Kaveri Engine

[ersakthivel]

http://gizmodo.com/the-next-f-35-lightnings-engine-adapts-for-flight-figh-1456423944

"
"What we are looking at with adaptive engines are engines that can operate at multiple design points across a range of flight envelopes while maintaining optimal operating efficiency," Kenyon said.

This adaptive cycle engine will utilize a secondary bypass stream (three air streams in total) to act much like the gearing on a car's transmission, allowing the F135 engine to adjust and match its bypass ratio at will, whether it's high-thrust takeoffs or high-efficiency cruising at altitude. "That third stream is something that we have the ability to modulate, to change the conditions of that flow," Kenyon told Gizmodo. "How much flow, and flow characteristics so that we can kind of optimize the bypass ratio over the flight envelope."

"On top of that adaptive fan we’re also making improvements, tremendous improvements in the core system as well. We’re putting in a higher pressure ratio, higher efficiency compressor, leveraging a lot of our advanced commercially-derived, 3D aerodynamic design capability...We’re looking at increasing the temperature capability and the efficiency of the turbine stages, and then we’re also looking at the exhaust system. Having that adaptive third stream allows us to work with that stuff as well...we’re making improvements to the efficiency of the core engine, but we’re also using the adaptive architecture to give us a lot more design options in terms of how we can manage the engine over the flight envelope."

http://www.pw.utc.com/Press/Story/20130925-1100/2013/All Categories

"
Similar to changing gears in a car or on a bicycle, changing an aircraft engine's bypass ratio allows the engine to be optimized for high thrust takeoffs, while maintaining the efficiency of a commercial airline's high bypass engine in cruise conditions. Unlike commercial airline engines which are attached to the wing, engines used in modern fighter aircraft must use smaller diameter turbofans and be embedded within the aircraft. Consequently, there is a performance tradeoff between high thrust capabilities and optimum efficiency experienced in cruise conditions. Developing a next generation variable cycle adaptive engine is therefore essential to meeting the evolving needs of the warfighter.

Modern military turbofan engines have two airstreams – one that passes through the core of the engine, and another that bypasses the core. Development of a third stream of airflow will allow for improved fuel efficiency and cooler heat sinks which improve thermal management of the air system and reduced heat signature.

"Developing an effective adaptive fan concept is a critical step in advancing technology that will ensure next generation air dominance for our military," said Jack Hoying, program manager, Air Force Research Laboratory. "We are working closely with our industry partners to develop game-changing technologies that will truly advance the state of the art for military engines in the 21st Century."

The adaptive fan variable cycle technology will leverage and improve upon Pratt & Whitney's baseline experience in building and fielding fifth generation fighter engines – the F119 that powers the F-22 Raptor, and the F135 powering the F-35 Lightning II, according to Bennett Croswell, president, P&W Military Engines.

"Pratt & Whitney has an innovative approach to achieving variable cycle features with a multiple flow path architecture," said Croswell. "We're building on our foundation of proven fifth generation capabilities, and we are now mastering adaptive technologies – really expanding the boundaries of state of the art engine technology critical for the next sixth generation aircraft."

Hope that explains something on Why Variable cycle engines are important & much sought after tech for fighters,

Achieving optimum thrust & SFC at various operating conditions spread through out the flight envelope , is the key of the new low bypass variable cycle engine tech, unlike the optimum SFC & thrust achieved by non varible cycle high bypass older tech engines at " A SINLGE PONIT IN THEIR OPERATING ENVBELOPE & FLIGHT CONDITIONS

Add to that

1.higher Engine Thrust to weight ratio for better over all fighter TWR,
2., lower frontal area for lower RCS,
3, nimbler response to throttle alterations key to close combat,
4. Capacity to achieve the designated thrust with lower temperature capable blades

we know why Kaveri even though unfinished has the DNA of a state of the art engine fit for any cutting edge 5th gen stealth fighter design" meaning the fighter performs closer to its optimum performance envelope through out it flight envelop

 

[Arjun25]

France offers to invest in kaveri

 

[Rahul Singh]

France offers to invest in kaveri

Very tempting, could shape the future. But is it genuine?

 

[ersakthivel]

As far as I know, Kaveri is a high BPR engine in comparison to F404. This does give it the higher thrust while taking off, but at cruising altitude it gets beaten out by F404 in raw power.

Now variable cycle is something damn cool just like pulse jet or RAM/SCRAM hybrid engine, but did we worked enough on it to master it?

You need to go to bharath rakshak & read maitya's post on kaveri to know some stuff,

Please google & find out which one has high bypass ratio, GE 404 or Kaveri.

BYpass ratio has nothing to do with higher take of thrust & lower cruise thrust!!!

variable cycle is not damn cool RAM/SCRAM stuff,

It is already operating in F-22 engine,

And it is operational at kaveri K-9 too!!!
What is needed to be mastered in kaveri is, stuff like this,,

http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016/07/idn-take-tech-scan-brief-review-of.html?m=1

BLISK, ceramic cores, SCB metallurgy, thermobaric coating etc, etc, in all these areas french have cmpetence, SO once they employ their tech on kaveri K-9 it becomes the state of the art "variable cycle , low bypass engine"

I doubt french will give us SCB tech, But that tech is already developed by DMRL & has been transferred to HAL . This is a real breakthrough ,if it is finally validated ,as it allows higher TET temp & significant engine weight reduction(because it means elimination of one turbine stage for the same thrust required) all without french assistance. No country in the world transfers SCB tech & it is not fair of us to expect French to do it also.

SO consultancy & some cutting edge finishing is all that remains to make the flight worthy certification of Kaveri engine, Uprating is another future task,

As of now low bypass , variable cycle engine design principles of kaveri are already validated, We dont need french assistance in thsi area, Infact French will learn this tech on kaveri from their JV, WHile we will learn BLISK, ceramic cores, thermobaric coatings etc, etc from them

 

[tejas warrior]

France offers to invest in kaveri

How funny in reading this.. French are taking our money only and then giving offer to us for its investment.

 

[PaliwalWarrior]

How funny in reading this.. French are taking our money only and then giving offer to us for its investment.

And then warning from selling the engine to us through jv while retaining IP rights in the jv

 

[ersakthivel]

Please google & find out which one has high bypass ratio, GE 404 or Kaveri

How funny in reading this.. French are taking our money only and then giving offer to us for its investment.

Nothing funny, it is very serious stuff, If it is true then 36 rafales are free of cost for IAF read my above two or three posts to know the significance of this offer,

 

[PaliwalWarrior]

Lets start a discussion on low bypass ratio ,

http://aviation.stackexchange.com/q...itary-turbofan-engines-use-a-low-bypass-ratio

I know that the most civilian engines use a high bypass ratio which is good for fuel economy and noise reduction.

What prevents military engines from using the same technology instead of opting for low bypass engines?

Answers,

Because the priorities for military aircraft (engines) are different. While it is true that the high bypass turbofans have better fuel economy (in cruise) and are less noisy, the low bypass engines offer significant advantages when we take into account their intended use in combat aircraft, such as:

• The response of the low bypass turbofans to throttle adjustments is faster compared to the high bypass turbofans; the inertia is less and less air mass is involved (for increasing the velocity)- This is important during combat, when thrust requirements change rapidly.
• 
  
• [So tejas which was visualized to be at the cutting edge of the 90s 4.5th gen era needed an engine that changes thrust rapidly for its Relaxed Static Stability, low wing loading cranked delta design, for faster instantaneous turn oriented high ITR (Instantaneous Turn Rate)fight with high off bore Beyond visual range missiles for first shoot & kill advantage]
  
  
• They have less frontal area, reducing the drag produced. For aircraft expected to fly at supersonic speeds, however briefly, this is important.
• [Being the smallest fighter aircraft that is supposed to fit within the foot print of mig-21 low bypass low frontal area engine is an obvious choice for the low frontal area , low RCS airframe of tejas]
  
  
• Better thrust to weight ratio- 6:1 in Trent 1000 Vs 9:1 F119 (used in F-22 Raptor)- Even if the actual thrust produced by the low bypass turbofans is lesser, they produce more thrust per kg of engine, which means that the engine can be more compact in size.
• [Once again, Tejas being the low weight fighter the better TWR of low bypass engine will make it far more nimble]
  
  
• The low bypass turbofans are more efficient at higher speeds compared to the high bypass turbofans.
• [The RSS delta design of high speed high altitude combat that is the bread butter of IAF in high Himalayan kashmir or tibet area , fits perfectly with the Tejas requirement]
  
  
• The lesser size of the low-bypass turbofans mean that the aircraft can be made stealthier by 'burying' the engines in the fuselage, which is all but impossible in case of high bypass turbofans.
• {once again tejas was envisoned to be low RCS fighter, which also fits in with the low bypass engine spec]

It's not military vs civilian, but subsonic vs supersonic-capable
Note that subsonic military aircraft use the same engines as civilian aircraft, even if their names might be different.

• The KC-135 used initially the J-57 which was called JT-3C when used in the Boeing 707-120. Now they fly the CFM-56, which is used on the Boeing 737 and the A320.
• The C-5 Galaxy uses the GE TF39 which became the CF6 when mounted to a Boeing 747-100 or a DC-10.
• The Fairchild A-10 uses the GE TF34 which is called CF34 when mounted to civilian aircraft like the Bombardier Challenger.

No, the differences arise only when the aircraft is designed to fly supersonic. This requires a very different approach to the integration of the engine:

• Supersonic aircraft engines are mounted close to the centerline. If possible, they are straight behind the intakes, so the intake flow does not need to change direction. Exceptions like the SR-71 are rare.
• Supersonic intakes are longer and have sharp edges as opposed to the short, blunt intakes of subsonic aircraft. Also, most have a variable geometry to adapt to the very different flow conditions at supersonic speed.
• Since it is the job of an intake to slow down the air going into the engine, supersonic intakes cannot have a big capture area, or their spill drag in supersonic flight would be excessive. Supersonic engines need to create their thrust with much less airmass than purely subsonic engines. Forget stealth, this is the real reason for the smaller diameters of supersonic-capable engines.
• The nozzle of a supersonic aircraft is also variable, in contrast to the fixed nozzle of subsonic aircraft. This again helps to adjust it to the flow conditions, but in this case the major difference is between reheat on and off. Afterburning engines are capable of much higher exit speeds to compensate for their smaller diameter. They accelerate less air to a higher speed to create comparable thrust.
• The last point mentioned it, but it deserves a bullet of its own: Supersonic engines use afterburners in order to have enough thrust for going supersonic at all. The hot exhaust gasses have a much bigger volume than the cold intake flow which needs to be accommodated by widening the nozzle.

Note that the civilian Concorde used also a variable intake and nozzle and afterburners. It had an engine which was used on the BAC TSR-2 before, a supersonic military aircraft.

The real distinction is not between civilian and military, but between purely subsonic and supersonic-capable. Initially, both was achieved with the same engines. The J-57 mentioned above was also used on the supersonic F-100 military jet. Only in the 1960s did those lines diverge, and the subsonic aircraft grew ever bigger low-pressure compressor stages. These were again driven by the high-pressure cores which were used on supersonic aircraft.

Background
Thrust is air mass flow multiplied by the speed difference between flight and nozzle speed of the engine. To increase thrust, subsonic engines try to maximize mass flow (by increasing the bypass ratio) while supersonic engines rely more on increasing the nozzle speed (by using afterburners). Since net thrust is only possible when exit speeds are higher than the flight speed, the engine's exit speed needs to increase with the design flight speed.

The core engines do not differ much - after all, the intake will make sure that air reaches the engine at a speed of Mach 0.4 to 0.5, regardless of flight speed. The core of the General Electric F110 (installed in the F-15 and F-16 fighters, among others) became the core of the CFM-56 turbofan which is used in the Boeing 737 or the Airbus A320. The main difference is in their bypass ratio. The slower the design speed, the bigger the bypass ratio may become. At very low speed, the ungeared, shrouded fan is exchanged for a geared, free spinning propeller, in other words, the jet changes to a turboprop. The intake and nozzle, however, are very different indeed.

The optimum bypass ratio changes continuously, but since the drag coefficient drops after crossing Mach 1, airplanes are either designed for a maximum Mach number of 0.9 or less, or 1.6 and above. The corresponding bypass ratios today are up to 12 for subsonic engines, and less than 1 for supersonic engines. This produces a sharp boundary at the speed of sound, and many military engines designed for supersonic flight lost their afterburners and were fitted with a big fan to become the engines for subsonic transport aircraft.

The differences between sub- and supersonic engines grow bigger the more you move away from their core. High-pressure compressor, combustion chamber and high pressure turbine look and work the same, but the low pressure compressor of subsonic engines swallows a lot more air and has a much bigger diameter. Supersonic engines in turn mostly have an afterburner. The biggest difference, however, are the intakes (large pitot intake with blunt lips for subsonic aircraft versus adjustable spike or ramp intakes for supersonic flight) and the nozzle (fixed for subsonic flight versus a complex,adjustable convergent-divergent nozzle for supersonic flight). This is due to the very different air speeds and the much higher exit velocities required for supersonic flight.

Look at the intake section of the XB-70 pictured above (source). The capture area is rather small, and then the intake tube widens to enable the slowing of the airflow. The inclined sidewalls of the intake section cause a lot of drag at Mach 3. Now think the six GE YJ-93s are replaced by engines with an even bigger diameter. The increase in wave drag due to the even blunter intake would cancel out all advantages of a higher bypass ratio.

What is less obvious is the fact that this intake section also creates maybe half of the overall thrust of the propulsion system. But this answer is already too long, so I save this for another answer.

So that is why a finished kaveri is so integral to the india's AMCA effort as well,

Just looking at the plain thrust , SFC at optimum flight conditions makes low bypass engine a poor coice, but when you look at the fine print you can see lot of clarity on the low by pass requirement of tejas,

I have also read in BR(from maitya's post) that low bypass engine design allows one to reach the designated thrust with lower TET(turbine Entry Temp)

So given india's lower Metallurgy skills the low bypass design allows GTRE to achieve optimum thrust with lower TET capable engine blade Metallurgy, which is also a crucial need of tejas program,

So all this higher engine thrust to weight ratio per KG, low frontal area, achieving the needed thrust with lower TET turbine blades, of low bypass engine design is the back bone of engine tech for any super cruise 5th gen stealth fighter design that is the holy grail of fighter design today,

it is not for nothing that a true IIT , that too Metallurgy guy like Manohar Parrikar smells the potential of this low bypass variable cycle engine tech advantage & now in the thick of hard nose negotiations with Dassault raflae in exchange for finishing kaveri,

In my opinion if the GTRE-Snecma JV finish kaveri in 18 months with an uprated thrust of 95 KN , then the 36 rafales almost come free for IAF,

because this 95 Kn engine is a readymade fallback engine choice for AMCA as well, in case three are any delays in its engine program.

But I doubt whether it will become reality, because so many stones are killed by this one stone& it threatens too many western established interests as well!!

But it is a perfect fit for ADA & Dassault because as of now Dasault has no single engine fighter to sell unlike LM & Gripen,

Also if the 95 Kn thrust is achieved it gives them an uprated engine tech for the rafale upgrade as well.

No wonder Modi- Parrikar duo called off the scam ridden MMRCA circus floated by bribe seeking UPA regime & indulging in hard nosed top secret Govt to Govt negotiations on this rafale cum GTRE-Snecma deal.

Looking forward to your informed reply!!


Thanks

I doubt the French intentions

They are now insisting that tot be discussed finalised after signing the rafale deal

If they are sincere why not finalise and sign it as a single agreement

Reneging on one should automatically cancel the other

If fench renege on any of the tot deals the rafale contract should automatically become null & void

 

[ersakthivel]

And then warning from selling the engine to us through jv while retaining IP rights in the jv

Wrong on many counts mate,

The French too will come into grips with low by pass , variable cycle engine tech in their JVs, it is a huge learning experience for them , at least a decade of costly R&D saved for them by GTRE,

SO they cant demand IP rights on a platter , And manohbar Parrikar is a true IITain not a fake like Arvind Kejriwal!!!

he knows what is being traded & wont give it free to french,

BLISK, ceramic cores, SCB metallurgy, thermobaric coating etc, etc, in all these areas french have competence & GTRE will learn from them,

SO once they employ their tech on kaveri K-9 it becomes the state of the art "variable cycle , low bypass engine"

I doubt french will give us SCB tech,

But that tech is already developed by DMRL & has been transferred to HAL . This is a real breakthrough ,if it is finally validated ,as it allows higher TET temp & significant engine weight reduction(because it means elimination of one turbine stage for the same thrust required) all without french assistance.

No country in the world transfers SCB tech & it is not fair of us to expect French to do it also.

SO consultancy & some cutting edge finishing is all that remains to make the flight worthy certification of Kaveri engine, Uprating is another future task,

As of now low bypass , variable cycle engine design principles of kaveri are already validated, We dont need french assistance in thsi area, Infact French will learn this tech on kaveri from their JV, WHile we will learn BLISK, ceramic cores, thermobaric coatings etc, etc from them.

FRench royalties dont matter, thing to look for is that all parts minus the HPT SCB blades of engine core must be made here, that is the most important part.

If HPT SCB core too is made here then it is a coup!!!

 

[PaliwalWarrior]

Wrong on many counts mate,

The French too will come into grips with low by pass , variable cycle engine tech in their JVs, it is a huge learning experience for them , at least a decade of costly R&D saved for them by GTRE,

SO they cant demand IP rights on a platter , And manohbar Parrikar is a true IITain not a fake like Arvind Kejriwal!!!

he knows what is being traded & wont give it free to french,

BLISK, ceramic cores, SCB metallurgy, thermobaric coating etc, etc, in all these areas french have competence & GTRE will learn from them,

SO once they employ their tech on kaveri K-9 it becomes the state of the art "variable cycle , low bypass engine"

I doubt french will give us SCB tech,

But that tech is already developed by DMRL & has been transferred to HAL . This is a real breakthrough ,if it is finally validated ,as it allows higher TET temp & significant engine weight reduction(because it means elimination of one turbine stage for the same thrust required) all without french assistance.

No country in the world transfers SCB tech & it is not fair of us to expect French to do it also.

SO consultancy & some cutting edge finishing is all that remains to make the flight worthy certification of Kaveri engine, Uprating is another future task,

As of now low bypass , variable cycle engine design principles of kaveri are already validated, We dont need french assistance in thsi area, Infact French will learn this tech on kaveri from their JV, WHile we will learn BLISK, ceramic cores, thermobaric coatings etc, etc from them.

FRench royalties dont matter, thing to look for is that all parts minus the HPT SCB blades of engine core must be made here, that is the most important part.

If HPT SCB core too is made here then it is a coup!!!

See they are insisting on rafale contract first then tot finalisation

So that after signing rafale deal they can do a klpd

 

[ersakthivel]

I doubt the French intentions

They are now insisting that tot be discussed finalised after signing the rafale deal

If they are sincere why not finalise and sign it as a single agreement

Reneging on one should automatically cancel the other

If fench renege on any of the tot deals the rafale contract should automatically become null & void

It is a very big breakthrough if it goes ahead,

But like the finisher Dhoni , we have the finishers manohar parrikar- Modi combo here,

French have an irresistable offer, 100 rafales , billions of dollars, a peek into cutting edge low bypass, Varibale cycle engine tech of 5th gen stealth fighters, more scorpene orders, closer strategic partnership etc, etc
Also note that french are the driving force behind the sell defence product to china push in EU, WIth the brits out & French with multi billion dollar rafale deal , this EU desire will also be nixed as well.

We will have export money spinner tejas free from American engine clutche, a fall back engine tech for AMCA and orders worth close to 1000 engines & huge forex savings running into 10s of billions of dollars over a decade,

In fact if you have seen the links I provided, This JV wil also result in a civillian jet engine with least tinkering as well, Ceraqmic cores, blisk, SCB, thermo baric coating, variable cycle are ready . All we need is redesign to the high by pass ratio design,

\Then most of india's future Helicopter engine will also use the same tech, Strategic & commercial significance are enormous,

 

[PaliwalWarrior]

It is a very big breakthrough if it goes ahead,

But like the finisher Dhoni , we have the finishers manohar parrikar- Modi combo here,

French have an irresistable offer, 100 rafales , billions of dollars, a peek into cutting edge low bypass, Varibale cycle engine tech of 5th gen stealth fighters,

We will have export money spinner tejas free from American engine clutche, a fall back engine tech for AMCA and orders worth close to 1000 engines & huge forex savings running into 10s of billions of dollars over a decade,

In fact if you have seen the links I provided, This JV wil also result in a civillian jet engine with least tinkering as well, Ceraqmic cores, blisk, SCB, thermo baric coating, variable cycle are ready . All we need is redesign to the high by pass ratio design,

\Then most of india's future Helicopter engine will also use the same tech, Strategic & commercial significance are enormous,

So while we save. Money in 10 billions we will pay 36 billion for 100 rafales and 10 billions for associated weapons

Bhai give Russia 20 billion dollars and get 100 fgfa

 

[ersakthivel]

See they are insisting on rafale contract first then tot finalisation

So that after signing rafale deal they can do a klpd

Who said that?
With mk1A master stroke of Modi- Parrikar combo we have all the sweet time in the world to negotiate with Dassault, nothing is urgent,

You may also have noted that Manohar parrikar is also playing LM, SAAB against Dassault, thats why this JV offer from France has come!!!

French know that UPA bribe central MMRCA circus is over . the bogus IAF claim put forth by even more Bogus IAF airmarshals of buying the best in MMRCA contract is also exposed as hollow,

Now it is all govt to govt & no tender , with parallel negotiations in full swing, the french know time is running out, in fact it is already extra time in this soccer game called MMRCA!!! & cant rely on L1 (that too after the expiary of financial bids!!!)comfort of the scam called MMRCA

 

[ersakthivel]

So while we save. Money in 10 billions we will pay 36 billion for 100 rafales and 10 billions for associated weapons

Bhai give Russia 20 billion dollars and get 100 fgfa

even 100 rafales at 36 billion is free!!!

Why ?we can save the same amount in forex by cutting engine imports on tejas mk1, mk2, ma1 A, AMCA, mig 29 rafale engines , helicopter engines, derivative passenger jet engines etc, etc,

The strategic autonomy of being free from the clutches of foreign powers on most of our jet engine needs itself is worth more than 36 billion!!!

We are a big power,

Unfortunately Russian engine tech is even below kaveri jet engine standards, I may be flayed for saying this, but it is the truth,

They dont have any low bypass variable cycle engine tech on offer, being fixated on plain after burner thrust of AL series engines won educate you on that count, See a few of my previous posts to know what it means to have a low bypass, variable cycle engine tech for 5th gen fighters

Your 36 billion comes from where I dont know!!

As far as I know fly away cost is 100 million only , And IAF wont buy french weapons for rafale & that will cut costs further!!!

 

[PaliwalWarrior]

even 100 rafales at 36 billion is free!!!

Why ?we can save the same amount in forex by cutting engine imports on tejas mk1, mk2, ma1 A, AMCA, mig 29 rafale engines , helicopter engines, derivative passenger jet engines etc, etc,

The strategic autonomy of being free from the clutches of foreign powers on most of our jet engine needs itself is worth more than 36 billion!!!

We are a big power,

Unfortunately Russian engine tech is even below kaveri jet engine standards, I may be flayed for saying this, but it is the truth,

They dont have any low bypass variable cycle engine tech on offer, being fixated on plain after burner thrust of AL series engines won educate you on that count, See a few of my previous posts to know what it means to have a low bypass, variable cycle engine tech for 5th gen fighters

Your 36 billion comes from where I dont know!!

As far as I know fly away cost is 100 million only , And IAF wont buy french weapons for rafale & that will cut costs further!!!

9 billion for 36
36 billion for 100


Anyway a single engine can't be used on all lca amca helicopters civilian aircraft

They all need changes a lot of changes

Also there are limits to how much an engine can be uprated or down rated

 

[BON PLAN]

I doubt the French intentions

They are now insisting that tot be discussed finalised after signing the rafale deal

If they are sincere why not finalise and sign it as a single agreement

Reneging on one should automatically cancel the other

If fench renege on any of the tot deals the rafale contract should automatically become null & void

Do you imagine we will firmed an affset contract before signing the contract it self?

Dassault did it with Belgium in the 70's when DA expect to sell Mirage F1. No Mirage F1 contract, but the Belgium authorities demanded that the offset were made....

 

[Yumdoot]

Do you imagine we will firmed an affset contract before signing the contract it self?

Dassault did it with Belgium in the 70's when DA expect to sell Mirage F1. No Mirage F1 contract, but the Belgium authorities demanded that the offset were made....

See told you all, cannot rely on Westerners.

But seriously why cannot both be signed simultaneously. Or you could just have the gross TOT item alongwith the TOT timelines mentioned as covenants in the aircraft agreement. Say like condition precedent to all payments after the first one .

 

[PaliwalWarrior]

Do you imagine we will firmed an affset contract before signing the contract it self?

Dassault did it with Belgium in the 70's when DA expect to sell Mirage F1. No Mirage F1 contract, but the Belgium authorities demanded that the offset were made....

Ha-ha

We are not like french

I did not say offset contract before rafale contract

What I said is finalise the offset in details first
Then link both the contracts - rafale & offsets and sign both at the same time

Keep provision in both contracts that If France reneges on offset contracts then rafale contract becomes null & void

 

[Chinmoy]

Please google & find out which one has high bypass ratio, GE 404 or Kaveri.

Found out that Kaveri does have a higher BPR.....
http://www.dutchops.com/AC_Data/Engines/F404.html
http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/index.jsp?pg=kaveri.jsp
http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/index.jsp?pg=kaveri.jsp
Now your post on difference between passenger jet and fighter jet engine is quite informative and I myself had gone through some similar articles previously. Now I believe BPR don't have such a huge effect in Fighters as the engines are made to deliver RAW power instead of being fuel economic. But still for power you have to take into account the BPR of engines which you would be using.

variable cycle is not damn cool RAM/SCRAM stuff,

It is already operating in F-22 engine,

Now ofcourse its a cool stuff for us irrespective of who are using it. Now as you have already pointed out, we do seriously lack behind in metallurgy section and I've no qualm in any sort of JV if we could get value added information/ knowledge through it. In fact I don't have any qualm on any sort of JV which does have always a bright side unlike license production.

 

[BON PLAN]

Keep provision in both contracts that If France reneges on offset contracts then rafale contract becomes null & void

OK with that. I'm sure it's already in the final draft.