Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Chandragupt said:

Why IAF is not ordering more Tejas MK1A to increase squadron strength? Is it because Tejas uses American engines and in case of tension between India and US these engines may face maintenance issues?
But India is ordering 100 engines with spare parts so I don't think there is going to be maintenance issues for next 10 years atleast and after 10 years GTRE may come up with indigenous engine

Click to expand...

83× Mk1A have already been inked and are slated to commence deliveries from Q1 2024-2025 as per IAF contracts and this year should likely see three Mk1A airframes as per the investor's call.

You don't necessarily need to build your squadron strength with designated "light" fighters when you have more capable indigenous designs in the pipeline or better prospects of imports, since as I said already, the need is immediate.

On a side-note, as far as is known, three airframes were supposed to be or have already been configured to Mk1A standards (attachment 1,2,3,4) and ADA is also supposed to test iron-bird facilities this year. Also the GaN-based SPJ pod meant for Mk1A has also been delivered (Attachment 5), earlier one had drag issues.

Lethe said:

That IN insisted on "proven", "operational" AIP for P-75I, despite DRDO ostensibly having its own AIP module, suggests that IN has no faith in DRDO's solution. It also suggests a failure of top-level politico-strategic guidance to negotiate and harmonise between DRDO and IN objectives.

Click to expand...

As is imperative. "Trust" in this context is very abstract and needs to be further reinforced by credible demonstrations which would likely follow after, as there has been a Kilo, leased by NSTL and DRDO for testbed purposes with Li-ion batteries, AIP and new USHUS sonars.

The Navy is all correct in their regards so as to prevent an uncertified botched procurement which do not satisfy their parameters. MoD needn't interfere.

zavve said:

And just so we're clear about one thing, the Gripen and Tejas are not comparable as you might suggest. Gripen E runs circles around Tejas Mk2 due to its state-of-the-art EW, better training, better weapons and better avionics. They are not even comparable in terms of combat capability.

Click to expand...

This sort of ascertainment with generic terms like EW, avionics, etc is rather immature and ill-informed since the other "opponent" simply does not exist and the various other aforementioned are planned for it as well.

Chandragupt said:

Yet Sweden has no engine program India on the other hand has already developed a 73KN (original target was 81KN) class Kaveri engine offcourse 73KN is not enough to power Tejas but what matters the most is the "know how"
now Indians are working on a 130KN engine for AMCA it may or may not be able to generate 130KN thrust but even if it generates 110KN of thrust it can power LCA Tejas
It's important to note that it took India 30 years to develop Kaveri engine but the next 130KN engine which they're making has to be completed in 8-10 years because they have already perfected 85% of the technology the only thing they need to perfect is the hot core section the metallurgy part in particular

Click to expand...

I'm not quite convinced that India will develop a 130KN engine in the next decade. Even if they manage to make an engine capable of that it would most likely be very unreliable. Sweden has an engine support programme because they realised it was a lot more economically viable to purchase engines and service them in-house.

zavve said:

I'm not quite convinced that India will develop a 130KN engine in the next decade. Even if they manage to make an engine capable of that it would most likely be very unreliable. Sweden has an engine support programme because they realised it was a lot more economically viable to purchase engines and service them in-house.

Click to expand...

India can afford to develop engine technology because they have to maintain a huge airforce in future Sweden has a small airforce so until and unless they get big orders from rest of the world it's not economical to invest in a turbofan engine program
And day by day India is inching closer to perfect the hot core section
The 52KN dry thrust Kaveri engine which is going through certification process will also be installed on drones once it starts powering drones it will only get better with time The 30 years which Indian scientists invested in developing the Kaveri Engine was not a waste of time

Parachute exercise in Sikkim

Chandragupt said:

the only thing they need to perfect is the hot core section the metallurgy part in particular

Click to expand...

And let that just be the most difficult part of a gasturbine engine...

sequ said:

And let that just be the most difficult part of a gasturbine engine...

Click to expand...

The most difficult part is the money it’s not like India doesn’t have the highly skilled manpower Indian scientists are at par with those in western world and they’re working in west as well but the point is whether India is ready to pay billions of dollars for engine program this question is important because India is a democracy investing in engine technology doesn’t get votes in elections and the cost of developing a 130KN engine can be more than 10 billion USD this amount can buy 54 new latest and the most advanced variants of rafale fighter jets.
But having the turbofan engine technology gives strategic autonomy to a country and these engines can be exported to other countries to earn FOREX and that’s why I think India should invest in turbofan engine technology it will dillute the hegemony of west over Millitary aviation technology.

Fulcrum007 said:

As is imperative. "Trust" in this context is very abstract and needs to be further reinforced by credible demonstrations which would likely follow after, as there has been a Kilo, leased by NSTL and DRDO for testbed purposes with Li-ion batteries, AIP and new USHUS sonars.

The Navy is all correct in their regards so as to prevent an uncertified botched procurement which do not satisfy their parameters. MoD needn't interfere.

Click to expand...

If the Navy's parameters are hostile to advancing the cause of indigenisation, and indeed hostile to maintaining a workable submarine inventory, then the parameters are wrong and should be revised.

Beyond the five and soon to be six Scorpenes, India has two SSKs that are less than thirty years old today (INS Sindhurashtra c. 2000 and INS Shankul c. 1994). If P-75I follows typical project timelines with delivery post-2030, India's SSK inventory will soon be inferior to Pakistan's.

Chandragupt said:

The most difficult part is the money it’s not like India doesn’t have the highly skilled manpower Indian scientists are at par with those in western world and they’re working in west as well but the point is whether India is ready to pay billions of dollars for engine program this question is important because India is a democracy investing in engine technology doesn’t get votes in elections and the cost of developing a 130KN engine can be more than 10 billion USD this amount can buy 54 new latest and the most advanced variants of rafale fighter jets.
But having the turbofan engine technology gives strategic autonomy to a country and these engines can be exported to other countries to earn FOREX and that’s why I think India should invest in turbofan engine technology it will dillute the hegemony of west over Millitary aviation technology.

Click to expand...

I would not call India a nation as having "highly skilled manpower Indian scientists are at par with those in western world".


The discipline that is close to what is needed in metallurgy is Chemistry and Maths.

Results of 2022 International Chemistry Olympiad.


Results of 2022 International Maths Olympiad

China 1
Korea 2
USA 3
INDIA 24

I also don't see any Indian names among the USA, Canada, Australia and UK teams, only mostly East Asian names.
I guess Spelling Bee skills do not help in Chemistry, Maths and building high performance jet engines.
.

Chandragupt said:

India on the other hand has already developed a 73KN (original target was 81KN) class Kaveri engine offcourse 73KN is not enough to power Tejas but what matters the most is the "know how"

Click to expand...

I think I have figured out what the problems are with the Kaveri.

- Too large (inlet) diameter (90+ cm on a medium thrust engine).
- Too short (like 50cm shorter then its foreign equivalents).
- Core too large (hence achieving higher dry thrust than required).
- Too heavy because of the large core.
- Too small bypass leading to a BPR of mere 0.16 (LMAO).
- Too little bypass means too little oxygen to burn in the afterburner, hence lower than required wet thrust.


All in all, the Kaveri is too short, too heavy and too thick to operate effectively. It seems to me the problem is less about metallurgy but more about wrong engineering choices.