IAF feels DRDO fronting for French engine, citing ‘joint development’.
India’s Tejas light fighter is failing to meet performance targets, largely because of an underpowered engine. And, the Indian Air Force (IAF) believes the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is actively stalling the process of choosing a new engine.
A furious IAF, which urgently needs the Tejas to replace its retiring MiG-21 squadrons, has complained in writing to the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The IAF report says that even as the Aeronautical Development Agency, or ADA — which oversees the Tejas programme — is choosing between two powerful, modern engines from the global market, the DRDO has confused the issue by throwing up a third option: An offer to resurrect its failed Kaveri engine programme, this time in partnership with French engine-maker, Snecma.
The IAF report, currently with the highest levels of the MoD, makes two points. First, since the DRDO has been unable, for over two decades, to deliver a Kaveri engine that can power the Tejas, the ongoing procurement — of either the General Electric (GE) F-414, or the Eurojet EJ200 engine — should go ahead.
The IAF’s second objection is even more damning for the DRDO: Snecma, the IAF charges, has already developed the heart of the engine it is offering, an uprated derivative of the M88-2 engine that powers the French Rafale fighter. The DRDO, therefore, will not co-develop the engine, but merely provide Snecma with an indigenous stamp. In reality, the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), the DRDO laboratory that has laboured for decades on the Kaveri, will hardly participate in any “joint development”.
Further, says a top IAF source, a Kaveri engine based on Snecma’s new core will leave the Tejas short of performance, providing barely 83-85 Kilonewtons (KN) of maximum thrust. In contrast, the GE and Eurojet engines already short-listed for selection provide 90-96 KN, a significant advantage. The source says sneaking in the underpowered Kaveri-Snecma engine through the GTRE back door will damage the LCA project.
For the IAF, the performance of the new engine is crucial. It has agreed to accept the Tejas into service as soon as the fighter obtains its Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) in December, even though the Tejas does not yet fly, climb, turn or accelerate fast enough. The IAF’s accommodation is based on a promise from the ADA that a new, more powerful engine will overcome all the Tejas’ current performance shortfalls.
Senior IAF officers explain that the DRDO needs the Tejas project to endorse the Kaveri-Snecma engine because Snecma insists on a minimum assured order of 300 engines as a precondition for partnering GTRE in “joint development”. Since India’s futuristic Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) — the other potential user of a Kaveri-Snecma engine — has not yet been sanctioned, only the Tejas programme, with some 120-140 fighters planned, provides the numbers needed for satisfying Snecma.
The IAF will buy two squadrons (42 fighters) of Tejas Mark 1, which use older GE F-404 engines. In addition, five squadrons (110 fighters) of Tejas Mark 2 are planned, which will be powered by a new engine. Given that each Tejas could go through 2-3 engines during its lifetime, the LCA Mk 2 will actually need 200-300 of the new engines.
Contacted by Business Standard, the DRDO declined to comment on the subject.
Business Standard has already reported (December 12, 2009, “Kaveri engine comes alive; will power Indian fighters”) that the MoD is backing Kaveri-Snecma as a new engine for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). That report was corroborated on May 13 by Defence Minister A K Antony, who told Parliament that the Kaveri “requires to be optimised for lower weight and higher performance so that it can be used for the Tejas and possibly for Indian next generation combat Aircraft.”
But there are mixed signals from the establishment. In the same statement, Antony also talked about the possibility of engine import. And the ADA chief, P S Subramaniam, has told Business Standard: “There are many Tejas already flying that will soon need new engines and we will use the Kaveri-Snecma engines for those. The Tejas Mark 2 will be powered by either GE F-414 or the EJ200.”
According to ADA sources, both the GE and Eurojet engines have fully met the technical requirements for the Tejas Mk 2. The Eurojet EJ200 is the more modern, lighter, flexible engine and has impressed the IAF. The GE F-414 is significantly heavier, but provides more power. The Indian tender for 99 engines (plus options) demands that all engines after the first 10 be built in India.
Tejas all things has system which modern aircraft required. I want tejas to powered with 44 thousand pound thrust engine, which can increase its agility this engines powering typhoon european fighter. If we want to developing the fighter should be contemproary than Rafale, Saab or Typhoon.
Which can defend this paki and chinese
EJ200 and GE-414 engines have already been developed. India does not get any advantage, where r&d is concerned, with respect to these engines. Also they leave us at the mercy of outsiders. We should concentrate on kaveri and not on ej200 or ge414 engines.
Even for the MCA project, engine envisioned has to provide thrust of 90KN and more. If Snecma-Kaveri egnine is planned for the MCA it has to produce 90+ KN thrust. When this engine is developed, it will be in the same league as that of EJ200/GE414.
During this timeframe as MMRCA will be starting to join the Air Force, the force level in IAF could be manageable. An additional order of 40 Su-30MKI is getting executed in this time. Considering an exisiting order of 40 LCA Mark-I will be completed during this time, there is little reason to worry about the depletion of Strength level.
As for as I reckon, taking the somewhat known leaders of all major political parties, from 90 years of age to 20 years of age, there is none with metalic balls and a backbone required to wage a war against Pukistan or China in the next coming 70 years. Then what is the hurry in procuring F414 or EJ200 engines????? MiG 29s have entered service and being phased out without seeing combat. We can rather wait all these next 70 years and develop our own capabilities. DRDO Jai Ho. I am all for indigenous capabilities, whatever the time frame may be.
Posted by: jai
September 19 , 2010, 23:39 IST
Dude, its the Chinese and Pakistani attacks that you need to think about..without air superiority by IAF, we would be over run in no time , Chinese capability - in terms of modern fighters available and their numbers is three - 4 times that of India's...do some research on Chinese capability first....google should help or better still go to Bharat Rakshak and read the forums there....
why do we need snegma in between if ej200 gives complete engines to manufacture in india including hot end parts and complete typhoon parts in india.
if not go with snegma ............
give the complete tot , hot end parts, metals that withstand high tempi.e 1900-2000k walk awaywith the bulk order nearly 500 plus ...
or else BUZZ OFF..........
TECHNOLOGY TALKS BULLSHIT WALKS.................
Ajai Shukla after loosing to Vishnu Som and Shiv Aroor got a old technique bash DRDO and get some PR. lol Atleast they are working for their own country what others are doing? working for some US company? huh!
Posted by: arjun
July 14 , 2010, 15:27 IST
Abdul,
Shukla is quoting an IAF report. IAF is the end user, not armchair academics taking in the air. id say their concern is more valid, since they'll be losing pilots flying underpowered fighters.
working for their own country? by doing a fraud "joint development"on an engine already ready? or hoping to sanction funds for another project to siphon off funds, while the IAF flies sub standard fighters.
Posted by: Mr Indigenous
June 29 , 2010, 16:29 IST
Abdul, Quite obviously you don't regularly read this newspaper. Ajai Shukla is more open-minded towards the DRDO than any other Indian journalist. If he is bashing DRDO, there must be something to what he is saying...
Is the author of this article on a DRDO bashing spree? If we get Technologies from Snecma which are not forthcoming from EJ200 or F 414, what is the problem in waiting for a couple of more months for some hard nosed bargaining as long as the LCA programme is not affected which it is not since even the Mark-i version is going to take two years to deliver and HAL is already upped the ante by producing 22-28 Su-30mki so the air force doesn't lag in nos..In my opinion it is a good thing because previously we were just buying off the shelf with fancy names like TOT and JV's. Lets get some real technology for our money also.
Posted by: Murali
June 28 , 2010, 20:23 IST
Manish,
the crux is you won't gain anything if Scnema provides you the core. it is not helping you develop it. No Engine manufacturer will provide the core of their business.
Russians who have been with us thru thick and thin haven't what makes you think france will provide this.
i am with IAF on this one, but don't want to take anything off of GTRE.
i think GTRE should turn its focus on building Engines for MCA and utilizing Kaveri for other planes if not for LCA.
-Murali
Posted by: vishal
June 28 , 2010, 13:08 IST
Snecma's core is underpowered. The Rafale is set to get a more powerful engine but no timeline has been set for that. We can only keep guessing. How would Snecma-Kaveri solve the problem of an underpowered LCA with an engine that dishes out less power than GE-414 or EJ200? The bone of contention is just that, isn't it? Besides, the Snecma-GTRE experiment might last a good 5 years to produce an engine with a thrust of 85KN which was stated in a previous article. Why can't GTRE aim at 100-120KN instead? Why be so short sighted, when they are set to sink a few more billion dollars into a program which might produce another dud? It isn't DRDO bashing. Merely highlighting our myopic vision.
Posted by: Mr Indigenous
June 28 , 2010, 11:07 IST
Except that... if you read the article again... you are not getting the technologies that are needed from Snecma. All you are getting is a fully built engine core.
Why don't you read an article fully before getting onto your little agenda vehicle and driving off into public stupidity?
Content Guide
