Will India be able to replicate a RD33 now on its own ? Or a AL31 on its own ?
Forget that. An updated Adour ?
There you have the answer. Two different things.
Forget that. An updated Adour ?
There you have the answer. Two different things.
The problems with the engine & therefore the entire AMCA program , as I see it is , thus.
There are 3 partners / OEMs waiting in the wings . However none of them are offering GTRE / DRDO what it desires namely the know why / know how / ToT of a variable / alternative cycle engine. This is where I believe the talks have been stuck for around a year going by tweets hinting at the same by informed sources .
Why's this important ? For without this all the futuristic technologies you hope to equip the AMCA with namely DEW , etc ( assuming we master these technologies in time ) the AMCA would be a glorified 4.5G++ or 4.75G+ FA much like what the J-20 or the Su-57 is like today.
Of course we've no means of finding out how effective or successful are the indigenous efforts by the Chinese or the Russians vide Izdeliye 30 engines.
Assuming we go in for what's on offer let's examine it. What we have is the GE F-414 with TOT in manufacturing . I doubt this would find it's way into the Mk-2 version of the AMCA Unless it's upgraded which I believe is a proposal the USN is sitting on for the engine upgradation program of it's Hornets / Super Hornets. In any case we can forget the IP rights to it . So essentially this is a non starter . In the worst case scenario this could function as a back up.
If we're refering to the SAFRAN or the RR offer basically what's on offer is an uprated core of 70-80's technology in case of the former & 90's technology in case of the latter . This too would come with huge development costs between 4-8 billion USDs with IP rights to feature in our frontline FA meant to fly in the 2040s. I hope you're getting the gist of what I'm arguing here .
So what's the solution ? There's no good news I'm afraid. What we can do are 3 things :
1.) Progress development on the Kaveri hot / dry section with AFBs irrespective of whether it generates 72 KN or 74 KN after it has completed its current flight trials in Russia , get it certified & explore what other applications it can be utilised for in uprated / downrated versions. If not , you can at least shut the program on a mildly triumphant note in that you've finally succeeded however limited the success quotient.
2.) Select between RR & SAFRAN ASAP & seal the deal for what you're getting , which isn't going to be another / lesser iteration of what's going into the FCAS or the Tempest. You need it for the MLU of the entire series of the LCA - Mk-1 / Mk-1a / Mk-2 , TEDBF & AMCA - Mk-1 / Mk-2 ( in case of the latter as Plan B ) .
Adopt a wait & watch attitude wrt to Europe for there's plenty of turmoil expected in this decade. If we're smart enough as the Russians were , we could have our Atlee moment. Hell there's even an Indian at 10 Downing's who like his predecessors is desperate for an FTA. We can dangle the carrot of the ACE for the Tempest as the deal clincher. Wonder if Delhi is thinking on these lines .
3.) Lastly launch a national project in mission mode under the PMO with GTRE / DRDO functioning as lead integrators / product managers / design engineering involving all those entities & more who were part of the entire LCA / Kaveri ecosystem , from the academia , Pvt sector , public sector , etc for the K-9 , K-10 or whatever the series number is . This would be Plan A . After having run a program like the Kaveri on a shoestring budget for nearly 4 decades there must be plenty of institutional knowledge waiting to be tapped . Admittedly we may take 2 decades + before we achieve our goals. Better late than never.
The GE proposal is both an attempt to kill our seeking to be an independent developer of jet engines on the lines of the US , France , UK etc as well as to tell us the futility of such a venture for we're essentially getting an updated version of a late 3rd / early 4th G engine on a 5th G FA. This is something which all the principal players may have also orchestrated behind the scenes.
There are 3 partners / OEMs waiting in the wings . However none of them are offering GTRE / DRDO what it desires namely the know why / know how / ToT of a variable / alternative cycle engine. This is where I believe the talks have been stuck for around a year going by tweets hinting at the same by informed sources .
Why's this important ? For without this all the futuristic technologies you hope to equip the AMCA with namely DEW , etc ( assuming we master these technologies in time ) the AMCA would be a glorified 4.5G++ or 4.75G+ FA much like what the J-20 or the Su-57 is like today.
Of course we've no means of finding out how effective or successful are the indigenous efforts by the Chinese or the Russians vide Izdeliye 30 engines.
Assuming we go in for what's on offer let's examine it. What we have is the GE F-414 with TOT in manufacturing . I doubt this would find it's way into the Mk-2 version of the AMCA Unless it's upgraded which I believe is a proposal the USN is sitting on for the engine upgradation program of it's Hornets / Super Hornets. In any case we can forget the IP rights to it . So essentially this is a non starter . In the worst case scenario this could function as a back up.
If we're refering to the SAFRAN or the RR offer basically what's on offer is an uprated core of 70-80's technology in case of the former & 90's technology in case of the latter . This too would come with huge development costs between 4-8 billion USDs with IP rights to feature in our frontline FA meant to fly in the 2040s. I hope you're getting the gist of what I'm arguing here .
So what's the solution ? There's no good news I'm afraid. What we can do are 3 things :
1.) Progress development on the Kaveri hot / dry section with AFBs irrespective of whether it generates 72 KN or 74 KN after it has completed its current flight trials in Russia , get it certified & explore what other applications it can be utilised for in uprated / downrated versions. If not , you can at least shut the program on a mildly triumphant note in that you've finally succeeded however limited the success quotient.
2.) Select between RR & SAFRAN ASAP & seal the deal for what you're getting , which isn't going to be another / lesser iteration of what's going into the FCAS or the Tempest. You need it for the MLU of the entire series of the LCA - Mk-1 / Mk-1a / Mk-2 , TEDBF & AMCA - Mk-1 / Mk-2 ( in case of the latter as Plan B ) .
Adopt a wait & watch attitude wrt to Europe for there's plenty of turmoil expected in this decade. If we're smart enough as the Russians were , we could have our Atlee moment. Hell there's even an Indian at 10 Downing's who like his predecessors is desperate for an FTA. We can dangle the carrot of the ACE for the Tempest as the deal clincher. Wonder if Delhi is thinking on these lines .
3.) Lastly launch a national project in mission mode under the PMO with GTRE / DRDO functioning as lead integrators / product managers / design engineering involving all those entities & more who were part of the entire LCA / Kaveri ecosystem , from the academia , Pvt sector , public sector , etc for the K-9 , K-10 or whatever the series number is . This would be Plan A . After having run a program like the Kaveri on a shoestring budget for nearly 4 decades there must be plenty of institutional knowledge waiting to be tapped . Admittedly we may take 2 decades + before we achieve our goals. Better late than never.
The GE proposal is both an attempt to kill our seeking to be an independent developer of jet engines on the lines of the US , France , UK etc as well as to tell us the futility of such a venture for we're essentially getting an updated version of a late 3rd / early 4th G engine on a 5th G FA. This is something which all the principal players may have also orchestrated behind the scenes.
I believe as per the latest CAG report IIRC the indigenous content of the engines for the MKI was > 90-93% . Except for some key materials and sub assemblies everything is done here . Has HAL / DRDO / GTRE got a good look into these engines. It's hard to believe otherwise. Can we manufacture it on our own with full 100% indigenous content. I believe we can . Whether we'd do so or not is another issue.
Somewhat similar is the case with the GE-414. Over time irrespective of the technological limitations the Indo US agreement on the manufacturing ToT imposes,in time we'd be able to duplicate it indigenously but over a time span of 2 decades by which time would it be worth the effort for you'd be seeing 6th G / early 7th G FA flying powered by a different class of engines which the powers that be then would rather choose to have on their remaining 4th G / 4.5 G FA instead of what's powering them today.
We have had enough of manufacturing ToT of engines, haven't we? We have our own Kaveri which has completed development, generating 73kn wet thrust.
But a cancelled Honeywell deal and our Jaguar fleet is severely limited. The F124 wet is something like 45kn right?
Are we in a position today to build a local alternative to that 45kn engine ?
Isn't the HTFE program the answer to that ? Admittedly it's for lower KN which after due certification would see an uprated version with the same rigmarole which would take another decade from today to be certified. I believe the IAF lost interest in the engine upgrade of the Jaguar much before the project was called off & rightly so in my opinion for it's a hopelessly outdated FA in today's age .
Had the IAF actively pursued the issue I'm positive HAL would've materialized the HTFE faster . Right now it's an engine minus a jet which translates to no pressing deadlines. Hence things are progressing in a lackadaisical manner with the latest T/L for due certification being 2027-28 from 2023-24.
lol, you think they cannot back without becoming an enemy ? your thinking has limited capacity but their creativity for such stuff is unlimited. They did the same thing russians which was not even a ToT. French are more less a proxy for US , US knows very well there is deep mistrust about them in India.
It will happen only if we have agreement with two OEMs. A single one can back out on its own without its Govt becoming enemy. It has happened many times. Backing out means backing out of ToT of critical portion.
Dude, He is clearly citing the work culture of Naval Group. He clearly stated their style of working. And I know that style of French companies.
“ I am just completing my last of the six (Scorpene class) submarines (for the Indian Navy) in collaboration with a French company, the Naval Group. They have a style of functioning that they would not share with you: the technology,” the CMD of MDL said.
“One of my submarines is right now at sea for missile firing to demonstrate to our customer, during which the entire range is tracked for compliance purposes. When these things come, the reference is all given by them, something which they have not shared with us. They will come with their own laptops and do it very quickly, the moment you are close to them they will shut it (laptop) down, so that does not get shared with us,” Prasad explained.
We got what we wanted from Russia as partner in case of Arihant. French have never transferred any key tech to anyone. They only extracted it out of others. They are reliable because they allow free use of hardware they sold but not on ToT part.
If we are to start a new engine program from scratch, it will be possible to significantly surpass that level of performance. But this new engine won't be good enough for AMCA, so we need help to get up to the West's 2020 standards by 2030. It's only after the JV is successful will we be in a position to make our own cutting-edge engine. By then a lot of the materials we have invented since the 90s will become usable. It takes 30+ years to make materials.
Currently, we have the materials and ability to make our own M88-4E/EJ200 class engine by 2030.
It's doesn't matter if it's 1 OEM or 2 OEMs or 100, if the US decides to sanction India, all 100 OEMs will comply.
That was a tender. It LITERALLY, very, very LITERALLY has nothing to do with this discussion. He is talking about something else entirely.
Naval Group protected their technology based on tender rules WE set. WE set the rules, not them. If they want to participate, they have to comply with the rules WE set. With Naval Group, WE signed a deal saying we need 50% ToT, and they delivered that. The remaining 50%, you cannot access it, so NG is well within their rights to protect it in whatever manner they deem necessary. Vice Adm. Prasad is simply complaining about not getting the other 50% of ToT that WE did not ask for in the first place.
Now, why did WE set the rule for only 50%? Simple. Nobody will give us more than that. We can ask for 100%, but if nobody participates, then we have to lower our expectations. 50% is what OEMs agree they can part with. SAAB quit P-75I tender because they decided 50% was too much.
If we want a modern engine with 100% ToT with 100% IP, it is WE who will set the rules and they need to comply. It's up to them whether they want to participate or not. For now, three companies are willing to provide 100% ToT, 100% IP and the know-why because it's in their economic and political interests. All three countries involved want India to get militarily stronger, and they also want to make money and get a political victory in the process, 'cause whoever wins this competition will get a massive boost in importance to India. But if all three companies back out, then we have to lower our expectations.
I can't dumb it down any further.
The American offer of an advanced F414 more than exceeds the requirements for AMCA.
The hot parts for 116KN has 2.5 times the life of the M88-4E's. We only need to mate it with more modern cold parts and IDG. The currently used IDG is also enough, it's more powerful than what's on the F-35 currently.
Everything else, like VCE, TVC, 20+ hours of endurance etc, all that's up to us.
The hot parts for 116KN has 2.5 times the life of the M88-4E's. We only need to mate it with more modern cold parts and IDG. The currently used IDG is also enough, it's more powerful than what's on the F-35 currently.
Everything else, like VCE, TVC, 20+ hours of endurance etc, all that's up to us.
This is my whole point mate. We are forced to change the rules due to these OEMs. They wont give us tech and that includes French so they are not as reliable as you said in terms of ToT. Btw U are mixing P75 & P75I. Also read this: Lessons from Project 75. May be u get my point or else no point arguing.
But in the past also we have set the rules and have to bend it again due to OEM pressure. I want more reliable partner and more options apart from sanctions.
You don't get it. We change rules based on OEM participation. If OEMs are participating, then the program will continue. Case in point, P-75I, even though Sweden, Russia and France quit, it's still going on. We are not making concessions for the ones that withdrew.
In the engine's case, all three companies are willing to follow Indian rules. So I don't see the problem here.
Nope. Requirements are requirements, they don't change unless the tech for it doesn't exist, even then forces end up waiting for tech to catch up instead. OEMs don't drive requirements, they can only participate or withdraw.
I get your point regarding participation but my point is not that. I have been stressing about the blackmail which OEMs do after signing of contract and reaching project midway then suddenly backing out of full commitment of ToT. It has happened many times, we had to either close the project or had to make changes in contract. In case of engine, what I want is all three to be present in some or another. Like 100% ToT for F 414-400 for Tejas 2 & Tedbf, Simultaneous development of advanced engine with RR and HAL Safran JV for helo engine which will come up soon. In this way we built better ecosystem and if RR suddenly starts showing tantrams then we may option to continue the project with Safran or GE since both will have already established production lines in here. Just Risk mitigation with less time & cost overruns. Also since RR will be aware of Risk Mitigation measures they will not dare to leave commitments unfulfilled.
Since, it is single requirement of submarine where we can go with only one of them P75i may not be the right example. Also, French, Russians, Saab all quit because they didnt have the required system (fuel cell based working AIP) not because of ToT conditions.
Only the Russians do all that. Western companies have complied with contracts, especially the French.
French are more notorious in this regard. But I have already discussed that enough so leave that.
I also feel with all three OEMs we may get diverse technologies. Definitely it is going to be expensive than going with one single OEM, but I feel will be better option.
Further, British are best bet for advanced jet engine co development because only they have ever given jet engine tech to others infact to all other jet engine producing countries.
The opposite. They are the most respected, in fact, for sticking to contract.
The thing here is that we need to specify each every thing in detail on what we want , saying 100% is not good enuf.
For engine we say it is 100% , they agree , they will provide the design & every thing, but they if do not provide the ToT for blade casting or alloy composition for the engines which is technically metallurgy then we are screwed big time. They can technically deny some other critical dependent technology which is outside the design.
Unless every thing is manufactured in India with zero import from outside all these agreements are good for nothing. They can string us upon one or other thing.
huh, really
yup, other than this dont see any other credible motive.
Not while imparting ToT. I know about it more than anybody here so better leave this topic.