HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[sancho]

True but .. you didnt understand even Shakti engine struggled during sanction... and we have to pay the royalty for every engine back to France.. because France didnt part the technology of some critical components...

I do and I said before that sanctions had their parts in the delays too, but wasn't the major problem. We struggeled with Kaveri and then had to find a plan B in the short term, instead of planing with a safe and proven engine from the start, to counter any problems that could ocur during Kaveri developments.
And in regard of money, we didn't get the GE engines for free right? And by the fact that by that time we were desperate, we didn't have much space to bargain as well. So that is no point for me, I even say it's only money!
I would rather have spend some more money back then and see Tejas flying in sqads now, instead of paying afterwards and just hoping to see Tejas to be ready anytime soon!

Are you sure they are ready to part the technology?? even today SNECMA is crying to share the IP of its core to GTRE for eco core.. and no way Russia gives the technology... Russia never sold current technology to any one.. we cant dream of doing JV Turbo fan in 1990 as it is a very hot technology...

Because we ask for the techs that they even plan for a future upgrades only, when we look at all the JV with ToT we have with France, it should be obvious that they are a prefered partner, because of ToT isn't it?
Also as I said, we didn't had to go for a co-development, it just was one option. A simple licence production of stop gap engine would have been enough as well, to get Tejas ready for IOC and licence production till Kaveri is ready. Basically the same that we do now with GE 404, that might be replaced by Kaveri during MLU, but the advantage would have been several years less delays!

For example take Brahmos.. Russia contributes the propulsion and India guidance and software.. you think Russia gave the Propulsion technology to India.. no it didnt.. even FGFA they are not going to part some complex technologies like AESA and avionics.. they will help India in Stealth characteristics of the body.. and DRDO will develop our own version with CFC..even i doubt they gave some valid input for Arihant...

And that is surprising? No country in the world gives out their top techs, or secrets for free, that's why I also say we need indigenous developments. But we will never catch up to western countries, Russia, or China, when we try to do it alone and risk these kinds of delays.
Brahmos for example, if we had tried to develop such a missile alone, how many years would have taken us and wouldn't the other countries increase the gap in the meantime? MKI was the start, where we could at least customize to our requirements and include indigenous parts. FGFA will be even a step ahead, because we are included in the redesign of our version and can give way more input in terms of materials, or cockpit design for example. We learn about NG techs, can bring indigenous inputs in it and (hopefully) will have it in service at a very early stage. Again, if we didn't go for FGFA, when would be able to field a 5th gen fighter alone and wouldn't China have a clear advantage with J20 then?

Btw, Arihant imo would never be possible without Russian and French ToT through Scorpene deal, but it's such a top secret project, that we will never hear more about the deals behind it.

Not needed... you are just taking of cockpit and human substem which are not needed... but it needs sufficient technology to interact and think on its own incase a missile approaches

I agree that you need more advanced systems, or software as we said earlier, but I don't think that this example is correct. Even today latest EWS systems are detecting, localising and identifying threats alone, they even offer the pilot possible solutions to counter it. Chaf and flares will be even used automatically and all these infos will be displayed at the virtual cockpit of the drone pilot as well.

UCAV super cruise and TVC is a bless advantage.. if it is there.. Super cruise enables to go longer distance with less fuel is absolute need...

Not really, because UCAV engine won't have an afterburner anyway, just like TVC is not needed, because maneuverability is not a key requirement like at fighters. Just look at dedicated strike aircrafts with stealth design like F117, or B2, both not meant for fighting, but for very low RCS and delivery of strike weapons. Regarding payloads, not the thrust alone is important, keep in mind that the weight will less as well (comparable to LCA).

so AMCA is very much a needed fighter.. even US NTGA has called for manned option in case of emergency where Boeing had given the option...

That we have FGFA for and as long as AMCA will not be more advanced, lets say a 6th gen fighter, a stealth UCAV for strikes alongside FGFA is more reasonable.
I don't like to compare with other countries, because it mainly depends on their own requirements, when and what they developm. But by the fact you keep mentioning the US, they will induct F35 soon, will add X47 later and the developments of Boeing for a 6th gen replacement of F18SH by 2025 has already started and they have 2 totally different 5th gen fighters, not the same like FGFA and AMCA would be.
If we had the same situation that they have AMCA might make sense, but we don't! We induct 3 different 4.5 gen fighters in the next 4 years, will add a 5th gen fighter and a 5th gen UCAV, there is simply no need to add a fighter that offers operational advantage for our forces.

but all those lost in peace or war will not be replaced but will be opted by AMCA.. it is better to go for a stealth developed by India than to buy MMRCA...

So for such a specific reasons you want to add a new type and pay all the development costs? Why not simply add another FGFA?

it will be a bad decision to replace whole of Manned with UCAV...

I never said that, but to replace dedicated ground attack fighters with UCAVs which are clearly better in these roles does makes sense.

Even in this decade you will see that IAF will divert CAS and possibly SEAD attacks to hunter killer drones comparable to Predators, or Reapers accompanied by some manned fighters with dedicated EW capabilities. Even today in Afghanistan and Libya, drone attacks in these roles are more useful than fighter attacks, because they have more range and endurance than manned fighters. That's why the trend is also to lighter strike weapons like Brimstone, JAGM, AASM 125/250, Paveway IV, or SDB, while we striked with 500Kg LGBs in Kargil war.

 

[MumbaiIndians]

I would rather have spend some more money back then and see Tejas flying in sqads now, instead of paying afterwards and just hoping to see Tejas to be ready anytime soon!

Sounds quite similar to,
"I would rather spend some more money now and see AMCA flying in sqads soon, instead of paying afterwards and just hoping to see AMCA to be ready anytime in future".

Guess what, you still have chance to correct your past mistake. Or it might be too late again.

 

[kingdurgaking]

I do and I said before that sanctions had their parts in the delays too, but wasn't the major problem. We struggeled with Kaveri and then had to find a plan B in the short term, instead of planing with a safe and proven engine from the start, to counter any problems that could ocur during Kaveri developments.
And in regard of money, we didn't get the GE engines for free right? And by the fact that by that time we were desperate, we didn't have much space to bargain as well. So that is no point for me, I even say it's only money!
I would rather have spend some more money back then and see Tejas flying in sqads now, instead of paying afterwards and just hoping to see Tejas to be ready anytime soon!

Because we ask for the techs that they even plan for a future upgrades only, when we look at all the JV with ToT we have with France, it should be obvious that they are a prefered partner, because of ToT isn't it?
Also as I said, we didn't had to go for a co-development, it just was one option. A simple licence production of stop gap engine would have been enough as well, to get Tejas ready for IOC and licence production till Kaveri is ready. Basically the same that we do now with GE 404, that might be replaced by Kaveri during MLU, but the advantage would have been several years less delays!

If we go on with JV then we wouldnt have key developments like we have with LCA and we would never have any self development at all For example expertise in the field of CFC etc are good deal.. we are going on with these advance composite on FGFA where as russia is still struck with titanium..

secondly some it is better to have a plan B where we spend money for the product than we go for JV.. because any way in JV we dont have access to the technology of the other party.. still what is the use.. we are spending for R&D with out the know how of the other side... for country like India others will dictate that we have develop in JV citing that we will not be able to develop...

JV is good only for key things like Brahmos ... where the customer is not having any time but wanted a special product.....

Even for kaveri eco.. we wont know the core technology... so what is the use?? what did we achieve...we already did major in Kaveri and we are struggling in the core only.... where as France will develop the core and will use the core for future engines too... To say France will be the major benefiter that India... Even for LUH for a single engine power we are struggling with France as we dont have the required knowhow in Shakthi - engine... They are dictating terms... we cannot emerge in global market..

Yes accepted now Kaveri engine has come to the stage of Brahmos where DRDO has got no time... But still money has to invested for a indigenous engine.. if we dont do this then India will never know in future how to develope them.. and for life long we have to abide to france price escalation.. and pay them if we need to do some changes... But France can coolly use the Eco - core for its M-XX projects ....

And that is surprising? No country in the world gives out their top techs, or secrets for free, that's why I also say we need indigenous developments. But we will never catch up to western countries, Russia, or China, when we try to do it alone and risk these kinds of delays.
Brahmos for example, if we had tried to develop such a missile alone, how many years would have taken us and wouldn't the other countries increase the gap in the meantime? MKI was the start, where we could at least customize to our requirements and include indigenous parts. FGFA will be even a step ahead, because we are included in the redesign of our version and can give way more input in terms of materials, or cockpit design for example. We learn about NG techs, can bring indigenous inputs in it and (hopefully) will have it in service at a very early stage. Again, if we didn't go for FGFA, when would be able to field a 5th gen fighter alone and wouldn't China have a clear advantage with J20 then?

Btw, Arihant imo would never be possible without Russian and French ToT through Scorpene deal, but it's such a top secret project, that we will never hear more about the deals behind it.

Why you have the assumption that we will never catch up??.. Those countries were independent for centuries and they have been starting from zeroth generation.. where as we have been able to catch them in several areas.. we have used CFC and developing more advanced composites for AMCA... we have been able to surpass several in this field.. we have a very robust FBW... we have done good indigenous work in several fields.. despite repeated sanctions slashed our face..

Even for Brahmos we still didnt have key propulsion .... Not sure we are going to do anything on propulsion in hypersonic version

Russia in FGFA will not give blue print but will ask us to develop some parts out of CFC and not sure whether we will be given the algorithms for stealth shaping(which is the key one)...i guess we will develop that on our own with some input from Russia..

for Arihant Russia did give input.. but that is only at the end where we are struggling a bit to achieve the power.. they where not doing the entire part.. BARC did 95% of the work... if we had gone for JV we would have developed only tubes there..

I agree that you need more advanced systems, or software as we said earlier, but I don't think that this example is correct. Even today latest EWS systems are detecting, localising and identifying threats alone, they even offer the pilot possible solutions to counter it. Chaf and flares will be even used automatically and all these infos will be displayed at the virtual cockpit of the drone pilot as well.

Not really, because UCAV engine won't have an afterburner anyway, just like TVC is not needed, because maneuverability is not a key requirement like at fighters. Just look at dedicated strike aircrafts with stealth design like F117, or B2, both not meant for fighting, but for very low RCS and delivery of strike weapons. Regarding payloads, not the thrust alone is important, keep in mind that the weight will less as well (comparable to LCA).

yes EW systems deploy chaff and flares.. it is just triggering an activity.. but newer generation missile have Optical tracking system and cant be cheated with chaff and flares... so UCAV will have to develop a escape path in run time to dodge the missile.. and have to execute the path which are more complex.. and future threat perception will be more complex than we can actually think of.. they indeed have to stay away from enemy detection lot of stuff.. we cant image these things... right now all these parameters have been given in cockpit to the pilot and human decides whats next...

Except for after burner ... if it has to take huge payload it should have huge power... in Manned system... human support system comes max 1-2 tonne of weight .. along with cockpit.. so more power is needed along with super cruise .... TVC depends... if it helps in escape path it will have to be incorporated....

UCAV and B-2 cant be interrelated here.. UCAV will be more autonomous... some time it has to deal with enemy fighters during strike role.. it has to have more power in those case...

That we have FGFA for and as long as AMCA will not be more advanced, lets say a 6th gen fighter, a stealth UCAV for strikes alongside FGFA is more reasonable.
I don't like to compare with other countries, because it mainly depends on their own requirements, when and what they developm. But by the fact you keep mentioning the US, they will induct F35 soon, will add X47 later and the developments of Boeing for a 6th gen replacement of F18SH by 2025 has already started and they have 2 totally different 5th gen fighters, not the same like FGFA and AMCA would be.
If we had the same situation that they have AMCA might make sense, but we don't! We induct 3 different 4.5 gen fighters in the next 4 years, will add a 5th gen fighter and a 5th gen UCAV, there is simply no need to add a fighter that offers operational advantage for our forces.

Boeing inducting in 2025 is a reality for US can be for a special role because they are going to buy F-35.... US has delivery of F-35 for all the forces till 2030...

which means UCAV will be for a special role.. In addition to that F-18 and F-15 will stay till 2020-2025.. and F-22 and F-35 are expected to stay till 2040 atleast

As for our adversaries.. they are inducting lot of J-10, J-11 and two 5th gen fighters are on the card... so we having the same configuration is no big deal...

So for such a specific reasons you want to add a new type and pay all the development costs? Why not simply add another FGFA?

I never said that, but to replace dedicated ground attack fighters with UCAVs which are clearly better in these roles does makes sense.

Even in this decade you will see that IAF will divert CAS and possibly SEAD attacks to hunter killer drones comparable to Predators, or Reapers accompanied by some manned fighters with dedicated EW capabilities. Even today in Afghanistan and Libya, drone attacks in these roles are more useful than fighter attacks, because they have more range and endurance than manned fighters. That's why the trend is also to lighter strike weapons like Brimstone, JAGM, AASM 125/250, Paveway IV, or SDB, while we striked with 500Kg LGBs in Kargil war.

If we are going to replace all the strike with UCAV it is dangerous and disaster like US did by not putting guns on there aircraft in Vietnam war... we need manned fighters also and that to 60% of manned fighter to 40% UCAV... and that is why we need AMCA...

Programming UCAV is not instant.. threat varies and upgrades has to happen.. In war we dont know what trick enemy will apply and human can take decision instantly and go for a war plan... but UCAV doing that will be too late ... until the threat is programmed tested...

 

[sancho]

If we go on with JV then we wouldnt have key developments like we have with LCA

Like? I thought we were talking about the key parts like radar and engine, where we failed to develop it alone? As I said earlier, I am for indigenous developments, but with a more realistic assessment of our capabilities and better planing to not make similar mistakes again.
LCA project was good and important, but the dependence on indigenous radar and engine developments, without a stop gap engine (plan B), or a foreign partner (plan C) were and still are the problems.

and we would never have any self development at all For example expertise in the field of CFC etc are good deal.. we are going on with these advance composite on FGFA where as russia is still struck with titanium..

True, while on the other side we stuck at design, engine, radar developments, which are basics on any fighter development. Without getting it done for a 4th gen fighter, it's nuts to think about it for a 5th gen fighter that requires more advanced systems and features.

Even for kaveri eco.. we wont know the core technology... so what is the use?? what did we achieve...we already did major in Kaveri and we are struggling in the core only....

Only in the core? Isn't that the base for any engine development? We had 20 years of developments and as you said yourself in another post, it still didn't met the requirements that was aimed for using it at least on Tejas MK1. So did we really achieved something yet?
The expectations and plans were high (remember those plans of naval version of Kaveri to power IN vessels), but the sad truth is, so far it is not useful for any of our fighters (not for LCA MK1, 2, or later an AMCA). And that's the point! We have to accept that we failed here and find solutions to fix the problems as soon as possible. Sticking with it for longer, just with some hope that we will make it ready someday is not the right way and just causes more delays, while all other countries move even further!

as we dont have the required knowhow in Shakthi - engine... They are dictating terms... we cannot emerge in global market..

Exactly and that is not surprising, because we are not at the same level now and still have a lot to learn, that's why JV, or even better Co-developments are so important. It's not only getting ToT, or ip codes and suddenly we are ready to do the same, but increasing the experience and know how of our indigenous industry and engineers as well.

But still money has to invested for a indigenous engine.. if we dont do this then India will never know in future how to develope them..

Totally agree, that's why it's important to keep the K9 developments going on, but not make us dependent on it, that's what I say. We also must start own engine developments for helicopters and vessels, because these are key parts of any development and if we want to be independent, this is a field where we have to have alternatives. As I said, if we had done it differently, we would be way further in this field now and could do more on our own.

 

[kingdurgaking]

Like? I thought we were talking about the key parts like radar and engine, where we failed to develop it alone? As I said earlier, I am for indigenous developments, but with a more realistic assessment of our capabilities and better planing to not make similar mistakes again.
LCA project was good and important, but the dependence on indigenous radar and engine developments, without a stop gap engine (plan B), or a foreign partner (plan C) were and still are the problems.

I guess you have fixed what is key part.. in Aircraft everything is key part.. for example... the Air frame is very key.. you cant have a heavy air frame .. even if you have powerful engine right??.. of course engine is heart.. so is the airframe.. even FBW , MC is also important.. without which LCA wouldnt have flown... remember even though we had engine and Airframe.. it was not flying in 2000 because FBW was not ready and tested..

Airframe, MC, FBW cant be bought from others even if you give money.. but Radar and engine yes....

True, while on the other side we stuck at design, engine, radar developments, which are basics on any fighter development. Without getting it done for a 4th gen fighter, it's nuts to think about it for a 5th gen fighter that requires more advanced systems and features.


Only in the core? Isn't that the base for any engine development? We had 20 years of developments and as you said yourself in another post, it still didn't met the requirements that was aimed for using it at least on Tejas MK1. So did we really achieved something yet?
The expectations and plans were high (remember those plans of naval version of Kaveri to power IN vessels), but the sad truth is, so far it is not useful for any of our fighters (not for LCA MK1, 2, or later an AMCA). And that's the point! We have to accept that we failed here and find solutions to fix the problems as soon as possible. Sticking with it for longer, just with some hope that we will make it ready someday is not the right way and just causes more delays, while all other countries move even further!

You have forgot what Dr APJ has told... dream to achieve the goal.. we have dreamed about a small aircraft.. even smaller than Mig 21...

even Japan which doesnt have a decent engine and Radar is going for 5 th gen fighter ...

while you are comparing SNECMA , Pratt witney .. who are developing engine from turo prop.. to turbo jet to turbo fan... had a century experience ...while GTRE had 20 yrs had a break through of 81KN engine.. SNECMA could develope M88 of 75KN for past 15 yrs.. while the core is advanced (because of experience) ...

Kaveri at present lack good core.. Kabini is good .. but needs advance metallurgy which we dont have.. if we go to JV we will still lack the core .. means we spend money but we are at the same level where we are today...

So what is your point?... 20 yrs is good enough to set up industry? do metallurgy and develop a engine of 100KN thrust??.. do you think America will be able to do this??...

Sticking and further research will surely help Kaveri..

Exactly and that is not surprising, because we are not at the same level now and still have a lot to learn, that's why JV, or even better Co-developments are so important. It's not only getting ToT, or ip codes and suddenly we are ready to do the same, but increasing the experience and know how of our indigenous industry and engineers as well.

Totally agree, that's why it's important to keep the K9 developments going on, but not make us dependent on it, that's what I say. We also must start own engine developments for helicopters and vessels, because these are key parts of any development and if we want to be independent, this is a field where we have to have alternatives. As I said, if we had done it differently, we would be way further in this field now and could do more on our own.

So we are not at the same level... so dont you want us to rise?? if today we are feeling lazy to invest further and do JV to save money.. tomorrow we will only feel sorry... A simple example... today you earn Rs 20K and you bought a home of Rs 25L ... the money you will repay is 15K .. you will feel frighten and you wont invest.. tomorrow you earn 40K and if you see what is the home price it would be 50L ... you have to repay 30K... so the more and more you wait the gap will be same.. but if you struggle bit and if you had got home at Rs 25L .. when you have earned 40K.. you have to still pay 15K ... see you struggle intially but you got a home and the home price would have doubled..

If JV is a stop gap.. that is fine.. but in JV we have to develop the core.. not the existing thing.. we dont want others to dictate.. we have to develop where we are lacking in JV... there will be some partners who help us here.. even in Brahmos we developed the guidance which is critical.. and in hypersonic i guess we are developing the propulsion... this is a successful JV...

 

[sancho]

even Japan which doesnt have a decent engine and Radar is going for 5 th gen fighter ...

And that's why they are working together with US companies and not completely developing these things alone.

SNECMA could develope M88 of 75KN for past 15 yrs..

Because the Rafale didn't need more thrust, they developed the 90kN version 10 years ago and the M53 in Mirage 2000 offers even 95kN, so thrust alone doesn't tell you anything here. The point is, did they achieved their development goals? Yes they did, but we haven't and that's why Kaveri is still not useful for LCA.

Kaveri at present lack good core.. Kabini is good .. but needs advance metallurgy which we dont have.. if we go to JV we will still lack the core .. means we spend money but we are at the same level where we are today...So we are not at the same level... so dont you want us to rise??

No, we can learn what went wrong in our development and why we couldn't fix the problem alone. That's what a JV will bring as well, if we could do it alone, GTRE would not prefer this JV themself right?
The rise in future is only possible, when we can move on with Kaveri and that is only possible with help today, if we like it or not.

If JV is a stop gap.. that is fine.. but in JV we have to develop the core.. not the existing thing.. we dont want others to dictate.. we have to develop where we are lacking in JV...

Yes, when you do it from the start, but now we desperatly need help and are not in a situation to demand things. That's why I said, we should have done it from the start and only when our own developments failled.
In that time we have a way better base to negotiate with them, today we have only MMRCA to presure them.

 

[MumbaiIndians]

Sancho aka Biggest troll of LCA thread, is trying his best to portray Kaveri project as failure.

Now after successful flight tests of Kaveri, his desperation has increased.

 

[Lord Of Gondor]

@MumbaiIndian-Confront him with facts as to why Kaveri is not a failure WRT the Tejas even as Tejas flies with the GE-F404 IN20 series Engines!Do not brand anyone as a troll without understanding their opinion.Especially if it's someone of the caliber of Sancho.
BTW-Sancho is more knowledgeable than most defence analysts on the forum and needs no branding by you.Sorry if seems harsh.

 

[kish]

@mumbaiindian . . . Please give ur views with facts and prove him wrong . . . U may disagree with him . . This is really wrong way to address someone like sancho . . .

 

[ramu]

Because the Rafale didn't need more thrust, they developed the 90kN version 10 years ago and the M53 in Mirage 2000 offers even 95kN, so thrust alone doesn't tell you anything here. The point is, did they achieved their development goals? Yes they did, but we haven't and that's why Kaveri is still not useful for LCA.

Have you heard the term called "changing goal post" ?

 

[kingdurgaking]

And that's why they are working together with US companies and not completely developing these things alone.

Still they are dreaming of developing a 5th generation fighter right?... on top of this Japan have a rule than they shoudlnt invest on higher military offensive systems... so i guess it is logical for us also to think about it...

Because the Rafale didn't need more thrust, they developed the 90kN version 10 years ago and the M53 in Mirage 2000 offers even 95kN, so thrust alone doesn't tell you anything here. The point is, did they achieved their development goals? Yes they did, but we haven't and that's why Kaveri is still not useful for LCA.

Not so... 95KN M53 is not in the same level as M-88... they are more thirsty and are a generation behind Kaveri... the core is also not advanced... Kaveri is not useful... it is wrong to say so.. if the orginal requirement is kept... i think Kaveri is more than useful...If u see 404 is not much different from kaveri.. and even IAF is not happy with 404...

No, we can learn what went wrong in our development and why we couldn't fix the problem alone. That's what a JV will bring as well, if we could do it alone, GTRE would not prefer this JV themself right?
The rise in future is only possible, when we can move on with Kaveri and that is only possible with help today, if we like it or not.

Yes, when you do it from the start, but now we desperatly need help and are not in a situation to demand things. That's why I said, we should have done it from the start and only when our own developments failled.
In that time we have a way better base to negotiate with them, today we have only MMRCA to presure them.

True GTRE will learn the mistake... but will they learn the technology???

 

[sancho]

Have you heard the term called "changing goal post" ?

Hi Ramu, what exactly do you mean?

Still they are dreaming of developing a 5th generation fighter right?... on top of this Japan have a rule than they shoudlnt invest on higher military offensive systems... so i guess it is logical for us also to think about it...

Deaming? They have send a complete mock up airframe for RCS test to France, years ago, while we celebrating that we have a small scale wind tunnel model of AMCA.
They are alredy developing the engine, with integrated radar blocker, something comparable to what is expected for Pak Fa, while we still struggle to make Kaveri K9 useful enough for LCA.
The first flight of their fighter was expected in the next few years, at least before the earthquake and all the other crisis that followed it, whole we hope to see it in 2017.
If you think they are dreaming, what are we doing buddy?

Not so... 95KN M53 is not in the same level as M-88... they are more thirsty and are a generation behind Kaveri... the core is also not advanced... Kaveri is not useful... it is wrong to say so.. if the orginal requirement is kept... i think Kaveri is more than useful...If u see 404 is not much different from kaveri.. and even IAF is not happy with 404...

Of course it's not the same level of M88, it's the predecessor, but that's why we could have used it as a stop gap, just like we use the GE 404 now. Btw, is there any reliable source that Kaveri K9 offers comparable thrust as the GE 404? Just take a look at the last few pages and you will see figures from 60 to 85kN, not to mention that we still don't know what the weight of the engine is now. Last time I heared a figure it was around 1100Kg, which would be nearly 100Kg above the GE engine and the fact that the 2nd squadron will get GE engines as well, instead of Kaveri K9, hints that it still don't meet the requirements.

True GTRE will learn the mistake... but will they learn the technology???

I would say yes, otherwise they wouldn't choose the French for TVC developments, although we could go with Russians, or Germans that already developed these techs before isn't it?
We can complain about the costs that comes with French arms and techs, but the simple fact that not only our forces, but also our industry prefers JV, or coops with French industry does tells us something about ToT, or the gain we have don't you think?

Sudhir007 posted an interesting article in the IAF thread about the difference of Indian and Chinese helicopter developments:

...ISSUES

While both platforms struggled with their own issues, HAL’s LCH suffered due to its overweight, but with years of experience in development of ALH, HAL was able to overcome with initial set back it suffered with LCH, but Chinese which had first flight of WZ-10 way back in 2003 still are having problems particularly in the area of survivability during crashes. and are having problems to hit production of their helicopter.

Engines

WZ-10 project also suffered due to non-availability of engines for the helicopter, Chinese had to experiment with three different engines for WZ-10, and one been Russian developed Klimov VK-2500 turboshaft engine that powers Mil Mi-17s sold to China , second been Ukrainian Motor-Sich TV3-117 that powers Mil Mi-28 and even Pratt & Whitney developed PT6C-67C for their civilian variant ,its rumoured that Ukrainians are helping Chinese develop their own engine for the platform but still now all their prototypes are been powered by different foreign engines .

LCH while on other hand will have the same reliable HAL and Turbomeca developed Shakti turboshaft engine which also powers HAL developed Dhruv ALH, while LCH weights half in comparison to Chinese WZ-10 (5.5 ton compared to LCH’s 2.5 ton) in its current form houses a more powerful engine and is able to carry same payload of weapons, which is quite a remarkable achievement for a much lighter attack helicopter.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/30328-indian-air-force-news-discussions-91.html


That's exactly what I'm talking about! While China struggles with own developments, because they have to do it alone and with much experimenting, we had the advantage of experienced co-development partners, or proven stop gap parts. That gave us the advantage not only to field the aircraft in time and with less risks, but also to learn a lot and gain experience. All the money China spends in their developments can still not counter this advantage and that's why we should use it more, alongside of our indigenous developments!

 

[ramu]

The requirement of Kaveri engine in 1990s and the changed requirement based on renewed thrust requirement is a fundamental change in specification. It is like asking for a rope bridge and then demanding for a wooden bridge across the gorge. I agree GTRE could do much better but Kaveri after all is based on experience of using Russian engines. But we have to accept the point that the GTRE had their requirements changed when they were close to deliver a solution.

 

[kingdurgaking]

Deaming? They have send a complete mock up airframe for RCS test to France, years ago, while we celebrating that we have a small scale wind tunnel model of AMCA.
They are alredy developing the engine, with integrated radar blocker, something comparable to what is expected for Pak Fa, while we still struggle to make Kaveri K9 useful enough for LCA.
The first flight of their fighter was expected in the next few years, at least before the earthquake and all the other crisis that followed it, whole we hope to see it in 2017.
If you think they are dreaming, what are we doing buddy?

Dreaming refers to the same enthu they have got the same way ADA has got for AMCA... they are developing and we will also develop the engine.. Both Japan and we are dreaming to achieve the target.... is my argument..

Of course it's not the same level of M88, it's the predecessor, but that's why we could have used it as a stop gap, just like we use the GE 404 now. Btw, is there any reliable source that Kaveri K9 offers comparable thrust as the GE 404? Just take a look at the last few pages and you will see figures from 60 to 85kN, not to mention that we still don't know what the weight of the engine is now. Last time I heared a figure it was around 1100Kg, which would be nearly 100Kg above the GE engine and the fact that the 2nd squadron will get GE engines as well, instead of Kaveri K9, hints that it still don't meet the requirements.

GE has more than half a century experience .. and the initial foundation of 404 which ran in 1978 to 1996 had a thrust increase from 78KN to 85KN.. this 85KN specifically modified for LCA... while the kaveri first try brought it to 81KN shot of 4 KN and being over weight by 150 kg... dont you think this is an accomplishment?... Kaveri engine officially kicked off 1989 only... so to setup infra and do the research on mettalurgy .... i really feel this is an accomplishment... yeah it didnt meet the requirement of 85KN and weight... but you are seeing this as a failure .... but for me it is an accomplishment... it brought an valuable accomplishment to the country.. event couple of week back we saw report where DRML where able to build some complex alloys... which wouldnt have been possible if we had not laid the seed....

While it is difficult to convince IAF to accept this .... it cant be met for the First lot of MK1....

see the post in BR from chackojoseph ... this is a huge accomplishment...

Kaveri engine dosen't has a problem per say except a particular area in the core. The materials are not able to withstand heat and have weight. So the K-10 will have Kabini core being modified for heat handling. DRDO is proposing to buy off the technologies and help in adapting it to the Kabini core.

DRDO wants to learn from this. K-10 will have heat areas (like SC blades) attended to in Kabini as well as weight management. Thrust will be increased.
So, DRDO will learn, engine will be produced and Snecma will get its share of the money.

I would say yes, otherwise they wouldn't choose the French for TVC developments, although we could go with Russians, or Germans that already developed these techs before isn't it?
We can complain about the costs that comes with French arms and techs, but the simple fact that not only our forces, but also our industry prefers JV, or coops with French industry does tells us something about ToT, or the gain we have don't you think?

Sudhir007 posted an interesting article in the IAF thread about the difference of Indian and Chinese helicopter developments:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/30328-indian-air-force-news-discussions-91.html

That's exactly what I'm talking about! While China struggles with own developments, because they have to do it alone and with much experimenting, we had the advantage of experienced co-development partners, or proven stop gap parts. That gave us the advantage not only to field the aircraft in time and with less risks, but also to learn a lot and gain experience. All the money China spends in their developments can still not counter this advantage and that's why we should use it more, alongside of our indigenous developments!

ToT is good.. but JV is not... in JV you dont learn the IP..

while in Shakthi engine... HAL didnt have any experience it went to JV.. still we dont have any IP about the other party ....while the weight reduction is carried by us on our own...
China one day will learn it entirely.... while we will also but that money will have to be spent for us to learn.. difference is we will have our own sweet time.... thats why i say JV is good if you dont have time.....

 

[sancho]

The requirement of Kaveri engine in 1990s and the changed requirement based on renewed thrust requirement is a fundamental change in specification. It is like asking for a rope bridge and then demanding for a wooden bridge across the gorge. I agree GTRE could do much better but Kaveri after all is based on experience of using Russian engines. But we have to accept the point that the GTRE had their requirements changed when they were close to deliver a solution.

Doubtful, because it is not only thrust that is the problem, but also weight (like in most of our developments ) and they didn't changed all the requirements right?

i really feel this is an accomplishment... yeah it didnt meet the requirement of 85KN and weight... but you are seeing this as a failure .... but for me it is an accomplishment... it brought an valuable accomplishment to the country...

Why do we tend to put pride over logic?

If Kaveri engine was meant as an tech demonstrator for first indigenous engine developments, I would totally agree with you and say, it is a good accomplishment, but that simply wasn't the aim!
Kaveri was meant to power LCA and as long as it can't do that by meeting the requirements it is the failed part of the LCA project. This failure combined with the bad planing caused most of the delays for Tejas and we have to learn from this by admiting it, investigating where the problems where, what we can do better next time...instead of downplaying it!

I am happy that we started these indigenous developments, but I don't see why we should celebrate it, if it didn't help us in our projects. Just like I don't celebrate the roll out of N-LCA, or every test of LCA prototypes, but why I was happy after the IOC was done and why I will be more than happy when the serial production starts and we field the MK1 into operational service, because then we really have achieved something!