What's new

India’s Engine Flameout - The Diplomat

arp2041

BANNED
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Messages
10,406
Reaction score
-9
Country
India
Location
India
800px-HAL_Tejas_trainer_version_construction-400x300.jpg


The Indian government has effectively just handed one of the country’s flagship defense projects the pink slip.

The Kaveri aircraft engine was conceived in the 1980s as the power plant for the indigenously developed Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA). While New Delhi has pressed on with the Tejas, itself a troubled program dating back to the 1980s, it appears to have lost faith in the ability of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the state-run R&D outfit that designs much of India’s defense equipment, to deliver a working engine for the plane.

Instead, the government has finally decided to buy engines from U.S. firm General Electric, as Defense News reported over the weekend. GE has already supplied engines for the Tejas Mk I; the Mk II, an improved version of the Tejas which is still in the works, will now also be fitted with General Electric power plants.

The Kaveri may not be completely dead. As Defense Minister A.K. Antony explained in a written parliamentary response last month, the engine may eventually power some of the Tejas fleet, and be used in Indian drones and “marine applications.” However, for a program that has soaked up $560 million in funding over the years, according to Antony’s own estimate, it’s an awful outcome.

The story of Indian defense is strewn with the wreckage of projects like the Kaveri: wasteful endeavours that were allowed to drag on for far too long, leeching the national defense budget and ultimately failing to deliver a capability that the military had any confidence in.


Defense development is prone to dysfunction in all countries: this is unavoidable when building capabilities that are both experimental and expensive. China has also found aircraft engine development an expensive and time-consuming business. But India’s problems are more acute than most. Everyone is to blame. The government offers little leadership, is far too soft on the DRDO, and has failed to privatize the country’s flabby and underperforming defence complexes. The military does a poor job of communicating its needs to the government and the DRDO. The boffins at the DRDO appear to be in a world of their own, working on capabilities that the military doesn’t want and didn’t ask for, and with no concept of time or money. And no-one is ever held accountable when it all goes wrong.

It’s a pity that Antony only made half a decision when it came to the Kaveri: he sidelined the program, but then failed to cancel it. Pulling the plug altogether would have been bolder, and probably wiser. Millions more may now be spent, needlessly.

The Indian government is right to want to develop these capabilities itself. It just needs to be smarter about picking the right capabilities to build locally; and to be braver about axing programs that aren’t succeeding. As for the DRDO, there has surely never been an organisation more in need of performance-related pay.

Has New Delhi learned the lessons from the Kaveri/Tejas experience? The proof will be in how it handles its next big aviation program, the development of a medium combat aircraft (MCA). A feasibility study on the new MCA was due to be completed by the end of 2011; nothing about its progress has emerged so far. India’s defense leaders may not get this one right either. But at least they know in advance many of the ways to get it wrong.

India
 
.
Is it the old article ???

JV on engine is going on. But delay is due to wrong planning and overestimation of capabilities. We should have done this JV on engine in 90s. LCA would have inducted still now
 
.
Is it the old article ???

JV on engine is going on. But delay is due to wrong planning and overestimation of capabilities. We should have done this JV on engine in 90s. LCA would have inducted still now

Nope, it's the article on the latest news on pack-up of Kaveri engine project.

Absolutely, we sometime overestimate ourselves or in the name of patriotism or indigenisation tend to develop high tech things like weapon or engine alone which delays or even end the complete project itself. It's better that in future planned projects such as AMCA we go in for JV's with friendly nation.
 
.
Why the heck can't we take a leaf out of China's book on expertise in stealing and reverse engineering foreign technology? We could have made a clone of the GE engines powering the Tejas a long long time ago! Why are we always wanting to re-invent the wheel? :smokin:
 
.
Why the heck can't we take a leaf out of China's book on expertise in stealing and reverse engineering foreign technology? We could have made a clone of the GE engines powering the Tejas a long long time ago! Why are we always wanting to re-invent the wheel? :smokin:

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHINA & INDIA BRO.......

WHEN WE CAN HAVE OUR OWN TECH. WHY MAKE EVERYTHING FROM FOREIGN TECH.
 
.
Why the heck can't we take a leaf out of China's book on expertise in stealing and reverse engineering foreign technology? We could have made a clone of the GE engines powering the Tejas a long long time ago! Why are we always wanting to re-invent the wheel? :smokin:

The same reason we built our own nuclear reactor technology and our own aircraft carriers and our own PSLV designs.
Reduced reliance an outside nation and ability to develop skills to research the next level of technology even at the risk of failure of the present project.
 
.
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHINA & INDIA BRO.......

WHEN WE CAN HAVE OUR OWN TECH. WHY MAKE EVERYTHING FROM FOREIGN TECH.
if the world of high tech can be easily reverse engineered then N.K can be the superpower in few years...

kid you need technological know-how and industrial capability to do R&D...India is at the bottom of industrial level and your R&D capabilty is very primitive. (please have a nice read of WIPO, WB and Thomas Reuters' annual reports to get a glance of your country's primitiveness)

bear in mind China still faces high tech sanction from western world, that forced us to do everything by ourselves...but on other hand, India buys verything from others from bullets to rocket engines, so in reality high tech has nothing to do with India..

but surely your porpaganda has to come-up some kintergarden fairytales like 'we Indians develop our own' to delude your less educated bunches
 
.
how much and how long can any one feed a white elephant.
 
. .
Why the heck can't we take a leaf out of China's book on expertise in stealing and reverse engineering foreign technology? We could have made a clone of the GE engines powering the Tejas a long long time ago! Why are we always wanting to re-invent the wheel? :smokin:

Plus making a power plant for a 4th generation smallest aircraft itself is an innovation.

The basic Problem is, It is very small and our Airforce Wants it to produce thrust equivalent to F-16's engine, which is bigger and heavier.

here is the comparison.

GTRE KAVERI
Type: afterburning turbofan
Length: 137.4 in (3490 mm)
Diameter: 35.8 in (910 mm)

Dry weight: 2,724 lb (1,235 kg) [Goal: 2,100-2450 lb (950-1100 kg)]

Components

Compressor: two-spool, with low-pressure (LP) and high-pressure (HP) axial compressors:
LP compressor with 3 fan stages and transonic blading
HP compressor with 6 stages, including variable inlet guide vanes and first two stators
Combustors: annular, with dump diffuser and air-blast fuel atomisers
Turbine: 1 LP stage and 1 HP stage

Performance

Maximum thrust:
Military thrust (throttled): 11,687 lbf (52.0 kN)
Full afterburner: 18,210 lbf (81.0 kN)
Specific fuel consumption:
Military thrust (throttled): 0.78 lb/(lbf•h) (79.52 kg/(kN·h))
Full afterburner: 2.03 lb/(lbf•h) (207.00 kg/(kN·h))
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 7.8:1 (76.0 N/kg)

____________________________________________________

GE F110

General characteristics

Type: Afterburning turbofan
Length: 182.3 - 232.3 in (463 - 590 cm)
Diameter: 46.5 in (118 cm)

Dry weight: 3,920 - 4,400 lb (1,778 - 1,996 kg)

Components

Compressor: 2 spool: 3 fan and 9 high pressure compressor stages
Combustors: annular
Turbine: 2 low-pressure and 1 high-pressure stages

Performance

Maximum thrust: 27,000 - 28,000 lbf (120 - 125 kN)
Overall pressure ratio: 29.9:1 - 30.4:1
Turbine inlet temperature: 2750F (1510C)[4]
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 6.36:1
 
. .
Why the heck can't we take a leaf out of China's book on expertise in stealing and reverse engineering foreign technology? We could have made a clone of the GE engines powering the Tejas a long long time ago! Why are we always wanting to re-invent the wheel? :smokin:

I believe we have tried everything with Kaveri and even desperate measures to reduce weight and increase thrust was employed but the thrust remained hovering around mid 70s and occasionally (but not consistently) in early 80s. The manufacturing of single crystal blades is not about copying geometry but understanding the process of manufacturing from the end product. It is all about the method and reverse engineering can take you only that far.

To complicate things, we lost a lot of talent as people went abroad to do a post doc or PhD, mostly to UK.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom