Carter to face Indian demand for engine technology

[Echo_419]

it's either share the tech with India gaining an ally or not sharing the tech and have China surpass us anyways via espionage and advancement in it's own domestic R&D.

long as the tech doesn't fall into enemies hands I don't see a problem.


the GE-414 is reaching a dead end with the Super Hornet.

Exactly Win win for both our nations

 

[Vyom]

All fighters will use engine in non afterburner mode in most of the time,so I think ej200 will give better flight characteristics for LCA ,in my opnion mainly in payload vs range scenario.Also they are ready to upgrade The same engine which will give 78 KN and 120 KN thrust in non & afterburner modes respectively( use the miracle called google ). Last but not least its comparatively sanction proof over GE engine.

Again let me repeat my proposition :

1. All fighters use their engine in non afterburner mode most of the time, agreed. my point was is of the New undeveloped engine. While the First Prototype.is scheduled to come out at 2017-18. a change in engine now, could further delay the project as the airframe needs to modified according the new Engine. Also Factor in 78kN of thrust, strengthening of air frame. given the efficiency of HAL is that of a amputated snail. its impractical to go for a change of engine, that is yet to be developed at this point in time.

2. When the actual competition was being held EJ2000 was being hailed as the favorite, had this conversation happened in 2010 i would have favored it, with 5 years down the line it make little sense.

3. The sanction point is as valid as for GE 414 becasue I believe that we are gettiing a full ToT of the engine that should enable us to develop an indigenous supply chain, however if US of A ever slaps a sanction on us trust EU to tail their line. Had this been a fully french company like Snecma. then the sanction proof point was very much valid.

US is by far most un predictable, still in 2015 they have sanction on so many Indian labs and restrictions on buying tools. This is not true with Russia, France or Israel. Us will change it course soon, when ever it needs.

Two points (is from Tanvi Madan's Article)

1. There are two components to this. First, many in India think of the US as unreliable. American behaviour during the 1971 India-Pakistan war has had much to do with shaping this perspective. Yet, few remember the times when the US was the only reliable partner India had--for example, the 1962 war, when Moscow went missing and instead was providing intelligence to China, and when the non-aligned countries fell silent; or the 1965 India-Pakistan war when it was to Washington that Indian policymakers turned to for help when it seemed like China would jump in. The other component to this is American perplexity about India's concerns about unreliability. Yet India has found itself suddenly cut-off from promised military and economic supplies, and policymakers did go from having an implicit American security assurance vis-à-vis China to having an American president urging China to back up Pakistan in its 1971 war with India.

2. This Relationship Is Not Transactional. Sure it is and that's alright. A bilateral relationship can be strategic, but the transactional elements are important--not the least because it involves actors (such as companies) who often have to show returns on their investment more immediately. Realistically, foreign relations are not altruistic; both sides need to derive benefit for a partnership to be sustainable. Both sides need to have and maintain constituencies who think the relationship is worth it. Of course, both sides also need to get beyond constantly asking of the other "what have you done for me lately?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My View it is important to engage USA in Inida's defense industry a time when their domestic spending cuts are ensuring that the defense sector needs new markets and workshops to keep costs down and margins high. Also, it is important to engage USA in a way that the economic interests of both the countries coincide, Alienating, us from the west wont serve our purpose, and this has to be done at all levels.

M-88 whole new engine developed in 15 years & you are doubting in developing a variant with best engine developer & manufacturer Rolce Royce ?.

You do realize that the parameters being developed needs a whole new range and not to miss the structural changes the Mk2's design.

From 2011 there are enough time develop it.

Talk from today's perspective, 2011 is not coming bck.

Tejas MkII still on the paper so when you ready your prototype ?

That every engineering feat you see was once done on paper and this is usually the tedious part. So those papers needs to be thrown away and again begin from scratch ?

Technical Knowledge & ranting are also different thing.

Yes. Only you are endowed with it

 

[Manindra]

Two points (is from Tanvi Madan's Article)

Your whole point are someone's article not your original ?

1. There are two components to this. First, many in India think of the US as unreliable. American behaviour during the 1971 India-Pakistan war has had much to do with shaping this perspective. Yet, few remember the times when the US was the only reliable partner India had--for example, the 1962 war, when Moscow went missing and instead was providing intelligence to China, and when the non-aligned countries fell silent; or the 1965 India-Pakistan war when it was to Washington that Indian policymakers turned to for help when it seemed like China would jump in. The other component to this is American perplexity about India's concerns about unreliability. Yet India has found itself suddenly cut-off from promised military and economic supplies, and policymakers did go from having an implicit American security assurance vis-à-vis China to having an American president urging China to back up Pakistan in its 1971 war with India.

2. This Relationship Is Not Transactional. Sure it is and that's alright. A bilateral relationship can be strategic, but the transactional elements are important--not the least because it involves actors (such as companies) who often have to show returns on their investment more immediately. Realistically, foreign relations are not altruistic; both sides need to derive benefit for a partnership to be sustainable. Both sides need to have and maintain constituencies who think the relationship is worth it. Of course, both sides also need to get beyond constantly asking of the other "what have you done for me lately?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My View it is important to engage USA in Inida's defense industry a time when their domestic spending cuts are ensuring that the defense sector needs new markets and workshops to keep costs down and margins high. Also, it is important to engage USA in a way that the economic interests of both the countries coincide, Alienating, us from the west wont serve our purpose, and this has to be done at all levels.

This is Geo-Political matter which is another subject which I don't want to raise in technical discussion.

You do realize that the parameters being developed needs a whole new range and not to miss the structural changes the Mk2's design.

You should realize that Both GE F-414 & Eurojet 2000 are in Tejas MK II Engine tender where EJ 2000 offers more industrial & technical advantage but bid won by GE due to price factor.
Its not AL-31 or T-50 engine that you need whole redesign as Tejas design is modular LRU base.

Talk from today's perspective, 2011 is not coming bck.

As you know grammar then you realize that I am just cursing DRDO for their mistake & I perfectly know that lot of waters flown in Ganges till then.

That every engineering feat you see was once done on paper and this is usually the tedious part. So those papers needs to be thrown away and again begin from scratch ?

So, design not frozen yet & you are wanting a engine ?
Btw for AMCA DRDO is taking same steps which I am suggesting EPE version of F-414 to be developed by GE in less than 5 years so any technical ranting on that.

Yes. Only you are endowed with it

May be next time you rise your own genuine question neither another one's.

 

[axisofevil]

first of all american tech is safe with india, secondly china can never surpass americans in technology. if you see chinese weapons they all are copies of one russian weapon platform or another.

It wont be that way forever. China is already develo[ing in house tech and is pumping massive resources. They have lied, cheated, stolen as much as they could to gain ground, now they will look at how to obtain the lead in the future. You can already see the transition by the way they are re organizing their assets in edcuation, research, production, papers, etc.

Don't worry Americans won't sell it Chinese you know why?? secondly no country have pockets to buy it except india if there is any name it

What a troll. You think China cant afford it? They are begging for the EU and US to lift arms embargo/sanctions LMAO

 

[Vyom]

Your whole point are someone's article not your original ?

This is Geo-Political matter which is another subject which I don't want to raise in technical discussion.

It was in response to Kinetic. Not you. About whole original point, try forming an informed opinion not by your gut. If look at it that way references in thesis or any verifiable fact is obvious and are very much legitimate and it helps augment perspective. but I guess to quote references lowers the quality of debate to you.

You should realize that Both GE F-414 & Eurojet 2000 are in Tejas MK II Engine tender where EJ 2000 offers more industrial & technical advantage but bid won by GE due to price factor.
Its not AL-31 or T-50 engine that you need whole redesign as Tejas design is modular LRU base.

Yes, I was well aware that tender, but a tender is a techno commercial document and any product offered against one is evaluated on both Technical and commercial impacts. Would be glad if you could enlist the tangible industrial advantages rather rants and making vague statements.

The dimension of both the engines are different and yes a change in engine will entail a design review for the whole airframe, as from weight to dimension to the same stands changed. If you run boundary flow analysis or CFD analysis on it you will know how, surface temperature, lift and drag stress on an airframe impact the performance of an aircraft/airframe..An actual parameter based simulation would help. but I guess, Its my rants not technical. if you want to be know more I suggest you to get design details and run simulation on ANSYS. You will have a holistic understanding of all technical parameters.

About LRUs or Line Replaceable Units, the it is a design philosophy for quick maintenance and construction, you cannot just replace an engine because it has replaceable modules. The modules weights and dimension are critical to the airframes in flight behavior.

As you know grammar then you realize that I am just cursing DRDO for their mistake & I perfectly know that lot of waters flown in Ganges till then.

Your grammar was way of the mark. You used "are" where the proper verb should have been "was" as you were addressing a event passed already. The point of knowing grammar is that if you write improperly, I cannot fathom in which tense you are talking. i try not to be personal in remarks but sir, you engineering know how is as pathetic as your English.

So, design not frozen yet & you are wanting a engine ?
Btw for AMCA DRDO is taking same steps which I am suggesting EPE version of F-414 to be developed by GE in less than 5 years so any technical ranting on that.

I guess you didn't get a word of what I was saying. The design of any aircraft is not fully frozen unless it goes into Serial production. The preliminary details are worked out, and that too with painstaking effort, and it takes an aweful lot of time doing it. The paper work is vital. it takes time to get evry single nut, bolt, rivet, wire in place. there are multiple iteration of ground test that are done before even fuel is poured into its tanks, avionic tests, balancing tests, wind tunnel tests, RCS analysis and what not. But I doubt you can fathom, the complexity of it.

May be next time you rise your own genuine question neither another one's.

Whenever in doubt I read for answers for my query, I don't know how a valid point/question made by any one else can loose its value even if I have the same question. However, Your above statement to make some grammatical sense should read as, " May Be from next time on wards you will raise your own genuine question, and not some one Else's."

Conclusion : Your English and Engineering both are pathetic, I wont even delve into any discussions with you hence forth. geopolitics is not even remotely your cup of tea.

Good day, & Good bye.

 

[#hydra#]

Again let me repeat my proposition :

1. All fighters use their engine in non afterburner mode most of the time, agreed. my point was is of the New undeveloped engine. While the First Prototype.is scheduled to come out at 2017-18. a change in engine now, could further delay the project as the airframe needs to modified according the new Engine. Also Factor in 78kN of thrust, strengthening of air frame. given the efficiency of HAL is that of a amputated snail. its impractical to go for a change of engine, that is yet to be developed at this point in time.

2. When the actual competition was being held EJ2000 was being hailed as the favorite, had this conversation happened in 2010 i would have favored it, with 5 years down the line it make little sense.

3. The sanction point is as valid as for GE 414 becasue I believe that we are gettiing a full ToT of the engine that should enable us to develop an indigenous supply chain, however if US of A ever slaps a sanction on us trust EU to tail their line. Had this been a fully french company like Snecma. then the sanction proof point was very much valid.



Two points (is from Tanvi Madan's Article)

1. There are two components to this. First, many in India think of the US as unreliable. American behaviour during the 1971 India-Pakistan war has had much to do with shaping this perspective. Yet, few remember the times when the US was the only reliable partner India had--for example, the 1962 war, when Moscow went missing and instead was providing intelligence to China, and when the non-aligned countries fell silent; or the 1965 India-Pakistan war when it was to Washington that Indian policymakers turned to for help when it seemed like China would jump in. The other component to this is American perplexity about India's concerns about unreliability. Yet India has found itself suddenly cut-off from promised military and economic supplies, and policymakers did go from having an implicit American security assurance vis-à-vis China to having an American president urging China to back up Pakistan in its 1971 war with India.

2. This Relationship Is Not Transactional. Sure it is and that's alright. A bilateral relationship can be strategic, but the transactional elements are important--not the least because it involves actors (such as companies) who often have to show returns on their investment more immediately. Realistically, foreign relations are not altruistic; both sides need to derive benefit for a partnership to be sustainable. Both sides need to have and maintain constituencies who think the relationship is worth it. Of course, both sides also need to get beyond constantly asking of the other "what have you done for me lately?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My View it is important to engage USA in Inida's defense industry a time when their domestic spending cuts are ensuring that the defense sector needs new markets and workshops to keep costs down and margins high. Also, it is important to engage USA in a way that the economic interests of both the countries coincide, Alienating, us from the west wont serve our purpose, and this has to be done at all levels.



You do realize that the parameters being developed needs a whole new range and not to miss the structural changes the Mk2's design.



Talk from today's perspective, 2011 is not coming bck.



That every engineering feat you see was once done on paper and this is usually the tedious part. So those papers needs to be thrown away and again begin from scratch ?



Yes. Only you are endowed with it

F414 for lca mk2 was a logical option because of similar physical dimention mean less headache for DRDO for re designing the aircraft.What about AMCA then?its a new aircraft still. We should go with either uprated version of ej200 or a variant of Russian al31. I prefer a more powerful engine like al31( I know its negative points,but still its give some commonality with that of MKI and also if we choose to power AMCA wirh al31 there is high probability that we may get an upgraded version with TOT), or ej200 variant over us engine.more power means we will get some more flexibility in stealth shaping for engine nozzles.

 

[Vyom]

F414 for lca mk2 was a logical option because of similar physical dimention mean less headache for DRDO for re designing the aircraft.What about AMCA then?its a new aircraft still. We should go with either uprated version of ej200 or a variant of Russian al31. I prefer a more powerful engine like al31( I know its negative points,but still its give some commonality with that of MKI and also if we choose to power AMCA wirh al31 there is high probability that we may get an upgraded version with TOT), or ej200 variant over us engine.more power means we will get some more flexibility in stealth shaping for engine nozzles.

I fully agree with your point. AMCA is a new bird and should get its a good engine, but may faith in Rusky engines if waning far too rapidly. but the design of it seems hardly anything more than creative imagination. every time at aero India and defense expo I see a new design concept. Rakhsa Mantri should look into the restructuring of HAL and ADA. we dont want to repeat the mistakes we had with Tejas.

 

[#hydra#]

they are unable to fix the final decision only because of IAF, the untrusted buyer. Let them design AMCA on the basis of IN requirement,once they refined the product IAF will start buying AMCA(some tailoring according IAF guidance),other wise its going to be tejas2.0 saga. IAF may be satisfied with 105KN engine with round nozzle by now, they will simply argue for higher rated version power plant with flat thrust vectoring nozzles,f22 class stealthines etc in future. Instead of that just stick to IN requirement, any way IN will be having 5 to 6 65K tone+ aircraft carrier in near future.

 

[Manindra]

Yes, I was well aware that tender, but a tender is a techno commercial document and any product offered against one is evaluated on both Technical and commercial impacts. Would be glad if you could enlist the tangible industrial advantages rather rants and making vague statements.

Eurojet is brand new design which developed for latest 4.5 + generation Eurofighter Typhoon so it have to more support & upgrade from OEM compared to F-414 which itself derivative of more than 3 decade old F-404 engine & got stopped after F-18 SH
Eurojet consortium give a joint development option for Tejas MK II & AMCA both with hot engine technology which is not in the case of GE.
Eurojet is more flexible in sharing technology & can give option to more indigenization compared to GE which gives not more than 60% indigenization.

The dimension of both the engines are different and yes a change in engine will entail a design review for the whole airframe, as from weight to dimension to the same stands changed. If you run boundary flow analysis or CFD analysis on it you will know how, surface temperature, lift and drag stress on an airframe impact the performance of an aircraft/airframe..An actual parameter based simulation would help. but I guess, Its my rants not technical. if you want to be know more I suggest you to get design details and run simulation on ANSYS. You will have a holistic understanding of all technical parameters.

About LRUs or Line Replaceable Units, the it is a design philosophy for quick maintenance and construction, you cannot just replace an engine because it has replaceable modules. The modules weights and dimension are critical to the airframes in flight behavior.

You are talking about 50s not current era & above your explanation would be correct if we going to integrate AL-41, F-100 or T-50 type engines which are different in size or other parameters.
And for LRU remark you are not mentions modular which I previously mentioned & these engines have not much difference in their Size compared to engine I mentioned previously.
And if Eurojet won the tender then all point you raised are mooted as LCA MKII to be designed to keep Eurojet 2000 in mind.

Your grammar was way of the mark. You used "are" where the proper verb should have been "was" as you were addressing a event passed already. The point of knowing grammar is that if you write improperly, I cannot fathom in which tense you are talking. i try not to be personal in remarks but sir, you engineering know how is as pathetic as your English.

I can't get my self to educate from IIN

I guess you didn't get a word of what I was saying. The design of any aircraft is not fully frozen unless it goes into Serial production. The preliminary details are worked out, and that too with painstaking effort, and it takes an aweful lot of time doing it. The paper work is vital. it takes time to get evry single nut, bolt, rivet, wire in place. there are multiple iteration of ground test that are done before even fuel is poured into its tanks, avionic tests, balancing tests, wind tunnel tests, RCS analysis and what not. But I doubt you can fathom, the complexity of it.

Now, you fully wrong in above highlighted sentence as design are not frozen then you could get F-16 in serial production from LCA in prototype.
Only tweaks , some random changes, canards etc. are added or removed but not radical changes so after design freeze you can't get LCA from F-16 or J-10.

Whenever in doubt I read for answers for my query, I don't know how a valid point/question made by any one else can loose its value even if I have the same question. However, Your above statement to make some grammatical sense should read as, " May Be from next time on wards you will raise your own genuine question, and not some one Else's."

Conclusion : Your English and Engineering both are pathetic, I wont even delve into any discussions with you hence forth. geopolitics is not even remotely your cup of tea.

Good day, & Good bye.

You are may be professor in IIN , kindly teach me Physics & English both.

 

[Vyom]

they are unable to fix the final decision only because of IAF, the untrusted buyer. Let them design AMCA on the basis of IN requirement,once they refined the product IAF will start buying AMCA(some tailoring according IAF guidance),other wise its going to be tejas2.0 saga. IAF may be satisfied with 105KN engine with round nozzle by now, they will simply argue for higher rated version power plant with flat thrust vectoring nozzles,f22 class stealthines etc in future. Instead of that just stick to IN requirement, any way IN will be having 5 to 6 65K tone+ aircraft carrier in near future.

The way I see it, IAF and IA does have the spoiled brat syndrome of having imported guns. soon they will demand to chuck AMCA and go only for AURA. Thereby wasting the resources, time and manpower. navy has a different kind of requirement and its mostly anti ship, submarine, and limited ground attack warfare. I don't think unless we become a totally blue water navy, and an expeditionary force, our Aircraft requirement will increase. 5 carriers is long shot I see a maximum of three, one for Bay of Bengal-Eastern IOR, one for Arabian Sea, and one dedicated for IOR.

Still no Air-force has such a variety of MRCA platforms, Rafale, AMACA (Proposed), and T50 (Under-development). its a logistical nightmare if you consider spares, and maintenance. RM Manohar Parikar has a cool head on his shoulders lets see what he comes up with. Either AMCA or T-50 might get scrapped.

 

[Optimos Prime IA]

For Tejas MKII we have excellent opportunity for Eurojet 2000 engine which can give thrust up to 120 KN & 2d TVC with joint development & more flexibility with ToT but stupid DRDO gone to GE for just monetery benefit.

Good point ... These stupid babus always under powered tejas . Why the scoot 120kn was not formulated for tejas in first place ? And now they want 90 kn MK2 . So later they will have chance to spend another 10 years with single engine MK3 with 120kn engine and stealth features

GE engine is more reliable which leverages structural reliability and fast turn around time of Tejas.It means Tejas can fly more sorties daily and spend less time in maintainance annually with GE engine than eurojet.Also GE is cheaper and more fuel efficient.

But the question is why we dint even had plans for more powerful engine or up rated

 

[Manindra]

Good point ... These stupid babus always under powered tejas . Why the scoot 120kn was not formulated for tejas in first place ? And now they want 90 kn MK2 . So later they will have chance to spend another 10 years with single engine MK3 with 120kn engine and stealth features

Tejas MKIII is still a hogwash created by DRDO where MKII is still on paper .
120 KN thrust would be good for AMCA with 2 D TVC.

 

[Optimos Prime IA]

Tejas MKIII is still a hogwash created by DRDO where MKII is still on paper .
120 KN thrust would be good for AMCA with 2 D TVC.

We will develop tvc with Russians . What ever the engine might be. If it's GE then it should be under full tot can't trust us . Nearly 500 fighters at stake. Or just move on with who ever willing to provide us 100% technology . Once we get the technology we can create our own for future 6th gen fighters

 

[Manindra]

We will develop tvc with Russians . What ever the engine might be. If it's GE then it should be under full tot can't trust us . Nearly 500 fighters at stake. Or just move on with who ever willing to provide us 100% technology . Once we get the technology we can create our own for future 6th gen fighters

Nobody provide you full ToT mostly you have dirty your hands in it.

 

[Optimos Prime IA]

Nobody provide you full ToT mostly you have dirty your hands in it.

But we are looking for full ToT in engine sector .