IAF to take final call on AMCA’s engine : DRDO Chief

[fsayed]

@nair @proud_indian @Roybot @jbgt90 @Sergi @Water Car Engineer @dadeechi @kurup @Rain Man @kaykay @Abingdonboy @SR-91 @nang2 @Stephen Cohen @anant_s

@jbgt90 @ranjeet @4GTejasBVR @The_Showstopper @guest11 @PARIKRAMA

@GURU DUTT @HariPrasad @JanjaWeed @litefire @AMCA @SrNair
@Nilgiri
@Guynextdoor2 @DesiGuy1403

DRDO Chief Dr S Christopher speaking to media has confirmed that Defence ministry in principal has given clearance to India’s 5th generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) fighter jet which is a twin-engine fighter jet with stealth technology .

Chief also confirmed that necessary precaution has been taken to avoid the repeat of mistakes which plagued LCA-Tejas program and key industries have been identified for the supply of systems, sub-assemblies and components.

when it comes to the selection of engine to power AMCA Chief said that final call will be taken by Indian Air Force, But discussions are already on with potential collaborators for design and manufacture of these engines in the country.

Washington has signaled its willingness to co-develop aircraft engine with India for India’s indigenous fifth-generation AMCA fighter project . DRDO want General Electric Aviation (GE) to uprate its 98 KiloNewtons (KN) GE-F414IN engine to produce 110 KN of thrust to meets AMCA twin engine requirements .

European Eurojet too has offered its Uprated EJ200 engines for India’s AMCA fighter jet which are currently been used to power Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets and have briefed DRDO officials but has met with lukewarm response from Indian defence ministry till now.

India’s GTRE too is silently also working on development of a Kaveri engine derivative which can generate 80 KiloNewtons (KN) of peak power which in later phases will be uprated to 90 KiloNewtons (KN) ultimately leading to development of 110 KiloNewtons (KN) for which GTRE already has made plans to produce 20 80 KN engines in next 3-4 years for testing purpose .
http://idrw.org/iaf-take-final-call-amcas-engine-drdo-chief/#more-100402

 

[Nilgiri]

GE is the best to work with....I say that as an employee of their rival (PW).

GE has very rigorous attention to detail (as far as commercial civilian side goes), I have seen some of their engine technical diagrams...they put much more effort and development into things like oil lines that PW and rolls royce sort of shrug off (to their detriment).

If this philosophy extends to their military branch too...it is a wise choice for India to have as partner in developing Kaveri into mature platform.

French cooperation would be very welcome too, I have heard good things about Snecma....and its a main reason why the french partnered with GE for the CFM family.

 

[Sliver]

LCA Mk2 still indegenous or being subbed to Grippen makers? so are you guys (India) jumping from LCA to AMCA? or are they parallel?

 

[Nilgiri]

LCA Mk2 still indegenous or being subbed to Grippen makers? so are you guys (India) jumping from LCA to AMCA? or are they parallel?

They are parallel and will run side by side since AMCA is still in the design stage....whereas there is a production schedule that is now being implemented for LCA.

LCA Mk2 will be indigenous, there may be SAAB involvement in some parts of it (what exactly will remain to be seen). But it will be developed for the most part in India.

 

[Sliver]

They are parallel and will run side by side since AMCA is still in the design stage....whereas there is a production schedule that is now being implemented for LCA.

LCA Mk2 will be indigenous, there may be SAAB involvement in some parts of it (what exactly will remain to be seen). But it will be developed for the most part in India.

LCA is pretty distant from AMCA technologically. obviously there needs to be multiple iterations of LCA type aircraft before India can evolve and fine tune its aircraft technologies.

The recent articles I am reading (about secondary Make in India aircraft manufacture, UAV RFI etc) suggest more imports to get newer tech faster instead of more indigenous R&D which will be slower.

so far the only major accomplishment from India side seems to be the troop carrier heli and the associated helis. The same time line and urgency seem to be missing form the LCA. thoughts?

 

[Nilgiri]

LCA is pretty distant from AMCA technologically. obviously there needs to be multiple iterations of LCA type aircraft before India can evolve and fine tune its aircraft technologies.

The recent articles I am reading (about secondary Make in India aircraft manufacture, UAV RFI etc) suggest more imports to get newer tech faster instead of more indigenous R&D which will be slower.

so far the only major accomplishment from India side seems to be the troop carrier heli and the associated helis. The same time line and urgency seem to be missing form the LCA. thoughts?

LCA role is to be a bulk tactical interdiction platform. Right now there are much more pressing concerns in the other very crucial roles of Air Force doctrine (multirole, ground attack, air dominance) so the LCA is more of a lower priority to push immensely past its own pace of development. When its more mature and ready, there will be more resources to bump up its induction into the AF. @Abingdonboy had the chart of LCA induction schedule somewhere. He can post it for you.

 

[Grevion]

If we go for a GE engine even if it is make in India I dont think we will gain much from it. While the French offer to develop Kaveri further in collaboration can be more beneficial as it will be a indigenous design with foreign help. The only risk there is of uncertainty as we dont know if the joint development will be successful and the IAF and the DRDO will be looking for a smooth supply chain and would not want to repeat the LCA saga.

 

[anant_s]

LCA program suffered a lot for years owing to Kaveri project's very slow speed. It is therefore important that at this stage itself, we freeze the engine option and then work on aerodynamic design and avionics of AMCA. It is a known fact that Indian design and industry will take some more time to develop and perfect indigenous engine (like everyone else has), so selecting a mature engine is first stepping stone towards a successful fighter jet product.

 

[Spectre]

What happens in JV for development of already developed product @Nilgiri @MilSpec @PARIKRAMA? French, Americans etc already have complete Engine designs and processes perfected so when they offer JV - how does it work? Will they share some portions of the designs then pretend they dont know how the rest of it functions and then pretend to develop it with you.

I am at loss to understand the JV system for developing already developed products

 

[Nilgiri]

If we go for a GE engine even if it is make in India I dont think we will gain much from it. While the French offer to develop Kaveri further in collaboration can be more beneficial as it will be a indigenous design with foreign help. The only risk there is of uncertainty as we dont know if the joint development will be successful and the IAF and the DRDO will be looking for a smooth supply chain and would not want to repeat the LCA saga.

Is there any problem with doing both? We cant hedge everything with Kaveri succeeding with French help.

What happens in JV for development of already developed product @Nilgiri @MilSpec @PARIKRAMA? French, Americans etc already have complete Engine designs and processes perfected so when they offer JV - how does it work? Will they share some portions of the designs then pretend they dont know how the rest of it functions and then pretend to develop it with you.

I am at loss to understand the JV system for developing already developed products

Most likely the high pressure spool section will be a restricted IP (probably imported in component form and assembled) and India will manufacture the low pressure spool from scratch (or could be component import form too) along with the RnD for interfacing, increased thrust rating and a few other specific requirements that dont concern the HP spool.

 

[anant_s]

This was for LCA Mark 2, back in 2010. GE's 414 is at a lower price and therefore, given commonality, it would be a preferred option.

 

[nomi007]

why Indian are not taking help from Russians in engine manufacturing
although u are old customer

 

[PARIKRAMA]

There are multiple things when it comes to so called technology transfer especially for a product like Jet Engine.
A simple diagram like this below will help all of the readers understand it more easily

Some quick points

• A product design is achieved through laboratory development and prototype development. This element can be directly transferred through documentation and the hardware itself.
• Manufacturing techniques are established through the combination of manufacturing process development and pilot production steps. Again, these techniques can be transferred through documentation and hardware.
• Quality assurance techniques are developed from product testing in pilot production and data gathering entailed in engineering support. These two steps incorporate design refinement and continuous updating of the product; new state-of-the-art techniques also form part of the technology transfer package and are transferred through documentation and people.
• Another very important element of transferrable technology is that of product management techniques. These techniques are not exactly product oriented, nor do they directly relate to the steps outlined above. They include the development and management skills to ensure sufficient and timely production of high-quality products at a predetermined cost. This element and that of quality assurance techniques constitute the most valuable ingredients that many overseas suppliers have to offer to Indian industry in a technology transfer package.

Now if we understand further how we can audit it that TOT is really done?

Now as you can see this is the the glimpse of true need in Jet Engine technology transfer

So consider the cases
1. GE 414 - Will GE give this whole course of actionables as defined above? Their Billion $$ research to India completely so that India can manufacture from scratch everything with no restriction or dependency?

2. Russian options: The AL 31 program showed we made things from raw material stage but certain portions still with Russian import mechanism and we dont have the actual knowledge as perhaps depicted in above two tables

3. JV route: The JV route normally will mean certain portion IP either jointly held or the JV partner being adequately compensated. or the portion of engine (some%) being procured from the maker to reward its participation. But its a long shot process.. JV will need resources pooled and will require time to show results.. And no country would like to give top of the line tech out for free or without a much bigger benefit

4. Kaveri program participation.. Imagine GE, Safran or anyone as consultant. Unless there is a credible liability on their head to make Kaveri successful as per the expectation, no consultant would like to help first. Now in GE case, we have not demanded any offset where they help us make Kaveri successful simply bcz the deal is more FMS type. In Rafale case which is negotiated, there is a chance that Euro 1 Bn may be pumped into Kaveri to make it work as this is an obligation on Dassault and Safran as part of credible offset implementation.

If you see Safran Euro 1 Bn point will be just in pilot production stage in Table 2. Implying much of the work and rights are held directly by India with no issue for Safran. Its work is to improve the pilot production and engineering support to meet the targeted numbers. Of course from engineering perspective, it will look deeper and suggest changes and may help to improve maintenance angle as well .. In simple words it will not create much of the so called sharing in manufacturing process beyond perhaps the vital parts of high pressure /low pressure setup and bring in hot engine tech etc... Thus it can help us develop and evolve our product further.

The same from Table 3 audit matrix perspective will be more agreeable via this route of Kaveri funding and making it reach our goal.

The sole reason in this side of positive is the offset implementation part which binds the Safran side bcz the French government and Dassault want a much bigger pie and order of Rafales

If GE is able to match all this and share with us GE 414 in a similar way with both Table 2 and 3 adherence , then yes they do stand a solid chance. But what is the thing which will bind them to share is the million dollar question?

@Abingdonboy @Taygibay @Vergennes @Spectre @MilSpec @AUSTERLITZ @SpArK @anant_s @Picdelamirand-oil @BON PLAN @zebra7 @randomradio

 

[anant_s]

There are multiple things when it comes to so called technology transfer especially for a product like Jet Engine.
A simple diagram like this below will help all of the readers understand it more easily
View attachment 315953
Some quick points

• A product design is achieved through laboratory development and prototype development. This element can be directly transferred through documentation and the hardware itself.
• Manufacturing techniques are established through the combination of manufacturing process development and pilot production steps. Again, these techniques can be transferred through documentation and hardware.
• Quality assurance techniques are developed from product testing in pilot production and data gathering entailed in engineering support. These two steps incorporate design refinement and continuous updating of the product; new state-of-the-art techniques also form part of the technology transfer package and are transferred through documentation and people.
• Another very important element of transferrable technology is that of product management techniques. These techniques are not exactly product oriented, nor do they directly relate to the steps outlined above. They include the development and management skills to ensure sufficient and timely production of high-quality products at a predetermined cost. This element and that of quality assurance techniques constitute the most valuable ingredients that many overseas suppliers have to offer to Indian industry in a technology transfer package.

Now if we understand further how we can audit it that TOT is really done?
View attachment 315954

Now as you can see this is the the glimpse of true need in Jet Engine technology transfer

So consider the cases
1. GE 414 - Will GE give this whole course of actionables as defined above? Their Billion $$ research to India completely so that India can manufacture from scratch everything with no restriction or dependency?

2. Russian options: The AL 31 program showed we made things from raw material stage but certain portions still with Russian import mechanism and we dont have the actual knowledge as perhaps depicted in above two tables

3. JV route: The JV route normally will mean certain portion IP either jointly held or the JV partner being adequately compensated. or the portion of engine (some%) being procured from the maker to reward its participation. But its a long shot process.. JV will need resources pooled and will require time to show results.. And no country would like to give top of the line tech out for free or without a much bigger benefit

4. Kaveri program participation.. Imagine GE, Safran or anyone as consultant. Unless there is a credible liability on their head to make Kaveri successful as per the expectation, no consultant would like to help first. Now in GE case, we have not demanded any offset where they help us make Kaveri successful simply bcz the deal is more FMS type. In Rafale case which is negotiated, there is a chance that Euro 1 Bn may be pumped into Kaveri to make it work as this is an obligation on Dassault and Safran as part of credible offset implementation.

If you see Safran Euro 1 Bn point will be just in pilot production stage in Table 2. Implying much of the work and rights are held directly by India with no issue for Safran. Its work is to improve the pilot production and engineering support to meet the targeted numbers. Of course from engineering perspective, it will look deeper and suggest changes and may help to improve maintenance angle as well .. In simple words it will not create much of the so called sharing in manufacturing process beyond perhaps the vital parts of high pressure /low pressure setup and bring in hot engine tech etc... Thus it can help us develop and evolve our product further.

The same from Table 3 audit matrix perspective will be more agreeable via this route of Kaveri funding and making it reach our goal.

The sole reason in this side of positive is the offset implementation part which binds the Safran side bcz the French government and Dassault want a much bigger pie and order of Rafales

If GE is able to match all this and share with us GE 414 in a similar way with both Table 2 and 3 adherence , then yes they do stand a solid chance. But what is the thing which will bind them to share is the million dollar question?

@Abingdonboy @Taygibay @Vergennes @Spectre @MilSpec @AUSTERLITZ @SpArK @anant_s @Picdelamirand-oil @BON PLAN @zebra7 @randomradio

Very well explained!

One important point to note from above is, even if you have money, you can buy technology and may tweak it (often illegally) to some extent, but the basic know how and thought process that has gone into it, normally remains out of bounds.
It is therefore important that as consultant when you appoint someone, we must be clear of milestones and final destination. Complex technologies like a jet engine would involve creating an ecosystem comprising of high end metallurgy labs, testing facilities (wind tunnels etc), un-conventional machining methodologies, software and control design for Digital engine controls (FADEC etc) and then of course extensive real world testing.
We need to ask ourselves, where do we stand now and how much effort is required to go till we get a reasonably mature product? Even with a foreign consultant, i think we are a good decade away from a reliable Kaveri engine.
With recent government's MII initiative, he idea is to start manufacturing in India so that local private industry develops some sort of expertise wrt man-power, manufacturing and delivery capability of such high end technologies. When a some point in future, our labs are able to comeup with a mature design, the industry, by that time would be ready to absorb the technology and start delivering the commercial product almost instantaneously.

 

[randomradio]

What France has offered today was no different from what was offered in the past.

IAF canceled it because they believed it was not joint development.
https://defence.pk/threads/iaf-feel...ench-engine-citing-‘joint-development’.63565/

The French want to continue from where they had originally left off. And this time they are packaging it in a different way.