Na it's sound like u want us to keep relying on foreign suppliers.
USA is already looking inwards for all defence related supply chains....if tiny countries like UK, Japan can build one so can we.
India in long run need it's own engine period
USA is already looking inwards for all defence related supply chains....if tiny countries like UK, Japan can build one so can we.
India in long run need it's own engine period
There is no way west is going provide us critical technology and as rightly put off the shelf components will destroy local industry as well as r&d. More over off the shelf components dont come cheap either.
India certainly needs its own engine & a local industry that can drive the development in the long run. US kicked out turkey which was on F-35 program and we are now where close to US in relation as turkey was.
You are again missing the point. Its impossible to make all classes of engines independently. Its expensive and inefficient. Thus your suggestion of spending a billion yearly on GTRE is not only impractical but also unnecessary.
Instead, we should be focusing on a few classes of engines like ~110kn low-bypass engine for AMCA, 25-40kn engine for trainer/small aircraft etc. This can be achieved with a limited budget of $3-5 billion spanning over the next 10 years.
Its impossible to not rely on foreign supplies for high-tech items. UK, Japan, and France all do.
Hello everyone, I am Abheer and I am new in this forum. I am a student currently in 10th standard and I am interested in Defence Aviation . Yesterday , I was going through Quora and I came across an answer which was written by Noel Moitra , a retired air force pilot (his credentials stated) . He told in bis answer that he was a part of the Tejas project and stated a strange fact which I find not-so true .
He, in his answer , stated that the GTRE opened up a GE-F404 engine to copy it for the Kaveri project. Also he stated that 12 GE-F404 engines were acquired in 1983 and one of them were opened up to copy it . Here is the link of the answer and the excerpt of that answer :-
"12 GE F-404 engines had been acquired in 1983, one of which was cut up by GTRE to copy. They failed miserably, just not capable enough to understand single crystal blade theory. The Kaveri is still there, in the backwaters. The ac flying are using these very F-18 ac F-404 engines to power the Tejas. More have been bought-GTRE has given up totally."
Link of the answer :- Answer to Is the HAL Tejas a success or a failure? by Noel Moitra Is the HAL Tejas a success or a failure?
He, in his answer , stated that the GTRE opened up a GE-F404 engine to copy it for the Kaveri project. Also he stated that 12 GE-F404 engines were acquired in 1983 and one of them were opened up to copy it . Here is the link of the answer and the excerpt of that answer :-
"12 GE F-404 engines had been acquired in 1983, one of which was cut up by GTRE to copy. They failed miserably, just not capable enough to understand single crystal blade theory. The Kaveri is still there, in the backwaters. The ac flying are using these very F-18 ac F-404 engines to power the Tejas. More have been bought-GTRE has given up totally."
Link of the answer :- Answer to Is the HAL Tejas a success or a failure? by Noel Moitra Is the HAL Tejas a success or a failure?
To be honest we need dedicated investment for the engines. Presently we should buy the m-88 for the 75 kN requirement and for the Rafales. Focus on the kaveris for ghatak ucav and most likely a replacement for the Jaguars. Sign the deal with RR for 120kN and do a separate production line for the ge-414 and the EPE. Problem is we now have at least three different engines of the same 75-90kN class in production. The one we seriously require is 120kN and 140-150kN engine which is the al-41 for the sukhois.
Interesting thing is the ge-414 can easily be replaced with the ge-404 so tejas mk1 itself can carry the ge-414 with 98kN thrust. We already have the rd-33 in production. It's a mess honestly.
Right now we need a test aircraft most likely an il-76 would be fine. Since the Russians use the same plane. Next we need d to invest around 30 billion $ for an entire class of engines. From
25kN(htfe-25),40-48kN(htfe-40), 75kN(m-88/Kaveri), 90-110kN(ge-414),120-140kN(RR JV engine),140-150kN(al-41) and 180kN(f-135 equivalent entirely made in India)
Last edited:
What a terrible answer. That is not how engine R&D works. You can't cut open and copy things. GTRE has nothing to do with GE engines. Single crystal blade theory
what the hell is that?Pro tip: quora is a cesspool of mediocrity. Avoid at all costs.
Well, I am focused towards it, just using my free time to extend my knowledge. Thanks for your concern, sir.The primacy of US experience is a history of Private and Government collaboration, where the state with its vast resources provided the initial impetus for research into untested technologies, Which was non existent in the Indian context given the bureaucratic class's aversion to private capital here until the 80s(not that its completely absent now). You need to do some heavy reading from actually reliable sources instead of regurgitating mundane tropes that are disconnected from what is actually happening. And you are talking about environmental costs ? what hole did you crawl out of ? Ever heard of the Aral Sea ? This world doesn't run on Unicorn fart, Northern Europe isn't exactly on the equator You cant build a Solar plant in UK and expect it to be economically successful and industrially viable, PRC's industrial bases are far and away from its renewable energy sources in the East. All the hydrocarbon derivatives that are a part and parcel of modern life, what about that ?No they are not delivering.....majority of quality research is still by public institutions using public money in US & Europe. For e.g The US National Institutes of Health spends around $30 billion every year on new pharmaceutical drugs which are responsible for 75% of most innovative new drug annually.
India pvt sector is a money laundering debt ridden corrupt mess which can not even innovate a toilet paper.
Why is private sector dependent on public money in times of crisis?
Contrary to popular belief, private sector efficiency vis-a-vis public sector is a neoliberal construct for which there is little evidence or lived experience but is pushed, nevertheless, for private gains.
Every single industrial association representing private enterprises in India has sought government assistance to tide over the pandemic induced economic lockdown. The central government has promised to help and is working on the mechanisms. In the US, huge sums of public money (taxpayers') have already been given to private industries as grants (no repayments) and loans (interest rate of 1%).
The clamour for public assistance raises questions about the post-1970 neoliberal concepts that seek to discredit state and public institutions in running economies and champion as well as drive private sector growth instead. The argument is that the private sector is inherently more efficient.
There is, however, little historical evidence, lived experience, or global studies to support this argument. Like many other neoliberal (radical right) constructs, this one too hides more than it reveals.
The clamour for assistance is an encore of the Great Recession of 2007-08 when private financial companies were bailed out on pleas such as "too big to fail", ignoring the fact that those very big private companies had caused the crisis in the first place through reckless business practices. The 1929 Great Depression too had been sparked by similar reckless behaviour.
Private sector thriving on public bail-outs.
To many the maxim "privatisation of rewards and socialisation of risks" or "privatisation of profit and socialisation of loss" may seem malicious, but there is more historical evidence and lived experiences to validate it.
In April 2020, economic historian and author Dirk Philipsen of Duke University drove home the point bluntly in the US context.
In an article on April 24, Philipsen wrote: "...without massive public assistance, late-stage extractive capitalism, turbocharged by private interest and greed, would long be dead...Boeing, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Exxon - all would be bust without public bailouts, tax breaks, and subsidies. Every time the private system works itself into a crisis, public funds bail it out - in the current crisis (following the pandemic), to the tune of trillions of dollars. As others have noted, for more than a century, it's a clever machine that privatises gains and socialises costs."
Philipsen also reminded how once these private companies were back up and running, "they don't hold themselves accountable to the public who rescued them" and since the 2008 bailouts at Wells Fargo, American Airlines and AIG, companies that have been rescued often go right back to milking the public".
By no means is this an individual's observation. It is a matter of common knowledge. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has been repeatedly writing and explaining that the root cause of a pro-private policy is due to the fact that their money power translates into political power in the money-driven politics of the US.
This comes at a cost of ordinary citizens whose welfare is the primary job of elected public authorities.
Look at some of the COVID-19 relief packages the US has announced.
Under the CARES Act of 2020 passed to address economic disruptions caused by the pandemic shutdown, the US gave $32 billion "grant" (free-money) and another $29 million as loan (at 1% interest rate) of public money (taxpayers') to big aviation companies. Now the airlines are seeking another $32 billion of public assistance.
Some of the biggest airline companies of the US spent $90 billion in stock buybacks in the past decade. This made their executives and shareholders a lot richer but reduced cash surplus and financially enfeebled their business.
In 2017, the US government cut corporate tax to boost investment and create jobs. In 2019, a US Congress investigation found that the tax cut was used to buyback stocks worth $1 trillion in 2018, breaking all previous records, instead of investing in businesses and creating jobs.
Under the Pay-check Protection Programme, another relief measure to aid private enterprises to protect jobs, the US provided $349 billion of public money as emergency loans to small private businesses having "no access to capital". An investigative report of the Associated Press (AP) found out that 94 publicly traded large private companies, some with over $100 million in market value, benefitted from it. It wasn't meant for them at all.
In July, another investigative report, by The Guardian, found that at least $3 billion aid was given to "over 5,600 fossil fuel companies" of oil and gas drillers and coal mine operators whose operations impose a high cost by way of air, water, and soil pollution spreading disease and death. A Harvard study has shown that COVID-19 deaths are more common in high air pollution counties of the US. Besides, such operations entail destruction of forests and wildlife habitats leading to a spike in zoonotic diseases like COVID-19.
The Guardian report said its assessment of $3 billion aid could be far less because (i) the US government did not disclose the exact amount but instead listed its range and (ii) the high end of it for fossil fuel companies was $6.7 billion.
India's Rs 21 lakh crore COVID-19 relief package consists of just 7-9% of allocations (fiscal spending) for the millions who have lost jobs and incomes due to the lockdown (additional food grain supply, cash transfers, etc.) and the rest are liquidity infusion for private businesses.
India has also announced moratorium on debt servicing and suspended insolvency proceedings for private businesses. Several states have suspended labour laws for three years, like Uttar Pradesh, removing such protections as minimum working hours, payment of minimum wages, etc. to help private industries at the cost of workers.
If India hasn't done more it is because in September 2019 it cut corporate tax by Rs 1.45 lakh crore to promote investment and job creation, just like the US. But unlike the US, the Indian Parliament did not find out what happened to the money saved. Going by the bull-run in the stock markets, the possibility of a part of the money saved finding its way into stock trading can't be entirely ruled out.
Following this tax cut, corporate tax rates have fallen below individual tax rates. Now existing private corporates pay 22-25% tax (with or without tax concessions) and new ones just 15% while individuals pay 30% tax above Rs 15 lakh annual taxable income. This turns the foundational principles of taxation - capacity-to-pay or equity and fairness - upside down.
Corporate tax cuts are not US or India specific but a global phenomenon.
An internal study of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the champion of corporate tax-cuts and private sector growth, mapped the sharp fall in corporate tax in its 2019 internal study - reproduced below - and warning developing countries that this not only undermines fairness of the taxation system and provides opportunity for tax avoidance and abuse but also deprives much-needed revenues for reducing poverty and boost growth.
During the Golden Age of Capitalism between 1950s and 1970s when both developed and developing countries registered the highest ever GDP growth (3.8% and 3%, respectively) and inequality was lower, the average top corporate tax rate was 70-80% in the US and 99.25-80% in the UK.
Private enterprises thriving on public hand-outs
In India, private enterprises not only rely on public deposits in the public sector banks to fund their business activities (this includes almost the entire top brass), but a large number of them also don't pay back even when they can. The RBI calls them "wilful defaulters" - those who don't pay (i) even when they have capacity to pay (ii) diverted loan money for other purposes and (iii) siphoned off the loans.
Their debts are also written off routinely, on an annual basis, as non-performing assets of banks (NPAs), along with those who genuinely fail in their business venture and go bankrupt.
What should come as equally shocking is that going by the global financial company Credit Suisse's 'India Corporate Health Tracker' of August 2019, debts of almost all the big and familiar private businesses (more than 50) are marked "chronically stressed" or with inadequate capacity to pay interest (interest cover of less than 1) for several quarters.
These companies span finance, infrastructure, and construction, telecom, power, metals, textile, energy, and others. Credit Suisse has been saying that the corporate stress remains "elevated" at last since 2017. The lockdown is bound to increase financial stress even more and NPAs are expected to rise further due to the lockdown.
It does say something about modern business operations that even after running successful businesses for decades, India's familiar big names are so precarious in their financial affairs. Or is something amiss? What happened to decades of accumulated profits and wealth? Where is prudence in financial dealings? It calls for a detailed and honest study.
Ironically, every year Indian banks write off loans of private businesses.
It is a deceptive and dishonest game. For one, loan defaults by private enterprises are masked as non-performing assets (NPAs) of banks. By calling it so, the burden and blame shifts to banks, starting another deceptive and dishonest game: recapitalisation of banks with more public money. Between FY15 and FY19, the PSBs have been recapitalised with Rs 2.46 lakh crore of public money.
This is a double whammy. First, public deposit goes into private hands, reducing scope for public investment in growth, and then more public money is ploughed back to fill the gaps in bank balance sheets. The defaulting private companies don't come into the picture at all.
On July 18, CH Venkatachalam, general secretary of the All India Bank Employees Association (AIBEA), released some startling information about the PSBs. His documents listed 2,426 private companies classified as "wilful defaulters" - 33 of them owing more than Rs 500 crore each and 147 more than Rs 200 crore each.
These companies include those run by high-profile and fugitive businessmen Nirav Modi, Mehul Choksi, Jatin Mehta, Vijay Mallya and others owing Rs 1.47 lakh crore to the PSBs.
The documents further revealed that the PSBs wrote off Rs 6.94 lakh crore of loan defaults (NPAs) by private corporate entities between FY01 and FY19. If the write off by private and foreign banks are added (which are part of the Scheduled Commercial Banks or SCBs), the number would go further up.
The SBI accounted for most of the "wilful defaulters" - 685 of them have not paid back Rs 43,887 crore even when they could have. The SBI's 2019-20 annual report reveals that it has written off corporate loans of Rs 1.79 lakh crore during FY17-FY20.
Private corporate defaulters get RBI protection.
The banking regulator, Reserve Bank of India (RBI), has been zealously guarding the identity of private corporate defaulters, even those who are wilful defaulters. It braved the Supreme Court's (SC) warnings and even contempt proceedings in 2019, but refused to budge.
The top court's last order directing it to reveal the names of defaulters to an RTI applicant came in April 2019 during the contempt of court proceedings. The court severely reprimanded the RBI for "continuing to violate the directions by this court" and issued a warning: "Any further violation shall be viewed seriously by this Court."
After this, a fresh RTI application was filed in July 2019. Shailesh Gandhi, former Central Information Commissioner, who had issued a series of orders for such information that ended up in the apex court, confirms that the RBI is yet to comply with the order.
In the meanwhile, the RBI pulled out its data on NPAs being written off in 2019. Its latest banking trend report of 2018-19 gives adequate information on NPAs in the agriculture sector and how much is being written off, but not for private industries.
Come to think of it, the Gross NPAs of agriculture sector constituted just 8.6% and 12.4% of the total in FY18 and FY19, respectively, but those of private industries constituted 91.4% and 87.6% for those years.
The following graph maps the two sectors' GNPAs of four years between FY16 and FY19.
Why does the RBI protects private corporate loan defaulters is not a mystery. Here is another aspect.
It is by now well-known that former RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan had given a list of big bank frauds to the central government in 2015 asking for "coordinated investigation", which included firms run by Modi, Choksi, among others. No action was taken for the next three years and both Modi and Choksi ran away in 2018.
The RBI's 2018-19 banking trend report does reveal the annual NPA write-offs in a graph (but no data) - as reproduced below. Taking the average write-offs at 20% of GNPAs for the SCBs during FY16-FY19 (for which data is given in 2018-19 and 2016-17 reports), the write-offs work out to Rs 6.7 lakh crore (total GNPAs being Rs 31.35 lakh crore).
View attachment 17053
Much else to consider for private sector efficiency
There are several other aspects to consider while examining the efficiency of private sector vis-a-vis public sector.
To its advantage, the cost of many benefits that private sector gets are not counted: tax holidays at the start, tax concessions through the ages, stimulus packages during crisis, virtually free use of public sector assets like infrastructure and human capital (even basic skilling is provided at public expense), allocation of public assets like land (through government acquisition), minerals (until recently given on a paltry royalty, not auctioned), forests, etc. at concessional rates.
Besides, the social and environmental costs of operations that cause pollution and deforestation leading to diseases and deaths are also not counted. The burden is passed on to people and government (healthcare).
To its disadvantage, there is much that the public sector does with taxpayers' money but not counted: building public goods and services (infrastructure, hospitals, schools, colleges and universities), funding all major technological and scientific breakthroughs on which the modern ITC revolution is built (Internet, GPS, touchscreen, Apple's Siri (virtual assistance) and Google's algorithm), taking care of poor and needy during normal times and everyone during calamities like droughts, floods, cyclones, earthquakes and even the current pandemic in all of which the private sector plays a very small role, if at all, without seeking profits (private healthcare for example).
(NB: Primacy of the US experience is warranted because the world has followed in its footsteps in social and economic governance, first after World War II when the reconstruction of war-ravaged Europe began with its money, followed by neoliberal push by the World Bank-International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1980s when they provided loans to crisis-hit countries like India.)
It's all govts , public institutions.....it always have been.
Only one with non accountability is India corrupt pvt sector, political class & now even military no one else.
The state isnt a Genie regardless of how much power it is vested with, you cant just flick your wrist and make magic happen.
There is a prerequisite for a successful state intervention. The state has to be discerning and competent. Again you are confusing a specific strain of capitalism with some kind of social justice platform that worships at the altar of equality. No state on the planet is really "nEo LiBRal/free market fundamentalist", Its a mixed system the world over with US being the vaunted exception for the failed friedmanite fantasy. And all the examples of successful ones are explicitly if not implicitly capitalistic.Federally funded research and development centers - Wikipedia
this list many.
State of innovation: Busting the private-sector myth.
Forget Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. It is government that should be credited for backing wealth-creating technology
Menu
State of innovation: Busting the private-sector myth
Forget Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. It is government that should be credited for backing wealth-creating technology
TECHNOLOGY | COMMENT 21 August 2013
By Mariana Mazzucato
(Image: Andrzej Krauze)
IMAGES of tech entrepreneurs such as Mark Zuckerberg and Steve Jobs are continually thrown at us by politicians, economists and the media. The message is that innovation is best left in the hands of these individuals and the wider private sector, and that the state – bureaucratic and sluggish – should keep out. A telling 2012 article in The Economist claimed that, to be innovative, governments must “stick to the basics” such as spending on infrastructure, education and skills, leaving the rest to the revolutionary garage tinkerers.
Yet it is ideology, not evidence, that fuels this image. A quick look at the pioneering technologies of the past century points to the state, not the private sector, as the most decisive player in the game.
Whether an innovation will be a success is uncertain and it can take longer than traditional banks or venture capitalists are willing to wait. In countries such as the US, China, Singapore and Denmark the state has provided the kind of patient and long-term finance new technologies need to get off the ground. Investments of this kind have often been driven by big missions, from putting a human on the moon, to solving climate change. This has required not only funding basic research – the typical “public good” that most economists admit needs state help – but applied research and seed funding too.
Apple is a perfect example. In its early stages the company received government cash support via a $500,000 small business investment company grant. And every technology that makes the iPhone a smartphone owes its vision and funding to the state: the internet, GPS, touchscreen displays and even the voice-activated smartphone assistant Siri all received state cash. The US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) bankrolled the internet, and the CIA and the military funded GPS. So, although the US is sold to us as the model example of progress through private enterprise, innovation there has benefited from a very interventionist state.
“Every technology that makes the iPhone a smartphone owes its vision and funding to the state”
The examples don’t just come from the military arena, either. The US National Institutes of Health spends around $30 billion every year on pharmaceutical and biotechnology research and is responsible for 75 per cent of the most innovative new drugs annually. Even the algorithm behind Google benefited from US National Science Foundation (NSF) funding.
Across the world we see state investment banks financing innovation. Green energy is a great example. From Germany’s KfW state bank to the Chinese and Brazilian development banks, state-run finance is playing an increasing role in the development of the next big thing: green tech.
In this era of obsession with reducing public debt – and the size of the state more generally – it is vital to dispel the myth that the public sector will be less innovative than the private sector. If not, the state’s ability to continue to play its enterprising role will be weakened. Stories about how progress is led by entrepreneurs and venture capitalists have aided lobbyists for the US venture capital industry in negotiating lower capital gains and corporate income taxes – hurting the ability of the state to refill its innovation fund.
The fact that companies like Apple and Google pay hardly any tax – relative to their massive profits – is all the more problematic, given the significant contributions they have had from the government.
Thus, the “real” economy (made up of goods and services) has experienced a shift similar to that of the “financial” economy: the risk has been increasingly moved to the public sector while the private sector keeps the rewards.
Indeed, one of the most perverse trends in recent years is that while the state has increased its funding of R&D and innovation, the private sector is apparently de-committing itself.
In the name of “open innovation” big pharma is closing down its R&D labs, relying more on small biotech companies and public funds to do the hard stuff. Is this a symbiotic public-private partnership or a parasitic one?
It is time for the state to get something back for its investments. How? First, this requires an admission that the state does more than just fix market failures – the usual way economists justify state spending. The state has shaped and created markets and, in doing so, took on great risks. Second, we must ask where the reward is for such risk-taking and admit that it is no longer coming from the tax systems. Third, we must think creatively about how that reward can come back.
There are many ways for this to happen. The repayment of some loans for students depends on income, so why not do this for companies? When Google’s future owners received a grant from the NSF, the contract should have said: if/when the beneficiaries of the grant make $X billion, a contribution will be made back to the NSF.
Other ways include giving the state bank or agency that invested a stake in the company. A good example is Finland, where the government-backed innovation fund SITRA retained equity when it invested in Nokia. There is also the possibility of keeping a share of the intellectual property rights, which are almost totally given away in the current system.
Recognising the state as a lead risk-taker, and enabling it to reap a reward, will not only make the innovation system stronger, it will also spread the profits of growth more fairly. This will ensure that education, health and transport can benefit from state investments in innovation, instead of just the small number of people who see themselves as wealth creators, while relying increasingly on the courageous, entrepreneurial state.
By the way why don't you give me your view on the post i made on Indian economy thread @Deathstar.
Take stock.
I had a question in my mind. What exactly is the difference between the Kabini(core) and Kaveri ? I mean to say that are they same or are they entirely different entities. And other than that, was the GTX 37-14U's design (the first turbojet designed by GTRE) anyway related to the Orpheus 703, as I speculate that GTRE might have studies its design while modifying it for the use of HF-24 Marut or the design of GTX 37-14U was an entirely new design all together ? I hope to get valuable response from my seniors.
It is the way followed by China : copy and paste russian engines.What a terrible answer. That is not how engine R&D works. You can't cut open and copy things. GTRE has nothing to do with GE engines. Single crystal blade theory
Pro tip: quora is a cesspool of mediocrity. Avoid at all costs.
It's long, hard, costly (maybe less than to begin by the beginning, but you have to cope with 80 years of progress... not realistic) but at the end of the day they are near to succed (or it is already a success, I don't know).
I think India has to follow the same way.
My understanding is the Kabini is the Kaveri without the afterburning part. Though, not an expert.
@vstol Jockey @randomradio @Parthu
I had a question in my mind. What exactly is the difference between the Kabini(core) and Kaveri ? I mean to say that are they same or are they entirely different entities. And other than that, was the GTX 37-14U's design (the first turbojet designed by GTRE) anyway related to the Orpheus 703, as I speculate that GTRE might have studies its design while modifying it for the use of HF-24 Marut or the design of GTX 37-14U was an entirely new design all together ? I hope to get valuable response from my seniors.
Kabini is the Core of Kaveri.
The Core is basically the Compressors, Combustion chamber & Turbine put together. It's the most important section of the engine.
The rest of the engine, like the intake fan, fuel & electrical delivery system, nozzle etc are the non-Core componenets.
Are you saying they cut open and somehow learned all the complex metallurgy? Those cannot be achieved without proper R&D. They license produced Russian engines and hired soviet engineers to do R&D. Thus, the influence on the engine design and overall philosophy.
Debunking Some False Arguments about the LCA Tejas
Was the GTX 37-14U's design (the first turbojet designed by GTRE) anyway related to the Orpheus 703, as I speculate that GTRE might have studied its design while modifying it for the use of HF-24 Marut OR the design of GTX 37-14U was an entirely new design all together ?
Please refer this thread on BRF : BRF Project: India's Kaveri Engine Saga (No Discussions) - Bharat Rakshak
I read the whole thread, and I concluded that the Kaveri was entirely different design along with the GTX 37-14U, but a post from a different forum says :-
"Kaveri was not a fresh slate starting point.
Arguably Orpheus (license production, MRO and tinkering) provided the greatest impetus to HAL know-how in the cold war.
After Marut winded up early, there was lot of orpheus engines prematurely retired.... HAL put them to extensive RnD efforts as the precursor of Kaveri program shaped up in 70s - 80s".
This statement states that Orpheus was "kind-of" reverse-engineered, what y'all think ?
I read the whole thread, and I concluded that the Kaveri was entirely different design along with the GTX 37-14U, but a post from a different forum says :-
"Kaveri was not a fresh slate starting point.
Arguably Orpheus (license production, MRO and tinkering) provided the greatest impetus to HAL know-how in the cold war.
After Marut winded up early, there was lot of orpheus engines prematurely retired.... HAL put them to extensive RnD efforts as the precursor of Kaveri program shaped up in 70s - 80s".
This statement states that Orpheus was "kind-of" reverse-engineered, what y'all think ?
"Kaveri was not a fresh slate starting point.
Arguably Orpheus (license production, MRO and tinkering) provided the greatest impetus to HAL know-how in the cold war.
After Marut winded up early, there was lot of orpheus engines prematurely retired.... HAL put them to extensive RnD efforts as the precursor of Kaveri program shaped up in 70s - 80s".
This statement states that Orpheus was "kind-of" reverse-engineered, what y'all think ?
