AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

[BON PLAN]

Engine is a "power source".
As said before, if you can fulfill the electrical power, thrust, range, endurance, speed, life cycle of engine( lets 5500- 6000 hours)etc requirements by using 3 less advanced 4/5 gen engines, than you Don't need 2 more advanced 6th gen adaptive cycle engines, they will still be more efficient, but that's the only extra desirable benefit they can give.

Power generation is the second use of the engine. Main is thrust.
Every new engine generation is less fuel greedy, less weighty, so it give more range and/or more power.

See B52 : fitted with 4 'new' gen engines instead of 8 old one it can have a far more range or load or mix of the two.

So it's unclever to developp a next gen fighter with a older gen engine. At least for those who have the proper engine technology, and they are very few on earth. China real level is unknown.

 

[BON PLAN]

Saurabh Jha on Twitter, said the engine for amca that will come out of jv will be a 5+gen one like f135 of f-35, not a adaptive cycle one.

AMCA is in a advanced stage of R&D, so probably need a mature engine so as not to slow down the whole project.
A newer engine, with adaptative cyle, may be fitted later, during a MLU....

FCAS is expected for 2045. the prototyp (if really made) is to be powered with a M88 derivative, but the final engine will be far more advanced, so with adaptative cycle.

 

[randombully]

Power generation is the second use of the engine. Main is thrust.
Every new engine generation is less fuel greedy, less weighty, so it give more range and/or more power.

See B52 : fitted with 4 'new' gen engines instead of 8 old one it can have a far more range or load or mix of the two.

So it's unclever to developp a next gen fighter with a older gen engine. At least for those who have the proper engine technology, and they are very few on earth. China real level is unknown.

"Every new engine generation is less fuel greedy, less weighty, so it give more range and/or more power."

Look you you didn't understand, what if you don't need "more range", "more thrust" "more power".
Let's say you develop a fighter and parameters are "x km range" "y thrust to weight ratio" "Z electrical power".
If the use of 3 4th/5th gen can fulfill the x,y,z criteria than the only "desirable" advantage 6th gen adaptivecycle engine will have is "fuel efficiency" but at the same time more expensive,complex, maintenance.

now it will also give more range( but you don't need it), better thrust to weight( Don't need it).
Making a engine a bench mark of generation, just for the sake of engine is wrong, much better is to set parameters for performance(both physical and electronic, stealth)of a jet for 6th gen and see if it can match it.
Most countries set to meet those parameters by using next gen engines, china decided to met most of them( except efficiency) using 3 non-adaptive ones right now.

 

[randombully]

AMCA is in a advanced stage of R&D, so probably need a mature engine so as not to slow down the whole project.
A newer engine, with adaptative cyle, may be fitted later, during a MLU....

FCAS is expected for 2045. the prototyp (if really made) is to be powered with a M88 derivative, but the final engine will be far more advanced, so with adaptative cycle.

What if the 5+gen future engine of amca provides it with more than enough electrical power it will need for all future needs, enough thrust to supercruise at mach 1.4-1.6 with internal payload and desirable range? If those engines can't provide these then the case for engines that are even more efficient, powerful And with adaptive cycle is made.

From what I know, f35's f135 has "left" out electrical power even with blk 4 upgrades, and they are not planning to change to adaptive cycle ones for f35, they are planning to only change the core of f135 and they believe it will enough for "6th" additional capabilities( not the physical ones, like supercruise) that will be added in future.

Similarly there is news, that US navy is also planning to go without adaptive cycle engines for their fa-xx program.

 

[BON PLAN]

"Every new engine generation is less fuel greedy, less weighty, so it give more range and/or more power."

Look you you didn't understand, what if you don't need "more range", "more thrust" "more power".
Let's say you develop a fighter and parameters are "x km range" "y thrust to weight ratio" "Z electrical power".
If the use of 3 4th/5th gen can fulfill the x,y,z criteria than the only "desirable" advantage 6th gen adaptivecycle engine will have is "fuel efficiency" but at the same time more expensive,complex, maintenance.

now it will also give more range( but you don't need it), better thrust to weight( Don't need it).
Making a engine a bench mark of generation, just for the sake of engine is wrong, much better is to set parameters for performance(both physical and electronic, stealth)of a jet for 6th gen and see if it can match it.
Most countries set to meet those parameters by using next gen engines, china decided to met most of them( except efficiency) using 3 non-adaptive ones right now.

more fuel greedy engines = more range= less use of tankers = less logistic impact.
more fuel greedy engines = smaller bird = more stealthy = more survivability.
more fuel greedy engines = less costly to operate (once paid the jet purchase price, higher).
etc...

Same can be said about liners. An A320 NEO is costlier than an A320 CEO, but CEO will soon no more been product.

 

[randombully]

more fuel greedy engines = more range= less use of tankers = less logistic impact.
more fuel greedy engines = smaller bird = more stealthy = more survivability.
more fuel greedy engines = less costly to operate (once paid the jet purchase price, higher).
etc...

Same can be said about liners. An A320 NEO is costlier than an A320 CEO, but CEO will soon no more been product.

Efficiency is the main thing of "civilian" engine, we're talking military here.

Smaller bird also means smaller internal weapons bay size and smaller lift generation which means reduction in payload weight.

Again range ain't gonna be a issue for j36, and as said before if "desired range" is already achieved then the extra range while a bonus is not a necessity.

" less costly to operate"- indeed efficiency increase will decrease fuel consumption, but that's the "only desirable" trait chinese j36 lacks.
And efficiency increase while desirable is not a important parameter.

I'm not saying 6th gen adaptive cycle won't be better, I'm saying they a not a "generational" necessity