well, it comes down to when AMCA will actually go into IOC, and obviously india cofunding developent changes the economics of that for anybody else involved. 2020 does not seem a realistic timeline for AMCA from anything i have seen. 2025-2030 is quite a ways off, and russia and EU countries should certainly have a possibility of something happening in that timeline.

at the very least, i mentioned UCAVs, and EU could put the engine to use in their Neuron/Taranis follow up IF NOTHING ELSE. (FR and UK and Dassault/BAE and Safran/RR are clear that the operational program will be joint, industrial interests see the need for new engines, using one countries or the others’ engine (M88/EJ200) creates political opposition that a joint new program bypasses). upgrading existing designs has some benefit to capability, but it’s constraining oneself to 30 year old design, not progressing future relevant capabilities like variable-bypass: USAF understands this, and is why they are funding this.

as i made clear, even if a new engine is not immediately available during initial flight testing, a different lower performing engine can be used to get it into the air for flight testing data. rafale followed that model. the decision of twin vs. single is clearly signifigant, but either way can be viable, depending on engine partners’ wishes. F135 or PAKFA’s engine could be used as transition engine for a single engine layout, F414 or EJ200/220 for a twin engine layout. (single engine should have advantages for maintenance if nothing else, but economies of scale are relevant, so if an engine for a twin-layout could be used in other platforms, it could be the more economical over-all… that would include Tejas, UCAVs, and potentially if Europe wishes to use the same engine in both Heavy Twins and Light Single engine fighters in the future, possibly re-engined Gripen NG. Russia could possibly re-factor an F135 size engine to use for it’s PAKDA program)

i don’t think it can be stressed enough, that saying ‘well look we can’t see any other development programs now’ is not a good enough reason. IAF should be going to other countries and saying ‘hey we’re going to develop AMCA and a new engine makes alot of sense. assuming we would cofund anything, how could you use a new engine? it doesn’t even have to have the exact same schedule as us, you can procure it when you need to, within reason.’ obviously, offering JV to Russia for AMCA itself would be a proposition that would need to be evaluated for costs/benefits, but that they are not currently planning an AMCA class program does not really prove anything regarding whether they would possibly consider that in the 2025-2030 timeline.

…and that’s exactly what i think IAF and Indian DoD /IS/ doing, there just isn’t tangible things to report on, and discussions are private, so there isn’t much to announce… and since they aren’t sure of the outcome, they don’t want to publicize it because that puts AMCA in a doubtful light, rather than “the product of the future, that India is working on NOW”.

If you have 2030 in mind, it’s obvious that the actual european engine might sound a bit old at that time.
But remember that the Rafale has now an evolution of the M88-2 of the beginning, and a 9t version is available too.
As Ananda wrote, there is no new engines fron SNECAMA or RR in the short/medium term.

and again, if you don’t think that anybody in europe will pursue new fast jet engine development in the next 15-20 years, that pretty much means they will lose their capacity to a serious degree. the timeline is the issue, and is what separates AMCA from KFX in my eyes.

if a common engine can be agreed, it doesn’t even need to enter service at the same time with all partners, if a new european fastjet goes into service later it can benefit from slightly further advanced tweaks, etc. or the new engine can go into re-engining current platforms…

AFAIK france always has envisioned a new clean-sheet engine for Rafale, not just m88 upgrades, probably precisely because they take serious the importance of maintaining engine design chops even if they want to rely on Rafale for as long as possible. that plan may seem unlikely in the current/recent economic problems, but to say that those will continue for 15+ years is far from certain, and in any case India joining a common engine development program and co-funding it is exactly what would make such programs more palatable.

as i said, it’s not just manned fast-jets, fast stealth UCAVs would be a prime application, and a new variable-bypass engine would be exactly what is needed to make the most of a platform like that.

KFX is a much nearer term project, and so it should conform much more to the ‘guts of X in a new shell’ model.

Russia is already funding brand new engine design for PAKFA. As well as for whatever becomes PAKDA. China as well. Japan is funding engine designs, and the US is funding future engine tech as well, to power NGAD or possibly replace F135 in F35 in the 2030 timescale.
If a near-to-2030 timeline is considered (AMCA may aim for somewhat before that, but an initial alternate engine can be used just like PAKFA, PAKFA’s stage 2 engine should suffice to verify basic flying characteristics, certainly with afterburner or conventionally uprated),
then it certainly is reasonable to consider new engine programs for both Europe and Russia.

Russia makes sense if it were involved in AMCA as a JV, lo to PAKFA’s hi, Europe will eventually need to develop new manned aircraft, and a new engine would make sense for any high end UCAV as well, besides the need to actually run engine development programs if they want to retain that capability and keep it relevant.

It does seem likely that future European military engines will be developed on a European wide basis, that is what SAFRAN and RR discuss… If there was no prospect for new engine programs, what would they be discussing? Components ‘harvested’ from a clean sheet design could also ‘inform’ upgrades to legacy engines like M88/EJ200 so a good portion of the money would not be any increase in what would be needed to upgrade those anyways.

Instead of saying that nobody will develop new engines in the near-2030 timeline, and so AMCA should be built on the same engines powering the preceding generation of aircraft, one should ask exactly who is or might be developing new engine technology, and what their relevant timelines/requirements/funding looks like. IMHO, Europe will need cheap planes as well as higher end ones, so an engine than can be repurposed/tuned to power a Gripen NG class plane as well as a twin engine fighter makes sense for them c. 2030, which both platforms not necessarily going into service simultaneously, but the engine can be re-tuned/upgraded for power/efficiency for the later platform in a spiral development program. India should consider that the same base engine could be retuned for AMCA’s needs (power/efficiency) in contrast to it’s application elsewhere… And of course, if it can fit in a F414 sized cavity, it could also be fitted to a future upgrade of Tejas.

From the current moment to when AMCA would actually go into service is equivalent to the earliest planning of Eurofighter to it’s actual implementation, during which many details were in flux. Eurofighter not pursuing EJ200 but accepting upgrades of existing engines would have had drastic implications for it’s performance. Unless there is absolutely no options otherwise, it seems wise to look at more future-thinking approaches for something so critical to a fighter jet as it’s engines.

It would hardly be a surprise to see certain AMCA sub-systems selected from either the Rafale MLU or PAKFA Block 2, but it would be surprising to see Rafale’s current engines or even EJ200/220’s in a fighter fully entering service close to 2030. If foreign involvement in the engine is a given, then choosing to forgo 15+ years of development seems an enormous waste of potential…

A clean-sheet variable bypass design would have huge implications for fuel fraction, non-fuel payload, performance, range/loiter, and top-end performance. France always has planned a new clean-sheet engine for an eventual Rafale MLU, and although their current and forseeable future financial situation seems to put that in doubt, if India sweetened the deal by co-funding development and procuring it for BOTH Rafale MLU AND AMCA, it seems pretty reasonable. Likewise, Russia could potentially be involved, either in upgrades from PAKFA ‘second’ engine or a clean-sheet design. With either partner, I think a brand-new engine design should prompt consideration of whether a single engine F135 style would be the more economic choice. A different engine could be used for initial flight trials, but single engine does have certain advantages in maintenance costs (even if F135 doesn’t really have performance/efficiency advantages over 2x GE414). But that comes down to who is involved, and how they want to use the engine, if France really wants to re-engine Rafale circa 2025-30, a single F135 style engine doesn’t work.

Which is all fine, but LMA built a weapon system that the “DOD” demanded …

Sure, but you have the plane that DoD demanded, and then the plane after requirements were relaxed, transonic acceleration dropped thru the floor, and STR went to ****… But sure, for straight line transit to/thru strike zone it can mostly keep above M1, and for USAF wtih other A2A platforms that’s all they need, but for users who need to rely on it for A2A and when BVR necessitates turning… :rolleyes:

Opinion is one thing, but claiming a volcanic eruption and subsequent disruption was Ryanair’s fault, as snow monkey did, is in my opinion ignorant and just wrong.

ahem…

Ryanair has no control over whether a volcano explodes, or whether air traffic control closes airspace.
But they do have control over their own [ticketing/payment] policies

That they should object to the principal of accommodating this EU law whilst at the same time collecting money to cover themselves against such an eventuality almost beggars belief.

Not merely OBJECT to the law while covering their costs, but BREAK the law to make more money from the law-induced fees.
There’s just something psychopathic going on in Ryanair management…

At cricket?

why does Korea need PAKFA? to fight China? they don’t have a conflict with China.
China would be better off with North Korea out of the picture and a unified Korean Peninsula with the Americans gone,
China has already threatened sanctions on the North for further nuclear tests.