obstacles.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 04 Feb 2011 17:18

You miss my point. Please see the underlined part from my earlier post

We've got to get a breakthrough in critical technologies - SCB/Thermal Coatings ourselves if we ever want to be an aerospace major - no one will squander away their trump cards for even a large amount of $$$. This demands some major investment from the country.

When we say investment, it means in terms of manpower, facilities and money. So far, lack of this kind of investment has held us back (of course, we didn’t have enough money earlier did not help either). Just take a look at reports where flaw(s) were detected only when the engine was taken to russia, flight tests have to be done there as well. All this stretches the timelines.

There will be failures, nobody has been able to be successful 100% all the time. But adequate funding and planning helps mitigating them to some extent.