Search results

I am still yet to get any official specifications for Kaveri. But there are few old non Indian sites (2002 -2006 era) which quote figure of 20200 lbs/89.8 kn (like the one linked) . And there is 2003-2004 Mod Annual Report which does not talk about thrust figures but Talks about Kaveri K9...

Thats a Tangetial discussion. You posted chronological order claimed to be an excerpt of now defunct page from Tejas. Gov site - in which it was listed ASQR stated 90kn as requirement for Kaveri. I sourced the exact chorological from Tejas.gov archive and nowhere there was ever mention of 90KN...

@Chinmoy Here is the choronological order fetched from Tejas.gov.in archive. No where it's mentioned that asqr requirement of 90 kn was mentioned. The archive link of 2018 date. The one of 2015 date also doesn't state 90kn asqr figure. Can you give me source of what you state wrt 90kn as the...

78 kn was figure you posted in the link where ADE director claimed that 78kn was the design intent. What I posted was a link which alluded that 73-75 kn stable thrust was already achieved by Kaveri wayback in 2011 itself. I also posted 80kn was the design intent of Kaveri stated on GTRE...

Yes as the weight of LCA Tejas increased both realized the existing Kaveri won't be feasible for operational Tejas. They had to target 80kn+ figures to be meaningful for IAF. I'll post links more I need to dig archive on internet and Google seems to have dropped custom year search filter...

Flutter was due to blade issue.. and it occurred only at higher thrusts(80 kn)

The video is showing you combustion issue. Flutter is another issue which is more pertaining to blades. Here is 2020 post from DFI which posted excerpt from DDR. And thats why you see on GTRE site they are working on new fan too. Here is another old video summarizing Kaveri issues

Not really, flutter is more of mechanical or structural issue. You can also look at this old video reuploaded by shiv. See from flame at full thrust - combustion seems improper here is the old video original uploaded 9 years ago:

wait for formal announcement. What could be possible is that they might be inducting few examples of specific system which is housed on stryker.

IAF(because of increased operational thrust needs of LCA Tejas) desired 80-90 kn which was more than original designed goal of 75/78Kn. So yes IAF as Stakeholder(customer) desired 80-90KN later but that does not mean that original design goal was also same. New Goal of IAF lead to GTRE making...

so ADE director is corroborating what GTRE sources states? Where does it state design goal is 90kn as you asserted? Here exADE director is stating 78Kn (not even 80 kn stated on their official site) was design goal...

umm from various (informed) online discussions which been following more than decade and this archived news link dated 2011 states the same that 70 -75 kn stable thrust was achieved: https://web.archive.org/web/20110129024136/http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/article1127075.ece Also...

They had achieved stable 75Kn thrust long back. Stabilizing 81 Kn and then again extending to 90 KN was the holy grail GTRE had been struggling since more than last decade. Flutter issue was preventing sustained 81kn

manik has different mission requirements than Kaveri. The needs and ask for Manik are not as strict as Kaveri. Its research on Kaveri which helped them building Manik not otherwise. You should remember Manik is single use whereas Kaveri isnt, core tempratures in manik wont be as high as in kaveri...

hmm so no progress..? we already knew there were no stability issues in original Engine designed with spec thrust figure 70-75 kn. They had flutter issue when they were trying for 81 kn thrust figures. So basically what they could have done in 2011 will be trying in 2026?

midhani provides materials components, gtre designs engines..

Stratnews documentary on thoise had one of the ALH MK3 pilot state that Dhruvastra is already integrated with Dhruv for Anti Armor role.

Ok Thanks for cost perspective, but still I think these shells would give advantage to artillery gun perched on mountain tops. Also I think there shall be price difference between guided and unguided Ramjet Shell (I think there is a place for latter too). Yes we are. Still guided ammunitions...

Drones Accuracy gets affected in high mountains during windy conditions. t affects artillery too but not not to that degree. Drones can damage , artillery can destroy hardened targets. Per Drone (for precision strike) - you need dedicated operator to fine tune precision attack. A single...

not exactly. Artillery gun can be positioned where MRLS cant be (eg. mountains ) Ramjet artillery allows you to overcome counter artillery battery , provide further reach from borders , faster reloads. It will be even more lethal in direct fire. They will also eventually lead to development of...