ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

Whitecollar · Jun 12, 2021

Bleh said:
Too small platform, will need drastic redesign... J-10 with AL-31 is large enough to accommodate AL-41 with minor modifications.

Yes you are correct. But if properly scaled(frontal fuselage's height is increased to accomodate an F-16V intake), we may be able to atleast test it's aerodynamics in wind tunnel.

Whitecollar · Jun 12, 2021

Spitfire9 said:
So do it!

DRDO makes single crystal blades. Why would SAFRAN or RR be needed?

I guess that if Kaveri is to be revived and be made to work, GOI will need to be prepared to stump up $billions rather than $hundreds of millions. Whatever, there is no reason to think it would be ready in time to go into MWF.

What if I tell you, the crystal blade tech that we have will not survive prolonged heat at the heated end of engine?? This may lead to 100 hrs max MTBO engine instead of current performance.

Regarding the money, no. India will rather buy GE-F414s till the cows come home. This means we are stuck in 98kN to 110kN limbo for atleast the next 50 years whereas US right now is enjoying an unparallelled performance of F-35 with their F-135 engine tech.

If our Indian engine is successfully made and tested, the MTBO issue is straight ahead. After using GE engines, IAF may not accept Indian ones with lower MTBO values, even if they get made by next 10-15 years with 120 to 140kN thrust( IAF already rejected Saturn engines)

Spitfire9 · Jun 12, 2021

Whitecollar said:
What if I tell you, the crystal blade tech that we have will not survive prolonged heat at the heated end of engine?? This may lead to 100 hrs max MTBO engine instead of current performance.

Understood. If you know, when did the major OEM's come up with alloys/designs that could withstand such temperatures?

Whitecollar said:
Regarding the money, no. India will rather buy GE-F414s till the cows come home. This means we are stuck in 98kN to 110kN limbo for atleast the next 50 years...

I hope you are being pessimistic there. What would be the point of talks with RR if GOI was not prepared to invest a realistic amount in a JV engine?

Whitecollar said:
If our Indian engine is successfully made and tested, the MTBO issue is straight ahead. After using GE engines, IAF may not accept Indian ones with lower MTBO values, even if they get made by next 10-15 years with 120 to 140kN thrust( IAF already rejected Saturn engines)

Don't know about you but I don't see why RR would design an engine likely to have short overhaul intervals.

Ashok84 · Jun 12, 2021

I think ada n hal already locked the design and gone for metal cutting, so other change in design speculations are useless.

Lonewolf · Jun 12, 2021

Spitfire9 said:
Understood. If you know, when did the major OEM's come up with alloys/designs that could withstand such temperatures?

I hope you are being pessimistic there. What would be the point of talks with RR if GOI was not prepared to invest a realistic amount in a JV engine?

Don't know about you but I don't see why RR would design an engine likely to have short overhaul intervals.

Don't indulge too much in that combo dude ,he might be not aware of some info .

Latest developments in indian defence industry are not generally properly reported or info is not enough .

Well about a derated 100 kn engine ,why derated when you can use a 110 kn instead

Spitfire9 · Jun 13, 2021

Lonewolf said:
Don't indulge too much in that combo dude ,he might be not aware of some info .

Latest developments in indian defence industry are not generally properly reported or info is not enough .

Well about a derated 100 kn engine ,why derated when you can use a 110 kn instead

Less stress on engine. Lasts longer. No idea whether specific fuel consumption improves or deteriorates.

The reason I favour a derated 110kN engine for MWF is so that a new 110kN engine could cover Mk1A, MWF, TEDBF, Orca (if ever pursued), AMCA Mk1, AMCA Mk2 ie designs up to AMCA Mk2 with power output range 110kN +10%/15% with growth/ -5%/10% with derating/power limiting. If MWF could do with extra power, just switch off the power limitation temporarily.

Lonewolf · Jun 13, 2021

Spitfire9 said:
Less stress on engine. Lasts longer. No idea whether specific fuel consumption improves or deteriorates.

The reason I favour a derated 110kN engine for MWF is so that a new 110kN engine could cover Mk1A, MWF, TEDBF, Orca (if ever pursued), AMCAMk1, all proposed designs up to AMCA with power output range 110kN +10%/15% with growth/ -5%/10% with derating/power limiting. If MWF could do with extra power, just switch off the power limitation.

Well technically Tejas mk 2 need some more juice , in it's current for its our light truck , enough maneuverable but not too fast , and it's airframe can hold some more weight , well going upward from 6500kg is not required but still a 7ton + payload will add some more capabilities

Spitfire9 · Jun 13, 2021

Lonewolf said:
Well technically Tejas mk 2 need some more juice , in it's current for its our light truck , enough maneuverable but not too fast , and it's airframe can hold some more weight , well going upward from 6500kg is not required but still a 7ton + payload will add some more capabilities

Next you'll be telling me Mk1A could do with more power.

And for all I know, that might be the case when a heavy load is carried.

Lonewolf · Jun 13, 2021

Spitfire9 said:
Next you'll be telling me Mk1A could do with more power. And for all I know, that might be the case when a heavy load is carried.

Mk1 a never , space constraints , airframe constraints , it should be a lot of work it fit in it , but mk2 ,not much bulky task but still a lot of work ,on air intakes , structural changes , exhaust section

lixun · Jun 13, 2021

Whitecollar said:
The idea of a TD with a powerful Russian engine: would there be time to gather and analyse data so it could feed MWF design changes to be tested before production is scheduled to start?

The idea of TD was not to get data for an F414 powered MWF but as an alternative approach to F-414 dependancy. With the amount of money ADA has, this could've easily been done.
In case of any issue faced with US in future regarding AK-203 deal, S-400 deal, Kamov heli deal, etc resulting in export ban of GE engines, ADA should not go back to the drawing board and say: well, shite bro we have to redesign the complete fuselage and accomodate some other engine.
Regarding Kaveri: WS 10 engine was reverse engineered in 2006 by the Chinese. By 2008, they announced the WS-10 engine to be flight worthy. After few years, they thenselves claimed that MTBO of WS-10 was around 40 hours only. Imagine spending millions of dollars and then only achieving 40 hrs of engine performance. Even now after further millions of dollars and a decade wasted, they have come "close" to performance and service life of an AL31FP engine.
So unless, RR is a saint or India is ready to spend in billions, they will NOT sell us the hot core or crystal blade tech. They will help us make the engine but the main heated components(single crystal blade for HP, LP turbines and hot core) will be their own OEM.
[/QUOTE]
China established the China Aviation Engine Group in 2016 to research WS15, WS19, WS20, CJ1000, and WS has invested 30 billion U.S. dollars in 10 years.
In 1987, China launched ws10 research and development,
In 2001, J11A was equipped with a WS10 and an AL31 for flight,
In 2010, J11B began to use WS10 to equip the Chinese Air Force
In 2017, J20 used WS10 for flight
In 2018, J10B TVC performed an air show
It took China 30 years, tens of thousands of research and development personnel, and countless money to make WS10 from a rubbish to a pillar of the Chinese Air Force.

Starlight · Jun 13, 2021

MonaLazy said:
Now that seems totally do-able, rather than going for the most complicated engine like Kaveri for us in the 80s and then ending up with design too complex in 2021 to do anything about- Kaveri UCAV engine is just consolation prize. The starting point of these Birbal ki khichdi engines is impossible ASQRs from the forces. Here's hoping they stay sane this time around.

That was the plan, get everybody riled up about the engine program and back the whole design and then reveal the placement

. The 414 will be updated as we are all evolving but details will be hidden while total evolution of the program is on. By the way the US is not going to put sanctions as the battle plan is co-done.

Whitecollar · Jun 13, 2021

Lonewolf said:
Don't indulge too much in that combo dude ,he might be not aware of some info .

Latest developments in indian defence industry are not generally properly reported or info is not enough .

Well about a derated 100 kn engine ,why derated when you can use a 110 kn instead

Well, for one reason: low bypass turbofan combustion engine designing on practical field is completely different from that designed on paper. Millions of dollars are wasted in making correct LP, HP fanblades, blade ratio, compression ratio, metallurgical evaluations, material science for high temp cores and turbine blades and overall, reliability and proper combustion in myriad of environment.

After every try, the engine is tested for longevity which takes years to finalize. Again millions of dollars wasted.
The data produced after every trial(success or failure) is then analysed and the design is again focussed on for better and smoother performance.

Point is: engine design is something even the best man in DRDO won't be able to explain. Having vital components from OEM via JV is just 20% work done. Rest 80% involves designing and practical evaluations.

After years and billions invested, an engine comes out which will then be attached to a TD and tested for MTBO and TTL. Now you face engine modification issue to maximize these factors which again costs millions in R&D and design changes.

All in all: GE-F404 sets an expectation of 4000 hrs MTBO with IAF. Can we make an engine with anything close to this?? Do we even have that much money?? Will stupid people at MoD even accept such projects?? We will see in the future.

Lonewolf · Jun 13, 2021

Whitecollar said:
Well, for one reason: low bypass turbofan combustion engine designing on practical field is completely different from that designed on paper. Millions of dollars are wasted in making correct LP, HP fanblades, blade ratio, compression ratio, metallurgical evaluations, material science for high temp cores and turbine blades and overall, reliability and proper combustion in myriad of environment.

After every try, the engine is tested for longevity which takes years to finalize. Again millions of dollars wasted.
The data produced after every trial(success or failure) is then analysed and the design is again focussed on for better and smoother performance.

Point is: engine design is something even the best man in DRDO won't be able to explain. Having vital components from OEM via JV is just 20% work done. Rest 80% involves designing and practical evaluations.

After years and billions invested, an engine comes out which will then be attached to a TD and tested for MTBO and TTL. Now you face engine modification issue to maximize these factors which again costs millions in R&D and design changes.

All in all: GE-F404 sets an expectation of 4000 hrs MTBO with IAF. Can we make an engine with anything close to this?? Do we even have that much money?? Will stupid people at MoD even accept such projects?? We will see in the future.

It's not your supara or mazda upgrade or making your custom muscle car , that you can buy parts and assemble and test , in most layman term it's like a castle of playing card , depends on each components and it's compatibility in your system .

And if mod is not interested ,then why were they even discuss a jv with rr

Whitecollar · Jun 13, 2021

Lonewolf said:
It's not your supara or mazda upgrade or making your custom muscle car , that you can buy parts and assemble and test , in most layman term it's like a castle of playing card , depends on each components and it's compatibility in your system .

And if mod is not interested ,then why were they even discuss a jv with rr

There was no reason to put a

on my comment, dude. You say in short MoD is not interested in JV. I say MoD doesn't have either money or talent or guts to overcome a GE quality engine. Once IAF tastes the best(in terms of reliability, not tech), it won't accept anything inferior at all.
Hence we are stuck with GE as of now cause no other competitor can give such a reliable engine tech.

Lonewolf · Jun 13, 2021

Whitecollar said:
There was no reason to put a on my comment, dude. You say in short MoD is not interested in JV. I say MoD doesn't have either money or talent or guts to overcome a GE quality engine. Once IAF tastes the best(in terms of reliability, not tech), it won't accept anything inferior at all.
Hence we are stuck with GE as of now cause no other competitor can give such a reliable engine tech.

Dude ,calm down , don't get offended by a smily .

Now i wrote a if mod was not interested , then why jv discussion .

Thst means ,mod is i deed interested .

We have quality of ge 404 components but design of kaveri is outdated , not suitable for future requirements .

We need a bigger engine , that is the whole concept of discussion we had some time back ,if you wanna discussion again ,tag me in kaveri thread

Flying Dagger · Jun 13, 2021

Lonewolf said:
Can't comment but discussion are going on , I would rate that at good , till some more info comes out ,but this is our critical time ,we need it now or never .

Feasibility studies were ongoing right now too .

So actual rnd and design work may start next year if things turn out to be good

1. There is no JV to be discussed for EPE.

2. They have offered us the EPE engine ( which can be available on order ) for a higher cost.

But we aren't buying the EPE and sticking to GE 414 now.

I think it makes things clear.

@Whitecollar

Lonewolf · Jun 13, 2021

Flying Dagger said:
1. There is no JV to be discussed for EPE.

2. They have offered us the EPE engine ( which can be available on order ) for a higher cost.

But we aren't buying the EPE and sticking to GE 414 now.

I think it makes things clear.

@Whitecollar

Ev for RR JV,

Trololo · Jun 13, 2021

Reposting this: