China's weapons don't bother India but its expansion claiming policy does. So talking from purely technical PoV, 1 nation will lead a certain technology, like USA leading mil-tech, but if other nations can't match that latest product like engine then they can import if having friendly ties or develop less capable version of their own but obviously they'll have to compensate somehow.
On Wikipedia & elsewhere the F119 engines was also quoted earlier as 1,772 Kg then suddenly updated to be 2,272 Kg.
The F135 engine was quoted as 1,704 Kg initially which suddenly they edited to be 2,910 Kg.
The Chinese WS-15 engine is still quoted 1,600 Kg
Now USA is doing R&D on XA-100/101/102/103 engines which are speculated 3+ tons dry weight.
For example, Western engines are better quality so more price Vs Russian engines less quality & price.
But a Cost-Benefit chart has to be plot in long run about CAPEX & OPEX (Captital & Operational Expenditure).
Power to Weight ratio needs to be looked at 1 Vs 2 or 2 Vs 3 engines.
Airframe SFC (Specific Fuel Consumption) values need to be calculated from engines.
If a big weapon platform has to be built then certain benefits with certain compromises may have to be done.
IDK WS-15 dry details so let's compare following 3 engines:
View attachment 21302
We see that AL-31FP has lowest thrust, highest SFC but lowest fuel consumption.
If any Al-31FP operator who doesn't have better engine but wants to make F-22 equivalent then 3 AL-31FP engines will have to be used to have near equal thrust & weight of 2 F-119s. But fuel consumption is more by 28% due to more SFC. Had it been 17.3 the fuel used would also be almost same as 2 F-119s.
