That's actually the objective. The entire engine should be manufactured in India.
huh, really
Yeah, they are being sincere about it. They are not ready to give us their most cutting edge tech, but what they are offering is still a lot.
The Russians have been quite sincere in some areas too, although they have backtracked here and there. Arihant is case in point. The Israelis have been good to us too, but it's all commercial here.
There are other motives too. The UK would like India to enter the Tempest program. France would naturally want us to enter FCAS in some way or the other. The US wants to sell us large quantities of old stuff in exchange. There's quite a bit of quid pro quo expected, not just in defence trade. Let's also not forget that one of their main aims is to help wean us off of Russian tech.
The West can't fight China in the long term, period. So it's the big picture for them.
Will advance F414 also have further 30% growth potential??? Since its also a necessary requirement for us.
The present engine is already developing 75.75KN dry thrust and 116KN wet thrust in F-18 blk3. This engine in its present fit is good to hit 128KN using CMC core derived from ADVENT engine. But with a bigger fan, it can go upto 142KN. This will need a fan with about 5-7% increased dia from 79cms and a possible mass flow of 92-95kgs/sec.
We want 30% growth potential from 110 kN onwards not from 98 kN onwards. Though 30% growth from 110 kN will lead to 143 kN but can F 414 EE go upto that level is highly unlikely. What you have suggested is basically changing the core and that will be like developing a new engine in itself not F414 with growth. We have clearly stated that the growth potential of 30% should be achievable without major changes.
Last edited:
That's not growth potential though, that's basically a whole new engine with a new core. Generally growth potential is just 5% at best using the same core, enough to compensate for any rise in weight during upgrades. I doubt the US will give us ADVENT tech for $2B.
In any case, the F414 family is for life. From the day the aircraft rolls out of the factory to the day it is phased out, we can use the same engine. On the LCA with 98KN engine, the hot parts will need replacement only after 22 years at 180 hours per year. That's easily over 15000 TAC.
The numbers could be real. The F119, made in the 80s, has a 4325 TCY for hot parts and 8650 for cold parts. Which means we could be talking about a 30000 TAC for the F414's cold parts too. That's basically 40+ years of service before the first cold parts overhaul.
If the airframes are designed properly compared to the F414's baseline prediction, which would mean less TAC per sortie, then we could see a further boost in overhaul intervals. The new F414 is a step up from the F119/F135 family anyway. I believe the F135's cold parts TAC is 9400 hours. So it's not as impressive as the numbers thrown around for F414. GE likely has the best engine tech in the world today.
Also, I don't think AMCA Mk1 will use the EPE. They are more than likely to use the 98KN version until the new engine is developed and replaced during the airframe's overhaul. The old engines can then be used on the TEDBF.
Extensive use of mid-air refuelling will also improve TAC significantly.
We need that level of growth only if we plan on making multiple batches of AMCAs. I doubt that's the plan.
AMCA and its associated drones will have to be equipped with the same engine, using the same parts. Anything better than AMCA will need a whole new engine.
We need that level of growth only if we plan on making multiple batches of AMCAs. I doubt that's the plan.
AMCA and its associated drones will have to be equipped with the same engine, using the same parts. Anything better than AMCA will need a whole new engine.
It will not be just about batches but future engine upgrade for incorporating futuristic system which require more electrical power like futuristic radar, DEWs, communication systems and other tech. AMCA itself will have growth potential. Further, the engine or the core may be used for future single engine fighter.
how much do you know about engine designs? How is the thrust level of an engine varied and what are those equations?
Its good that we are already getting some level of collaboration with GE.
GE Vernova Company News & Energy Industry- Related Articles
Read news articles related to GE Vernova, as well as energy industry news about a variety of topics including sustainability, grid solutions, and more.
All that will be present in the engine. To incorporate futuristic systems, we need to buy 1000 jets in batches of 200-300, and each batch can then be different, with more advanced technologies every time. We are not doing that. Instead we just buy a new aircraft.
2000s - MKI
2010s - Rafale
2020s - FGFA
2030s - AMCA
2040s - MKI replacement
2050s - Rafale replacement
And so on...
This was our original plan. It somewhat still is, but with different dates due to the delays. So we have no need for batchwise inductions with new tech. The US is switching to our system, a new jet every decade and a half.
We also upgrade previously bought fighters. New systems can also be incorporated in existing airframes if designed accordingly. U need extra power for future upgrades to keep AMCA relevant for 40-50 years. If DRDO is asking for growth potential then it will be required. They know what they are doing.
US always had a new fighter jet every decade. Sometimes more than one a decade.
2010s - F-35
2000s - F-22
1990s- F-15E, F-117
1980s- F-16
1970s- F-15, F-111
1960s & 1950s - More than 2 each decade.
And this is excluding bombers & attack aircrafts. Also excluding Navy jets.
The M2000 is getting a whole new suite of evolved capabilities, but no engine upgrade. The same with the Jaguar. The MKI is also not getting an engine upgrade, at least in Phase 1.
The engine growth potential is not for AMCA. It's for UCAVs and other types of drones, even other aircraft. AMCA will get the first version and it will pretty much die with the same engine.
No, you are merely listing all types of aircraft.
The US induction plan has seen 30 year cycles. The F-15C in the 70s and the F-22 in the 2000s. The next upgrade is the NGAD in the 2030s. They are changing that to 15 years now.
F-111, F-16, F-15E, F-117 and F-35 are not air superiority fighters. MKI, Rafale, FGFA and AMCA are all air superiority fighters. You can't buy a car and claim it's a truck.
M2000 is not getting engine upgrade bcoz the upgraded engine is not available and for jaguar we did try it but the cost came out to be exorbitant. Similarly we wanted item 30 engine for MKI upgrade. Had that been available we would have already started its upgrade. You may even watch interview of Program Director of Tedbf. He has mentioned that even Tedbf will get engine upgrade with the advanced engine we are gonna co develop. The growth potential will be for AMCA as well as future unmanned aerial systems and elsewhere we want. Tech is going to change very fast in near future due to onset of new Sino-US Cold War.
Wrong. F 16 was initially conceptualised & designed as low cost air superiority fighter only and later evolved into multirole fighter. MKI is also not pure air superiority fighter but was developed as multirole fighter on lines of F 15E. Its latest batch even fires Brahmos. Rafale is multirole fighter and primarily bought for SEAD/DEAD + nuclear delivery role. Similarly FGFA AMCA all are multirole fighters.
We dont go for separate air superiority fighter.
Last edited: