Kaveri Engine

[ShouvikGhosh]

What was it

 

[Whitecollar]

What was it

Whatever it was, it's unavailable now. Any idea what was the gist?

 

[ShouvikGhosh]

Whatever it was, it's unavailable now. Any idea what was the gist?

 

[Paras.Sharma]

Found this comparison on different fighter aircraft engines. Old but good read.

Fighter aircraft engine comparision

Introduction This article will compare several engines used in modern fighter aircraft: EJ200 (Typhoon), M88 (Rafale B/C/M), RM-12 (Gripen A/B/C/D), F-135 (F-35A/B/C), F-119 (F-22A), F404-GE-402 (F…

defenseissues.wordpress.com

 

[MonaLazy]

comparison on different fighter aircraft engines

Nice article

Thrust to Drag
This is one of the reasons why single-engined fighters typically have better performance than twin-engined fighters despite a lower thrust-to-weight ratio. Engine frontal area is one of the major contributors to drag in all “normal” flight conditions. Taking two engines that use the same technology and general design, frontal area – and drag – will increase with the square of dimensions’ increase, while weight – and thus thrust – will increase with the cube of dimensions’ increase. An engine that is 20% larger in all three dimensions will have 44% greater frontal area and 72,8% more weight and thrust – thus its thrust-to-drag ratio will be 20% greater than that of the smaller engine. If engines are of the same size and characteristics, then twin-engined aircraft will be larger and have higher inertia and inferior transient performance. This of course assumes identical design goals and available technology. For example, F-119 is 239% larger in volume than the EJ200, has a 59% greater frontal area and a 15% better thrust-to-drag ratio.

Is this why IAF said yes to Mk2, no to ORCA?

 

[ShouvikGhosh]

View attachment 135469

Located here: https://twitter.com/Amitraaz/header_photo

Does anyone have any idea what this is?

It's a twin bypass Variable Cycles engine.

The engine operations at different modes at sub-sonic , trans-sonic & super-sonic speeds for maximum efficiency.

Depending on the speed of the aircraft the flaps installed behind the 1st Fan & the LP compressor limits the air flow into the Core of the engine by diverting it through the 1st or 1st+2nd bypass & maintaing a subsonic airflow inside the Core at optimum pressure. Thus ensuring maximum efficiency of the gas turbine engine at various speed levels.

Twin bypass Variable Cycles engine is still in concept stage I belief.

 

[pipebomb]

Can we combine 72 air force & 36 naval rafale requirements, given navy will transfer these 36 rafales back to air force (with necessary mods) when tedbf arrives. We will be able to save significant money to induct mk2 in good numbers and fund amca.

Its a win win deal for everyone, India, France, air force, navy, mod, indigenization yodhas, foreign reserves, even dalals.

 

[THESIS THORON]

Can we combine 72 air force & 36 naval rafale requirements, given navy will transfer these 36 rafales back to air force (with necessary mods) when tedbf arrives. We will be able to save significant money to induct mk2 in good numbers and fund amca.

Its a win win deal for everyone, India, France, air force, navy, mod, indigenization yodhas, foreign reserves, even dalals.

we can ig,

 

[pipebomb]

we can ig,

Please pardon my ignorance but what is 'ig' ?

 

[MonaLazy]

Can we combine 72 air force & 36 naval rafale requirements, given navy will transfer these 36 rafales back to air force (with necessary mods) when tedbf arrives. We will be able to save significant money to induct mk2 in good numbers and fund amca.

Its a win win deal for everyone, India, France, air force, navy, mod, indigenization yodhas, foreign reserves, even dalals.

we can ig,

114 MRFA + 26 MRCBF (18SS + 8TS) = 140 in all
SS - Single Seater
TS - Twin Seater
AF- Air Force

Rafale variants
B AF TS
C AF SS
M Naval SS

F-18 variants
E Naval SS
F Naval TS

Firstly, the Rafale is not an optimum buy for the MRCBF requirement as it stands today. Rafale does not have a naval twin seater so while 18 single seat Rafale M can be procured, for the twin seat variant IN will have to opt for AF Rafale B. These 8 twin seat trainers can never operate from a carrier deck since they are primarily air force fighters and have not been navalised- no tail hook , strong undercarriage to deal with heavy sink rates etc. They will be operating from shore based/land based air fields.

The Boeing F/A-18 E/F is a much better fit with both single and twin seat naval versions. It will additionally have engine commonality with Mk2, AMCA Mk1 & TEDBF in the GE F414.

Also, don't think the Rafale M can be converted into to a Rafale C at all- TEDBF or not the naval Rafale M (SS) if bought under MRCBF will spend their entire life on INS Vikrant with IN only. Any Rafale B IN can spare in future will be lapped up by IAF. The Rafale M will not be as performant for AF. The F-18 OTOH has not found favour with IAF at all (did not make the MMRCA down select).

So if IN goes for F-18, all 26 will serve with IN for 40 years until replaced by TEDBF (which will first replace the 29Ks on Vikramaditya, before gracing the deck of Vikrant). There will be better fleet utilization since all planes can operate from the flight deck. It will give us access to cheaper weapons from Uncle Sam. But a big con is dependence on Uncle Sam & sanctions.

If IN goes for Rafale, 18 will serve their full life with IN while 8 can be transferred to the IAF. Of the 26 procured only 18 will be fit for carrier ops. French weapons are much costlier than American.

None of the above are optimal but F-18 makes more sense to me because they satisfy INs requirements better. Will see Vikrant through the next 40 years before TEDBF starts operating from them.

Please pardon my ignorance but what is 'ig' ?

I guess

 

[SimplyIndian]

114 MRFA + 26 MRCBF (18SS + 8TS) = 140 in all
SS - Single Seater
TS - Twin Seater
AF- Air Force

Rafale variants
B AF TS
C AF SS
M Naval SS

F-18 variants
E Naval SS
F Naval TS

Firstly, the Rafale is not an optimum buy for the MRCBF requirement as it stands today. Rafale does not have a naval twin seater so while 18 single seat Rafale M can be procured, for the twin seat variant IN will have to opt for AF Rafale B. These 8 twin seat trainers can never operate from a carrier deck since they are primarily air force fighters and have not been navalised- no tail hook , strong undercarriage to deal with heavy sink rates etc. They will be operating from shore based/land based air fields.

The Boeing F/A-18 E/F is a much better fit with both single and twin seat naval versions. It will additionally have engine commonality with Mk2, AMCA Mk1 & TEDBF in the GE F414.

Also, don't think the Rafale M can be converted into to a Rafale C at all- TEDBF or not the naval Rafale M (SS) if bought under MRCBF will spend their entire life on INS Vikrant with IN only. Any Rafale B IN can spare in future will be lapped up by IAF. The Rafale M will not be as performant for AF. The F-18 OTOH has not found favour with IAF at all (did not make the MMRCA down select).

So if IN goes for F-18, all 26 will serve with IN for 40 years until replaced by TEDBF (which will first replace the 29Ks on Vikramaditya, before gracing the deck of Vikrant). There will be better fleet utilization since all planes can operate from the flight deck. It will give us access to cheaper weapons from Uncle Sam. But a big con is dependence on Uncle Sam & sanctions.

If IN goes for Rafale, 18 will serve their full life with IN while 8 can be transferred to the IAF. Of the 26 procured only 18 will be fit for carrier ops. French weapons are much costlier than American.

None of the above are optimal but F-18 makes more sense to me because they satisfy INs requirements better. Will see Vikrant through the next 40 years before TEDBF starts operating from them.



I guess

What about American EULA. What is the point of having super AF for IN but not being able to use it when required most? I would rather go with 80% capable AF which has no restrictions.

 

[MonaLazy]

What about American EULA. What is the point of having super AF for IN but not being able to use it when required most? I would rather go with 80% capable AF which has no restrictions.

Please take us back to Feb 2019 and tell us how American EULA was imposed on PAFs F-16s to prevent them from firing AMRAAMs against our Su-30s? They backed the Pakis so far as to create a cloud of confusion over the lost F-16! It was a question of honour- not Paki, but American honour. They even rewarded the American guy that kept everything under a tight wrap. Paper & real life are very different.

IMHO which IN will totally disregard, Rafale makes sense for IN only if they do away with the single/two-seat complication in the contract. Focus on training their pilots on trainers/simulators and order all 26 Rafale Ms.

 

[pipebomb]

Great inputs, very much appreciated

26 MRCBF

Thanks for the correction, that's even better.

don't think the Rafale M can be converted into to a Rafale C at all

By modding i meant mc, software & instrumetation

Rafale is not an optimum buy for the MRCBF requirement as it stands today. Rafale does not have a naval twin seater

Exactly, its not 'optimum' but what else is. It seems a half empty glass situation to me, depends on pov. To me its a 'balle balle' situation as it open a case for acquisition of naval lca.

But a big con is dependence on Uncle Sam & sanctions

I read that 'big' in all caps with font size set to the max. What's the point if can't use it then.

All in all goal should be reduce import & influence as much as possible.

 

[MonaLazy]

By modding i meant mc, software & instrumetation

You can put a jet engine on an elephant, strap wings onto it and make it fly. There are any number of suboptimal solutions, but if you know your AF they will go only for the best out there. Even when they had $10 billion to spend they preferred spending all of that on just 36 Rafale rather than go for much more numbers of cheaper F-18 or F-16 or Mig-35 or Gripen.

By reading about their organisational behaviour I am not at all confident they will accept Rafale Ms modded to Rafale Cs if that is even possible at the avionics level and keep the hardware intact. Each service selfishly or from a sense of duty wants only the best for itself.

Exactly, its not 'optimum' but what else is. It seems a half empty glass situation to me, depends on pov. To me its a 'balle balle' situation as it open a case for acquisition of naval lca.

Unfortunately, that glass will forever be empty. Naval LCA has been rejected for operational deployment on a carrier by IN- that will stay because it cannot carry a meaningful load to a far enough distance. It will serve only as a TD and all the learnings from it will go into TEDBF.

I read that 'big' in all caps with font size set to the max. What's the point if can't use it then.

All in all goal should be reduce import & influence as much as possible.

That threat is seriously overrated. I have alluded to it in my previous post. We have seen recently how Russian state-affiliated media is questioning India on Kashmir.


If we lose maintenance and support for 70% of our military equipment then what? NYT & WaPo notwithstanding (they are not US govt entities) when was the last time any White House spokesperson said harsh things about India on Kashmir? Personally, both Russian & American sanctions seem remote to me at this point.

Import reduction is the goal of course, but until we get there it will have to be a tight rope walk. We can derive at least some confidence from the fact that we have done it successfully for the last 75 years when we were much weaker.

 

[Dark Sorrow]

Can we combine 72 air force & 36 naval rafale requirements, given navy will transfer these 36 rafales back to air force (with necessary mods) when tedbf arrives. We will be able to save significant money to induct mk2 in good numbers and fund amca.

Its a win win deal for everyone, India, France, air force, navy, mod, indigenization yodhas, foreign reserves, even dalals.

Couple of problems I can foresee in above post

1. F-18SH currently appears to have advantages over Rafale as per operational point of view
2. Once IN buys a fighter it won't retire them until end-of-life. New fighters are way to expensive to just give them up
3. TEDBF if goes into production will supplement F-18SH or Rafale-M not replace them
4. Converting Rafale-M to Rafale-EH is almost like modifying the entire air-frame. It will not be easy or cheap.
5. How buying 72 more Rafale will save us money? Rafale-M is even more expensive than Rafale-EH.
6. Not all dalals will be happy. Surely F-18 dalals won't be happy.
7. How does buying more Rafale help with indigenization?
8. Regardless of what happens with MMRCA 2 Tejas Mk. 2 is completely beholden to IAF wishes.

 

[Dark Sorrow]

That threat is seriously overrated. I have alluded to it in my previous post. We have seen recently how Russian state-affiliated media is questioning India on Kashmir.


If we lose maintenance and support for 70% of our military equipment then what? NYT & WaPo notwithstanding (they are not US govt entities) when was the last time any White House spokesperson said harsh things about India on Kashmir? Personally, both Russian & American sanctions seem remote to me at this point.

Import reduction is the goal of course, but until we get there it will have to be a tight rope walk. We can derive at least some confidence from the fact that we have done it successfully for the last 75 years when we were much weaker.

People don't want to admit but Indo-Russian relation had begin to decouple from long time. We have already started to see first cracks. Though total break is not eminent both countries will continue to part ways over time.

Both nation have made their bed.
We have decided to go to American camp while Russians have decided to go with Chinese camp.
Russian treat us like a retail customer and its high time we street them as a shopkeeper.
In DFI I find people more patriotic to Russia than India. I never understood why?
We can't compete with PRC for business deal they make with Russia. Russia can't just offer us anything valuable.

As for the statement

If we lose maintenance and support for 70% of our military equipment then what

This is actually factually incorrect statement. For most of these equipment we have support alternatives and local/international alternatives. This statement only looks good on paper.

In 1980s we faced problem with Power Supply on Russian subs. IN got them alternatively supplied from India.

 

[Haldilal]

You can put a jet engine on an elephant, strap wings onto it and make it fly. There are any number of suboptimal solutions, but if you know your AF they will go only for the best out there. Even when they had $10 billion to spend they preferred spending all of that on just 36 Rafale rather than go for much more numbers of cheaper F-18 or F-16 or Mig-35 or Gripen.

By reading about their organisational behaviour I am not at all confident they will accept Rafale Ms modded to Rafale Cs if that is even possible at the avionics level and keep the hardware intact. Each service selfishly or from a sense of duty wants only the best for itself.



Unfortunately, that glass will forever be empty. Naval LCA has been rejected for operational deployment on a carrier by IN- that will stay because it cannot carry a meaningful load to a far enough distance. It will serve only as a TD and all the learnings from it will go into TEDBF.



That threat is seriously overrated. I have alluded to it in my previous post. We have seen recently how Russian state-affiliated media is questioning India on Kashmir.


If we lose maintenance and support for 70% of our military equipment then what? NYT & WaPo notwithstanding (they are not US govt entities) when was the last time any White House spokesperson said harsh things about India on Kashmir? Personally, both Russian & American sanctions seem remote to me at this point.

Import reduction is the goal of course, but until we get there it will have to be a tight rope walk. We can derive at least some confidence from the fact that we have done it successfully for the last 75 years when we were much weaker.

Ya'll Nibbiars this is not Russian sponsored media but a leftist media operating out of the Berlin and false flags.

 

[karn]

People don't want to admit but Indo-Russian relation had begin to decouple from long time. We have already started to see first cracks. Though total break is not eminent both countries will continue to part ways over time.

Both nation have made their bed.
We have decided to go to American camp while Russians have decided to go with Chinese camp.
Russian treat us like a retail customer and its high time we street them as a shopkeeper.
In DFI I find people more patriotic to Russia than India. I never understood why?
We can't compete with PRC for business deal they make with Russia. Russia can't just offer us anything valuable.

As for the statement

This is actually factually incorrect statement. For most of these equipment we have support alternatives and local/international alternatives. This statement only looks good on paper.

In 1980s we faced problem with Power Supply on Russian subs. IN got them alternatively supplied from India.

We are dependent on them for nuke subs .
And until the entire armored fleet and more than half the air fleet is replaced we are dependent on them. It will take time to get out of this bed. Even if we switch our partner to France for nuke subs it will set back the s5 and ssn programs back decades.
I've seen presentations of drdo that used drawings of Russian missiles ffs .

 

[MonaLazy]

This is actually factually incorrect statement. For most of these equipment we have support alternatives and local/international alternatives. This statement only looks good on paper.

Not entirely, in the aftermath of the Galwan Valley clash, Raksha Mantri RNS 3 day dash to Russia ostensibly to attend the Victory Day Parade was a cover to fast track Russian supplies. It's sickening but shows our utter dependence on the Russians.

From June 2020 when the pandemic was raging and the Chinese were baring teeth-

Russia has assured India that it would fulfil all ongoing contracts for military hardware and also accelerate supplies in some cases, defence minister Rajnath Singh told reporters in Moscow on Tuesday after talks with Russian deputy prime minister Yury Borisov, in the backdrop of the geopolitical tensions with China.
“My discussions were very positive and productive. I have been assured that ongoing contracts will be maintained and not just maintained, in a number of cases will be taken forward in a shorter time. All our proposals have received positive response from the Russian side. I am fully satisfied with my discussions," Singh said in comments made available by India’s defence ministry.
The comments are significant following reports that Singh was to request Moscow to urgently supply spares required by the Indian military amid heightened tensions with China.
As much as 60% of India’s defence equipment is of Russian origin, despite New Delhi diversifying its sources of military hardware in recent years with increased purchases from the US, Israel and France.
Though Singh’s visit was to attend ceremonies associated with the 75th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Germany in the Second World War, a report by ANI news agency said Singh will ask Russia to supply the spares needed for Indian fighter jets, tanks and submarines to be dispatched by air rather than by ship to reduce travel time.

Without active Russian assistance, we can't fight a war. It's pretty evident.

Rajnath gets Russia assurance of speedy completion of defence deals

Defence minister says Russia will honour ongoing contracts and even take some of them forward with shorter delay

www.livemint.com

 

[Dark Sorrow]

We are dependent on them for nuke subs .
And until the entire armored fleet and more than half the air fleet is replaced we are dependent on them. It will take time to get out of this bed. Even if we switch our partner to France for nuke subs it will set back the s5 and ssn programs back decades.
I've seen presentations of drdo that used drawings of Russian missiles ffs .

Because of this reason we have started to look towards Baracuda's reactor.
As for S5 SSBN I believe we have matured CLWR enough to put the SSBN in production.

We only went for Russian Armored vehicles is all courtesy of Chandigarh lobby. It high time we replace them with indigenous once. Same goes for Russian aircraft.

We should even scrap AK-203 deal in favor of MCIWS.