I daresay kramer is quite right, GTRE’s engine development is stuck due to lack of specialized materials (which is not their area of responsibility in the first place) not due to some unknown knowledge about engine design.

So just having access to specialised materials would put GTRE in a position to design and develop an engine near/equal to M-88 / F414 / EJ200 in performance?

They are just speculations, no deal has been done to integrate m-88 core on kaveri as of now. The french demand a minimum run for at least 300 engines if the deal is to go through. Moreover they themselves seem to be abandoning the idea of 90KN+ m-88 now, so the premium on french cooperation will definitely go up.

Fair comment but returning to what I said:

“It is my understanding that the intention is to use Kaveri / M-88eri, whatever you choose to call it as the powerplant for the AMCA.”

I did not say it was definitely going to happen, I said the intention was to use modified Kaveri engines in the AMCA.

I hope the modifications stay well short of 100%! Anywhere near that figure and without transfer of critical technology, India might just as well manufacture a suitable engine under licence it seems to me. Cuts out the risk of engine procurement holding up AMCA (with the possibility of further aircraft imports being deemed necessary?)

One more thing: if France declines to pay for a 90KN+ M-88 and AMCA needs an engine of that thrust, will India end up indirectly paying development costs for the Armee de l’Air?

The Kaveri engine program is for all intents and purposes dead. A potential M88 variant to be named “Kaveri” may or may not take its place depending on if an agreement with France is ever signed.

GTRE’s Kaveri as it exists now will never be operationally deployed in any fighter. It simply does not provide enough thrust and it never has. All of the “claimed” performance figures were unmet benchmarks. If anyone has ever worked on a poorly executed product development cycle, you will know how it goes. Unrealistic claims are made, actual deliverables are underwhelming. Bull**** is peddled with even more unrealistic claims. Repeat cycle until broke.

The Kaveri engine’s actual delivered thrust to weight ratio is anywhere between 5:1 and 6:1 depending on which excuses GTRE is using that day. In either case it falls well below the >7:1 thrust weight ratios of engines achieved by the US and Soviets 30 years ago.

Sounds like you are painfully realistic about the Kaveri project. I recognise your description of a poorly executed product development cycle. From what I have read on this forum, I have the impression that the conditions for a lot of bull*****ing were there in the Kaveri project: a culture in which deadlines are not deadlines but aspirations, a culture in which non-performance is glossed over, a culture in which realistic appraisal is avoided, evaded, postponed, all this set in a background of nationalistic fervour.

I thought, though, that Kaveri had demonstrated better than 5:1 – 6:1 thrust/weight ratio. Of course, if it could only achieve 8:1 for a small number of hours, 8:1 is almost as useless as 5:1. I suppose that if the engine is as bad as you think it is and GTRE is negotiating to fix the problems that GTRE (in its ignorance) deems necessary whereas Snecma is telling GTRE that the design is unfixable, the negotiations could go on forever. Perhaps GTRE themselves know that the design they have produced does not work and probably cannot be made to work but for reasons of pride and a desire to avoid being tarred as a bunch of incompetents will not admit the obvious. Saving face etc

Personally I have no idea how good/bad the Kaveri is but it would be nice to think that the basic design is sound enough for the engine to be successful with modification by an organisation with superior technological knowledge.

What would be sad would be to see a long process of denial of failure by GTRE (who knows if that is the case or not – the culture in which Kaveri was developed was a culture lending itself to the avoidance of reality) leading to such delay that India ended up having to design AMCA around an imported engine.

2. Heavy in what way again I ask. Su 30 MKI is cheaper than the Typhoon and Rafale. Even with the latters lower operating costs it will take years if not decades recuperate the price difference at the time of purchase. India is still flying the MIG 21. India also has a high level of experience with the flanker and can be guaranteed Russian help in extending the life of the Flankers if needed.

Sorry, thought the experience with Russia was that it provided lousy after sales service ie if you have the choice, avoid buying Russian.

Is the great debate regarding Rafale’s technical supremacy over Typhoon a side issue now in terms of selection? As I understand things, both aircraft were judged to meet nearly all performance requirements after evaluation.

As far as I understand the selection process, focus is now on cost and TOT (plus political considerations, of course).

Rafale is undoubtedly further ahead in development (weapons integration/AESA). That affects cost. For example, if selected, India would receive Rafales with an AESA radar – production has already started. Currently there is no guarantee that Typhoons would be delivered with AESA. There is a risk that they might have to retrofitted at a very large cost, depending on when India wanted delivery. I call an entirely avoidable cost of tens of millions of dollars “a very large cost”.

But then, thinking of M2K update costs, what would a captive customer have to pay Dassault for a mid-life Rafale update? Perhaps not so much in India’s case – India might be able to do that alone 20 years from now (if the deal really did result in full transfer of technology).

On TOT, I have no idea whether Eurofighter or Dassault would be more willing to adhere to the spirit of full TOT.

On participating in future developments and influencing their nature, I imagine that becoming a full partner in Eurofighter would put India in a better position. If India wanted a certain development but France did not, India would have to foot the bill whereas with Eurofighter, India would be more likely to find an ally in one or more of the other partner countries that also wanted the development.

So, any ideas out there on through-life costs and TOT for the two contenders?

Well alot of people in power when faced with rebellion have said they gonna wipe out opposition. Nothing new.

As I understand it, Gadaffi was warning the rebels that they would receive no mercy. I don’t think that leaves much doubt about what he would do to them if captured or if they surrendered: liquidate them. War crime, that.

Et toc !!

Merci, chef!