It’s a prototype program currently, all low rate parts production. Most of it customized work. That first point is the least worry.

Strike fighters spend the vast majority of their time in dry thrust. Each generation of fighter spends less in wet thrust than the previous. The trend is toward afterburning being an after thought. Sudden acceleration is less important than sustained. You do not see afterburners on many strike aircraft simply because they are unnecessary.

Efficiency of the engine is not an impediment. The engine has a solid track record. It’s power may die off at supersonic speeds, but that is inconsequential if you do not intend to fly beyond the limits of your exhaust velocity. Optimal speed for combat doesn’t even approach supersonic speeds, especially in a turning fight.

LM’s and P&W’s contracts are mutually exclusive. One has no bearing on the other if they stick to the original baselines.

With Kaveri reaching F404-GE-100 levels, why is there not a reduced mission Tejas version using Kaveri? Its plenty of power for a strike optimized version. In reality its just as good as RD-93 used in JF-17.

AMCA using a pair of Kaveri and optimization for its 78kN maximum output should be more than sufficient for an indigenous strike warplane.

It seems rather silly that Kaveri is mature enough for deployment yet sidelined out of penis envy.

The RD-33 shrunk on the side view compared to the overhead view.

edit: nevermind, your side view uses a transparent exhaust cover is all.

The AL-31 is a bigger engine so it would require a complete redesign of the airframe starting with the air intakes.
It would not provide similar thrust throughout the flight envelope. Dry thrust goes down with speed and altitude much quicker than wet thrust. Esp. for turbofans. Remember the Harrier? I estimate the topspeed of a J-31-AL-31 would be around Mach 1.3.

You might want to compare the dry thrust of the AL-31 to the wet thrust of the RD-33 again, because the former has more power than the latter in every comparable generation. The diameter would increase slightly, true, but length not so much as you’d think. And the weight gain would be about a quarter metric ton apiece using a conservative guess.

The airflow of the dry AL-31 wouldn’t increase over the wet RD-33. But your efficiency as measured by SFC would be quite a dramatic shift for a dry only AL-31, which we have already heard can propel an aircraft to Mach 1.3 without any afterburner! Mind you strike aircraft don’t even typically venture into supersonic range until you get to the F-35 and F-22. So you’re getting the aircraft into an efficient performance band comparable to the competition.

I don’t hope they do this, I fear this to be an easy change towards potency.

RD-33 really is a fat engine, and it’s not short by any stretch of the imagination. Why couldn’t they opt for a non-afterburning version of the AL-31F? It would provide similar thrust throughout the flight envelope. It wouldn’t have the wet TWR of RD-33, but it would have smoother response across the throttle and never require wet thrust since it wouldn’t have it. And you could probably get the latter for a couple hundred kilograms more. The J-31 appears to be a strike fighter first, with air superiority not high on its list of roles. Oh, and no more worries about smoke in the exhaust. For an export fighter, why wouldn’t an AL-31F class non-afterburning engine be superior for J-31’s role?

Not necessarily engine performance issues…

Because MAWS systems are so prevalent….