Sir, this is a very old article and not entirely up to date. I posted a Carnegie report from Tellis saying the IAF rejected the EPE for Super Hornet because the IAF believes GE cannot make the engine in time for the competition.
GTRE and ADA too knows about the maturity level of Ge-EPE engine.
This IAF rejaction is insignificant in this discussion.
The IAF evaluation team of MMRCA is simply not an authority on engine matters and the rejection must be compared to the alternatives like rafale and typhoon with fully developed engines on offer? No one will expect IAF to prefer a foreign fighter with older airframe like f-18 and not in service EPE engine over newer airframe like rafale with in service engine.
So applying this logic here is not correct.
IAF was yet to see any detailed presentation on PAKFA engine or flight specs before funding was received.
With what technical competency IAF evaluated the pakfa fighters engines spec and stealth compliance?
Did the IAF knew from the inception of pakfa ,that it won't have F-22's stealth levels?
The GOI released funding to the sukhoi team with the insistence that there should be a twin seat version for pakfa.
Now there is no twin seat version and IAF is accepting the single seat pakfa as fgfa.
So what happened to the stringent evaluation standards set for EPE engine?
Why didn't iaf publicly censure the sukhoi for not getting twin seat seat version?
So what is the developmental timeframe for the yet to be bench tested new engine for PAKFA?
What is TRL level of pakfe engine 6 or 9. What is the guarentee while it being delivered in time for 2017 pakfa induction in russian airforce?
Why the same level of guarentee cannot be given for INS 6 to enter into service in 2017 on mk-2?
when did the two engine programs start? Which wil mature first? INS 6 or PAKFA engines?
These are only answered by professionals, Not by you and me.
This is not a speculation and the information is more upto date (June 2011) compared to Bill Sweetman's article(April 2011). Unfortunate for Sweetman that the first set of rejections happened a week after he wrote that article.
An excerpt from the article that I have.
The information released by GE said that there were just three tests conducted, in 2004, 2006 and 2010. Apart from that 17 "derivative" engines were made, and not the actual EPE engines. A "derivative" engine can be as different as Al-31FP vs AL-31FN or as different as the Kaveri aero engine vs the marine version, two extremes. A "derivative" engine is surely not the same engine as the planned EPE.
Derivative means that technology of the components to be used in EPE is used in these derivative engines.
In the same way as mk-2 wont need a longer test flight period of 10 years like mk-1 in TEJAS program.
Since EPE's has the form fit of 414 and it's technology is already demonstrated in derivative engines,there may not be insurmountable challenges in INS6.Read the engine is derated as per our wish. Not uprated so that we can guess whether it can be done on time, since uprating means newer stringent requirement on componenets .Derating means lesser load on EPE level tech componenets than design loads.
I don't know what level of progress has been made in the last two years. We can speculate and say they may have progressed a lot. Maybe an EPE is nearly ready for flight tests. Then IAF had no grounds for rejecting it for a 2015 SH. So, if they rejected it, then there is a reason civilians may not know of, even people like Bill Sweetman or Ashley Tellis.
Enough progress should have been made for boeing india chief vivek lal to issue statements liketejas's INS6 is a baseline version of EPE.Otherwise why are they signing the contract/ And why is your friend in ADA telling you tejas will have 110 kn engine a few years before?
This picture is from an actual Boeing presentation released in Aero India 2011.
INS6 is at the same level as the -400. We can say Boeing is not being very accurate. But Boeing is not trying to relate the EPE to INS6, rather it is listed as a different engine. We can say, Boeing does not have accurate information in this case. But then these guys could be more right than analysts or journos.
You are directly contradicting vivek lal's statement thet INS6 is a baseline EPE version. Let's se who is right? YOu are him?
There is no reason to believe we are buying an EPE for $6Million each for a total of $600Million(not final price), including development, ToT and industrial production charges when a similar engine is expected to be made with France(Kaveri K-10) for over $2BIllion. A derivative engine with greater thrust, possible. But a whole new 5th gen engine, very, very unreasonable to believe in it for the costs involved. Comparatively the EJ-200 had completed development.
There is every reason to believe that INS6 will have whatever thrust level we need under 120 kn.Otherwise ADA would not have gone for extra one ton fuel and extra 1.5 ton weapon load in mk-2.You should note.
EPE is really the enhanced version of the EDE. So, maybe you are right and we are going to receive a downrated EPE or an uprated EDE. Doesn't matter which because both are the same 6 stage engines. Maybe they are not 5th gen engines and are being hyped up, especially after the loss of the F-136 contract.
However, there are a lot of tell tale signs which indicate we are not going to get the EPE engine though.
Lets look at some home grown signs.
The author is an ex-IAF officer, Jaguar pilot, IIRC.
Vijainder Thakur
LCA Naval Program Threatened by Excessive Weight
Quoting SAFNEWs shows the extent of your prejudice against mk-2 having any engine with thrust level of upto 120 kn.
Are you ready to believe everything quoted in safnews? Surely the site is more trustworhty than VIVEK LAL's claim?
Retired jaguar pilots don't know a shit about engine tech development level.They have no engineeering back ground to write stuff like that.
And I don,t want to drag the level of debate further by questioning their noble intentions behind posting stuff in sites like safnews.
All good hints which indicate the EPE engine will be different from the INS6. If the Navy officer is talking about buying the EPE for the Navy in May 2012, when the lowest bidder for LCA's engine was actually chosen in
Sept, 2010. Then we did not order the EPE for LCA Mk2. Had it been the EPE in the first deal, then there would have been no problems. Perhaps a new deal will be signed for the F-414 EPE. But, for sure, it is still an ongoing development. I cannot imagine any Indian company signing a deal for paper tigers like EPE for something like the already delayed LCA program. After all the requirement was for a ~100KN engine.
Who is the paper tiger here? Theguys like bill sweetman and vivek lal of GE or SAFNEWS and all illeterate who dont have a design and engineering back ground and who don't know a spitfire engine from F-22 engine?
Also it is yet to be seen if the intakes on LCA can handle even 98 KN let alone ~120 KN.
You should have known by now that air intakes of mk-2 are bigger than the mk-1, it is availble all over the net.
The technical and design challenges of redesigning the air in take is a far simple stuff than increasing the length of fuselage, adding one ton extra fuel and and providing it with 5 ton weapon load.Isn't it?
And when PAKFA's engine has a TWR of 17 (as per your claim in PAKFA thread, do you think GE is dumb ,and that they won't produce a 5th gen engine? Since the development of 414, they must have been sleeping tight without any in house 5th gen engine tech R&D.Is this your contention?
I would like your thoughts on this if you still have a diverging opinion.
