Kaveri Engine

Azaad

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2022
Messages
6,733
Likes
25,064
Country flag
 

Vamsi

New Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
4,858
Likes
29,458
Country flag
Copied Maithya's post from BRF
Rakesh wrote:<snip>
Ahead of PM Modi’s visit, France offers to co-develop engine for combat jets
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... 82106.html
02 July 2023

The Emmanuel Macron government gave green signal to Safran to jointly design, develop, test, manufacture and certify an engine that will power India’s AMCA.
What a complete waste of an article - anytime he went to the technical aspects he got it completely wrong, as he never bothered to ask slightly more specific questions?
But then expecting from DDM, is like ...
:evil:

Some samples ...
<snip>Despite the DRDO's best efforts since 1996, it could not deliver on the Kaveri jet engine due to issues with metallurgical tools, rotating parts, single crystal blade technology and high-pressure engine core.
<snip>
It is understood that the Safran offer covers the full hot section of the engine including the rotating parts, most crucial single crystal blade technology and high-pressure compressor.
<snip>
What metallurgical tools, what rotating parts?
Kaveri was almost successful to the extent, it was specified for - too bad the intended application platform added weight and thus expected more thrust growth from it - which it couldn't do, as the program itself was cancelled immediately.
If there are issues with the so-called high-pressure engine core (what's that between, engine core is, well, engine core - what is this high-pressure engine core), just how did it achieve the specified 51Kn dry thrust?
:roll:


Yes, if it was suddenly needed to archive say 56KN etc, then a follow-on program would have been required, which didn't happen. That 10% growth (in dry thrust) is very much within reach of GTRE using the current core itself, but for that funding etc is required - where is that, for last 10+ years now?
:cry:


Also, in almost all parameters it equaled the earlier gen versions of F414 (e.g 402 etc)
e.g. same PR achieved by 7-stage core in F414 vs 6-stage core in Kaveri/Kabini.
OPR is less, as the LPC/FAN total PR is less (compared with F414) - which can easily be rectified (refer to my earlier posts), but then again funding is required.

SC was never required anyway for the thrust levels specified for it - as the TeT levels it was designed for, got achieved by DS casted blades anyway (which between is an fantastic performance actually - compared to what other established engine houses could achieve via their DS versions). So except for, going for a SC HPT blade, just for the heck of it, there's no use of it.

Sometimes, I feel GTRE/DMRL/MIDHANI et all should have used an inferior 2nd Gen SC casted commercially available superalloy material (say CMSX 4, or Rene 5), and just replaced the Kaveri HPT blades with them - and put it up for comparisons.
:rotfl:


Even a complete illiterate would be able to do a simple comparison, no:
A SC casted AL-31FP HPT blade (manufactured indigenously, and all such pompous claims) struggles to achieve 1350 deg C TeT, while Kaveri/Kabini with it’s so-called-ancient tech DS-casted HPT blades could go upto 1455 deg C TeT.
I shudder to think, what would have happened to these worthies, if there was more funding, and next-gen DS casted superalloys like DMD4, got used.
:P


And also how is the supah-dupah Rene 6 based HPT blades in F414, that many folks are projecting, will be handed down to us as gods-gift etc, is anyway superior to the indigenous DMS4 superalloy?

And as mentioned innumerable times now, neither the TeT not the HPC PRs etc needs any change, to achieve another 10% growth - which can come via newer FAN/LPC, and, if required maybe even an improved LPT (the OPR For the 3-stage FAN/LPC needs to go to 3.8-4.0 levels (from current 3.4 levels))

What nobody like him, the so-called defence reporters, wants to talk about (not their fault, they simply don’t have the wherewithal to analyse and understand the technical aspects anyway) are:

For the AMCA turbofan co-development ityadi, what India is aiming for 5th Gen military turbofan tech – India already has almost all aspects of 4th Gen tech, except for funding to demonstrate them in a single platform (like K10, for example).

Below, I have tried to put a list of technologies that most probably, we are trying to achieve, via this joint-dev route (figures in brackets in blue, is what already achieved/exists indigenously via Kaveri program or elsewhere):

Parametric:
1) FAN PR: >=5 (3.4, though 3.7-3.8 achievable)
2) HPC PR: >=6.8-7.0 (6.4)
3) OPR: 30-35 (21.5, though 26.5-27 achievable)
4) BPR: 0.3 - 0.5 (0.16, though 0.2 achievable)
5) TeT: 1600 - 1650deg C (1455deg C, though 1500deg C achievable)
6) Afterburner: 60% of Dry-Thrust with 1.1 Mass-Fraction (45-50%)

Materials:
1) Fan: Ti-Blisks (standard Ti Fan)

2) HPC: Ti MMC based Bling + 1.6-1.8M Blade Tip Speed (Blisk with conventional blade-disk integration via LFW/ECM etc - Transonic Blade tip spee,d 1.1-1.3M)
3) HPC (last/later stages): Ti-Al based or CMC based (Ni Superalloy, PM superalloy for Disc)

4) Combustor: CMC + EBC (Env Barrier Coating), elimination of film cooling (Superalloy + TBC + Film Cooling)

5) HPT Blades: 5th SC Superalloy (DS/SC 3rd/4th Gen Superalloy)
6) HPT Discs: PM Superalloy-Blisk (PM Superalloy std)

7) NGV: CMC (DS Superalloy - maybe even SC Superalloy)

8 ) LPT Blades: CMC (Conventional DS/SC Ni-Superalloy)
9) LPT Discs: CMC (PM of Ni Superalloy)

10) TBC: EBPVD Bilayer LZ-Yt (EBPVD 7/8 Yttria)

11) Coating: Rub Tolerant Coating
12) Shroud/Casings: CMC/MMC (Ni Superalloy)

I'm sure I've missed a lot, but this should be a good starting point, to understand what we are aiming for, technologically, via this joint-dev route.

Note: The above post is not mine, I copied & pasted it from BRF...it was made by @Maitya of BRF....all credits to him
 

Vamsi

New Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
4,858
Likes
29,458
Country flag
Copied Maithya's post from BRF

What a complete waste of an article - anytime he went to the technical aspects he got it completely wrong, as he never bothered to ask slightly more specific questions?
But then expecting from DDM, is like ...
:evil:


What metallurgical tools, what rotating parts?
Kaveri was almost successful to the extent, it was specified for - too bad the intended application platform added weight and thus expected more thrust growth from it - which it couldn't do, as the program itself was cancelled immediately.
If there are issues with the so-called high-pressure engine core (what's that between, engine core is, well, engine core - what is this high-pressure engine core), just how did it achieve the specified 51Kn dry thrust?
:roll:


Yes, if it was suddenly needed to archive say 56KN etc, then a follow-on program would have been required, which didn't happen. That 10% growth (in dry thrust) is very much within reach of GTRE using the current core itself, but for that funding etc is required - where is that, for last 10+ years now?
:cry:


Also, in almost all parameters it equaled the earlier gen versions of F414 (e.g 402 etc)
e.g. same PR achieved by 7-stage core in F414 vs 6-stage core in Kaveri/Kabini.
OPR is less, as the LPC/FAN total PR is less (compared with F414) - which can easily be rectified (refer to my earlier posts), but then again funding is required.

SC was never required anyway for the thrust levels specified for it - as the TeT levels it was designed for, got achieved by DS casted blades anyway (which between is an fantastic performance actually - compared to what other established engine houses could achieve via their DS versions). So except for, going for a SC HPT blade, just for the heck of it, there's no use of it.

Sometimes, I feel GTRE/DMRL/MIDHANI et all should have used an inferior 2nd Gen SC casted commercially available superalloy material (say CMSX 4, or Rene 5), and just replaced the Kaveri HPT blades with them - and put it up for comparisons.
:rotfl:


Even a complete illiterate would be able to do a simple comparison, no:
A SC casted AL-31FP HPT blade (manufactured indigenously, and all such pompous claims) struggles to achieve 1350 deg C TeT, while Kaveri/Kabini with it’s so-called-ancient tech DS-casted HPT blades could go upto 1455 deg C TeT.
I shudder to think, what would have happened to these worthies, if there was more funding, and next-gen DS casted superalloys like DMD4, got used.
:P


And also how is the supah-dupah Rene 6 based HPT blades in F414, that many folks are projecting, will be handed down to us as gods-gift etc, is anyway superior to the indigenous DMS4 superalloy?

And as mentioned innumerable times now, neither the TeT not the HPC PRs etc needs any change, to achieve another 10% growth - which can come via newer FAN/LPC, and, if required maybe even an improved LPT (the OPR For the 3-stage FAN/LPC needs to go to 3.8-4.0 levels (from current 3.4 levels))

What nobody like him, the so-called defence reporters, wants to talk about (not their fault, they simply don’t have the wherewithal to analyse and understand the technical aspects anyway) are:

For the AMCA turbofan co-development ityadi, what India is aiming for 5th Gen military turbofan tech – India already has almost all aspects of 4th Gen tech, except for funding to demonstrate them in a single platform (like K10, for example).

Below, I have tried to put a list of technologies that most probably, we are trying to achieve, via this joint-dev route (figures in brackets in blue, is what already achieved/exists indigenously via Kaveri program or elsewhere):

Parametric:
1) FAN PR: >=5 (3.4, though 3.7-3.8 achievable)
2) HPC PR: >=6.8-7.0 (6.4)
3) OPR: 30-35 (21.5, though 26.5-27 achievable)
4) BPR: 0.3 - 0.5 (0.16, though 0.2 achievable)
5) TeT: 1600 - 1650deg C (1455deg C, though 1500deg C achievable)
6) Afterburner: 60% of Dry-Thrust with 1.1 Mass-Fraction (45-50%)

Materials:
1) Fan: Ti-Blisks (standard Ti Fan)

2) HPC: Ti MMC based Bling + 1.6-1.8M Blade Tip Speed (Blisk with conventional blade-disk integration via LFW/ECM etc - Transonic Blade tip spee,d 1.1-1.3M)
3) HPC (last/later stages): Ti-Al based or CMC based (Ni Superalloy, PM superalloy for Disc)

4) Combustor: CMC + EBC (Env Barrier Coating), elimination of film cooling (Superalloy + TBC + Film Cooling)

5) HPT Blades: 5th SC Superalloy (DS/SC 3rd/4th Gen Superalloy)
6) HPT Discs: PM Superalloy-Blisk (PM Superalloy std)

7) NGV: CMC (DS Superalloy - maybe even SC Superalloy)

8 ) LPT Blades: CMC (Conventional DS/SC Ni-Superalloy)
9) LPT Discs: CMC (PM of Ni Superalloy)

10) TBC: EBPVD Bilayer LZ-Yt (EBPVD 7/8 Yttria)

11) Coating: Rub Tolerant Coating
12) Shroud/Casings: CMC/MMC (Ni Superalloy)

I'm sure I've missed a lot, but this should be a good starting point, to understand what we are aiming for, technologically, via this joint-dev route.

Note: The above post is not mine, I copied & pasted it from BRF...it was made by @Maitya of BRF....all credits to him
I copied this too from BRF

People, don't cry in 2035, muh french took our money ree.....didn't give us tech ree .....

Postby maitya

Rakesh wrote:maitya, great post. If and when, a new engine thread is started...I am going to be leaning on you to provide the technical details (or the lack thereof).

Based on your post above, please break down those future posts into two sections;

1) Simple English For Mango Abduls (like me). The viability of the JV, how successful (if at all) it will be, etc.

2) More detail focused for the bright minds, as to why (or why not) this JV will work. Basically the nitty gritty technical details.

Thanks....
Ok Rakeshji, will try - being a Mango Abdul myself, my try will be as lay man as possible.
But be aware, trying to infer/make-sense from the reports that gets authored by such genre of defense-reporters, is an impossible task - as, except from quoting a few keywords, nothing much gets reported anyway (like the report from HT, you posted above).

But will try, either way ...

At a summary level, prima facie, I think this JV et all will be successful - in fact, will be very successful, for the OEM partner, that is.
Because, we will be funding their own (current wet dream) next gen technology development initiatives, which they are unable to get funding from their own sarkars.

So with SDRE Yindoo money, one get to fund their current wet dream level techs, and then hand-down some mfg tech (like the current 414 deal), and be done with it - bonus of course is, in turn get the strategic-friend (or some such tongue-twister) type takma/titles.


Between the techs that I've listed above are with nobody, except Unkil (read F119/F135 program etc), and that's the precise reason, you'll never hear any such co-dev discussion with them.
Only folks who don't have such tech, and need to develop them for their own future programs, are the ones who are eager to get our funding and then "co-develop" them with us.
:roll:


After all, how are a bunch of technologically-pichde SDRE going to prevent/audit/know a following scenario (completely fictitious) such as:
Get the SC DMS4 composition (not the open source composition, which everybody has access to) tweak it by adding some more Ruthenium, to it, and add say another 50-60 deg C metal temp capability - which hand down a version with say 15deg C, metal temp variant, and say "Sorry, that's max is possible - and here's the mfg tech for it" (DMRL et all already has the mfg tech betw of current version).
(between, that is exactly what DMRL folks are trying to do/achieve currently, with 0 funding or institutional support - in their quest for 5th gen SC superalloy, mirroring Japan and their TMS series), and I'm sure there'll a glorified-bean-counter (aka CAG), reprimanding DMRL for wasting funds and time-and-effort for such endeavors)

All they need to do is give it a different name, and then use it gleefully for their own programs - all dev/testing/certification etc funded by the SDRE yindoo tech-pichde folks.

There were news reports, that Safran et all had asked for $6B investment from our side, while not sure what they will bring in (in form of Rafale offset part) - plus approx a decade of R&D (they do/run, we see/watch mode) effort.

We'll see, I'll guess.
 

AnantS

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
5,652
Likes
15,093
Country flag
The problem with Kaveri is metallurgical.. due to which currently Lifespan of Engine is very low. It will take time for them to enhance the same.

Kaveri must live as the only engine that can be used for heavier UCAV for now. Frenchies wont give anything... its given. BUt what we can get is an alternative to American Engine. Which must be very high on Indian planner's mind.
 

jai jaganath

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2022
Messages
5,367
Likes
9,292
Country flag
The problem with Kaveri is metallurgical.. due to which currently Lifespan of Engine is very low. It will take time for them to enhance the same.

Kaveri must live as the only engine that can be used for heavier UCAV for now. Frenchies wont give anything... its given. BUt what we can get is an alternative to American Engine. Which must be very high on Indian planner's mind.
We have to also improve its AB section for its ops post ghatak application likewise in Tejas or something else
@Vamsi we have currently seen improvement in dry version wrt thrust from previous 46kn to present 51kn
So with some improvements post ghatak success can Kaveri produce thrust similar to f404 ?
 

AnantS

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
5,652
Likes
15,093
Country flag
We have to also improve its AB section for its ops post ghatak application likewise in Tejas or something else
@Vamsi we have currently seen improvement in dry version wrt thrust from previous 46kn to present 51kn
So with some improvements post ghatak success can Kaveri produce thrust similar to f404 ?
There is some distance between cup and lips still...
 

Vamsi

New Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
4,858
Likes
29,458
Country flag
We have to also improve its AB section for its ops post ghatak application likewise in Tejas or something else
@Vamsi we have currently seen improvement in dry version wrt thrust from previous 46kn to present 51kn
So with some improvements post ghatak success can Kaveri produce thrust similar to f404 ?
51 KN was achieved long back, they derated it to 46KN for Ghatak, they can increase it to 56KN by improving LP Fan & LP Turbine...& if they managed to develop a new afterburner with 60% thrust increment, then it can achieve 89.6KN wet thurst, enough for Tejas-Mk1/1A
 

jai jaganath

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2022
Messages
5,367
Likes
9,292
Country flag
There is some distance between cup and lips still...
Yeah ofcourse
Infact u stated reading about Kaveri from 2021 so knowledge is limited
That's why I going through many writings and even previous pages to know about it
Ofcourse there would be many more deficiencies but I hope one day they cover it up
 

jai jaganath

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2022
Messages
5,367
Likes
9,292
Country flag
51 KN was achieved long back, they derated it to 46KN for Ghatak, they can increase it to 56KN by improving LP Fan & LP Turbine...& if they managed to develop a new afterburner with 60% thrust increment, then it can achieve 89.6KN wet thurst, enough for Tejas-Mk1/1A
So I was wrong then
I mean I read that during initial testing it was getting 46kn and now in recent testing it can achieve 51kn
So basically the requirement for ghatak is 46 not 51
Got it
 

Vamsi

New Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
4,858
Likes
29,458
Country flag
The problem with Kaveri is metallurgical.. due to which currently Lifespan of Engine is very low. It will take time for them to enhance the same.

Kaveri must live as the only engine that can be used for heavier UCAV for now. Frenchies wont give anything... its given. BUt what we can get is an alternative to American Engine. Which must be very high on Indian planner's mind.
we already have the technologies for 4th gen engine,we achieved 1728K TET with a DS Blade,with a SC blade it can achieve 1800K TET, what we need is more funding & test facilities to upgrade current Kaveri to 90KN thrust level.....for 5th gen engine we don't have the required technologies
 

sameer3694

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2023
Messages
684
Likes
4,987

Hearing this story since a decade, hopefully this time it's real.
 

Azaad

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2022
Messages
6,733
Likes
25,064
Country flag

Hearing this story since a decade, hopefully this time it's real.
Previously , during the development of Kaveri , the collaboration was restricted to consultation & co operation at a minimal level. The decision to go in for a clean sheet 120 KN TF with joint development & all IPR vested within DRDO / GTRE & SAFRAN is a recent development unless you're referring to the Shakti TS & its successor program the current JV to jointly develop a TS for our IMRH project.

It looks like the deal for the 120 KN TF is sealed pending the road map & possibly financial implications. On a different note , the 26 Rafales for the MRCBF & the Reaper Drone procurement would be negotiated in a year's time from now with the G2G agreement & firm purchase order materialising only after the 2024 General Elections. The Scorpene deal was signed & announced as it's merely an extension of an existing program.

Hopefully before next year end we sign off agreements with both the GE & SAFRAN .
 

DumbPilot

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
1,679
Likes
4,027
Country flag
we already have the technologies for 4th gen engine,we achieved 1728K TET with a DS Blade,with a SC blade it can achieve 1800K TET, what we need is more funding & test facilities to upgrade current Kaveri to 90KN thrust level.....for 5th gen engine we don't have the required technologies
Why exactly aren't they getting the funding?
 

Azaad

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2022
Messages
6,733
Likes
25,064
Country flag
A Futuristic Engine for the SCAF
18 APRIL 2019 BUSINESS

Safran and MTU Aero Engines signed an industrial partnership in early 2019 to design and develop the engine for the SCAF, the fighter aircraft of the future. Stéphane Cueille, Group Vice President, R&T and Innovation, looks back at its features and the challenges of the project.

What is the SCAF programme?

The Future Air Combat System, or SCAF, was launched on 6 February by France and Germany. The aim is to design the fighter aircraft that will replace the Rafale and Eurofighter by 2035. Dassault and Airbus are in charge of defining the architecture and concept of the aircraft, whose engine will be developed equally by Safran and MTU Aero Engines.

The roles of the two engine manufacturers have been allocated on a "best athlete" basis, with the aim of ensuring that each works in its own area of expertise. Safran is in charge of hot section development and engine integration, while MTU Aero Engines is responsible for cold sections and MRO services. Other European manufacturers may be asked to join the programme, depending on the wishes of the various countries.

What innovations will this engine benefit from?

This new-generation fighter must be capable of both producing strong supersonic thrust and cruising at low speed over long distances. Its engine will therefore have to be versatile. It will also be more compact to make it lighter, and its thrust, which is much greater than that of the Rafale, will enable the SCAF to carry more weapons. Finally, it will have to contribute to the stealth of the aircraft. Numerous innovations will therefore be required. The turbine, for example, will have to reach temperatures of around 2,100 K (around 1,825°C), a temperature beyond the reach of current technologies and blade materials. Safran has set up an advanced turbine blade research platform to develop advanced technologies and materials that can withstand these temperatures. The engine will also have to be "variable cycle", i.e. capable of adjusting the ratio between primary and secondary air flows, and equipped with a steerable nozzle to make the aircraft easier to handle. Another innovation under consideration is the hybridisation of the engine to manage on-board energy.

What are the challenges of this programme for Safran?

The Group must demonstrate its capacity for innovation by developing, by 2025, an engine - derived from the M88 - to power the first SCAF aircraft demonstrator. The engine demonstrator is scheduled for 2027. The R&T work carried out for the SCAF is also essential for our other programmes: it will lead to the emergence of technologies which, when applied to our future-generation civil engines, will enable us to remain competitive.

Find out more? Improvements planned for the M88

The Rafale engine will benefit from the work carried out on the engine for the combat aircraft of the future. With this in mind, the French Defence Procurement Agency (DGA) has awarded Safran a €115 million, 5-year upstream research programme to increase the engine's thrust while improving its service life.

https://www.safran-group.com/fr/actualite/moteur-futuriste-scaf-2019-04-18

Article courtesy post by French member of another forum.

=============
This article from 2019 is a vital link in understanding the future path of TF development that France would be undertaking ( & can be seen as a sign of how the rest of western world is advancing in this respect ) with respect to it's FCAS ( or SCAF in French ) 6th Gen FA program & the 6th Gen TF.

To begin with they'd be enhancing the thrust of the M88 TF by 2025-26 before coming up with a 6th Gen TF prototype by 2027-28 , perhaps later, which would reflect VCE / ACE capabilities among other Enhancements over the M88.

Why's is this important from the Indian PoV ? The enhanced thrust version of the M88 due by 2025-26 is going to serve as the template for our AMCA Mk-2 TF apart from contributing to enhancing the core of the existing M88 to re engine the existing Rafale fleet in the French armed forces , a long pending demand of the Armee de l'Air & offering the same to all the Dassault clients.

As an aside , one of the other reasons the US agreed for a ltd production ToT is coz in the next 2 decades fixed cycle TFs are going to be obsolete. They'd only remain in those < 4.5th Gen FA which can't be upgraded to derivatives of these VCE / ACE TFs being developed now . You could also attribute French eagerness to collaborate with us to similar reasons. Ditto with RR.

Should also tell you the steep developmental path ahead of us for the 6th Gen FA (for which studies should begin in 2025 ) apart from being informed that F-35 will be getting such an upgrade with an ACE in the 2030s . And if the Americans are upto it , can the Chinese & Russians be behind ? Whereas we're still struggling with a 4th Gen FA TF. Tells you how vital this JV is for the future of the self reliance of our armed forces , our MIC , our independent strategic policies & our country.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top