IAF Seeks F-22 Like Supercruise Capability for AMCA's New Engine, Demanding Sustained Mach 1.3 Speed Without Afterburners

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has set specific and ambitious requirements for a new engine being developed for India's future Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).

The Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), tasked with this crucial development, must engineer an engine capable of achieving "supercruise" – sustained supersonic flight without engaging fuel-intensive afterburners.

The IAF mandates this capability at a speed of Mach 1.3 (approximately 1,600 km/h) at an altitude of 12 kilometres, requiring a minimum 'dry' thrust of 72 kilonewtons (kN). This directive highlights India's commitment to integrating advanced capabilities into the fifth-generation stealth fighter, aiming to meet global benchmarks.

Supercruise capability offers significant tactical advantages for modern combat aircraft. By flying supersonic without the afterburner, the aircraft consumes less fuel, thereby increasing its operational range and endurance. It also reduces the aircraft's infrared (heat) signature, making it more difficult for enemy sensors to detect and track.

For the AMCA, mastering supercruise is seen as vital for operating effectively in India's challenging security landscape, particularly where high-altitude performance and the ability to penetrate contested airspace with stealth are paramount. Achieving Mach 1.3 sustainably under these conditions would provide the AMCA with a distinct operational advantage.

Developing an engine that meets these specifications presents a significant technological undertaking for GTRE, which has encountered challenges in previous engine projects.

The initial prototypes of the AMCA, currently under development, are planned to be powered by imported General Electric F414 engines. While powerful (rated at 98 kN with afterburner), these engines do not provide the required dry thrust for supercruise.

The IAF's requirement pushes for an indigenous powerplant, likely in the 110 kN overall thrust class, capable of delivering over 75 kN of dry thrust. This effort strongly aligns with India's "Make in India" initiative aimed at fostering self-reliance in critical defence technologies, although collaboration with international engine manufacturers like Safran or Rolls-Royce remains a potential route to expedite development.

Supercruise in Global Fifth-Generation Aircraft​

While often associated with fifth-generation fighters, the implementation of supercruise varies among the world's most advanced jets:

• Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor (USA): Considered the benchmark, the F-22 excels at supercruise, capable of sustained speeds exceeding Mach 1.5 without afterburners, powered by its potent Pratt & Whitney F119 engines. This capability was central to its design for air dominance.
• Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II (USA): In contrast, the F-35 prioritizes stealth, advanced sensors, and multi-role flexibility over supercruise. Its single Pratt & Whitney F135 engine allows brief supersonic bursts without afterburner but not sustained flight, reflecting a different design philosophy.
• Sukhoi Su-57 (Russia): Russia's Su-57 is reported to achieve supercruise around Mach 1.3 with its current AL-41F1 engines, with future engines planned to enhance this further. It emphasizes speed and maneuverability alongside stealth features.
• Chengdu J-20 (China): The J-20's supercruise capability is less clear. While later versions with indigenous WS-10C engines may offer limited supercruise, it is widely believed that the full capability awaits the operational deployment of the more powerful WS-15 engine.

A Prized, But Not Universal, Capability​

The global landscape shows that supercruise is a highly valued feature, particularly for air superiority roles like that envisioned for the F-22 and Su-57, allowing rapid interception and engagement. However, it is not deemed essential for all fifth-generation missions, as demonstrated by the F-35's design choices favouring other attributes.

For the Indian AMCA, the IAF's requirement for supercruise underscores its intended role as a potent air dominance fighter, complementing its stealth design and advanced sensor suite.

However, achieving the specific target of Mach 1.3 with 72 kN dry thrust at high altitude is a demanding goal, potentially requiring an engine with significantly higher dry thrust than initially anticipated, which could influence the aircraft's overall design, weight, and stealth characteristics – a complex balance for GTRE and the AMCA program to achieve.

 

[Enforcer]

If IAF wants that capability, then pay out of your portion of the budget into R&D (200m). Also, convince high brass to invest heavily into R&D. That is the way to show determinacy and accountability.

 

[Praveen]

One of the most useless feature, it will only increase maintenance and developmental cost.

 

[sanket]

Supercruise & 2D/3D thrust vector nozzles should be possessed in AMCA. Several times already I have highlighted the shortcomings of the F-35. What about the Chinese? Some joker fools and comedians think China has moved ahead in fighter jets. They have not yet mastered 4th gen engines.

 

[kinzelle]

Supercruise & 2D/3D thrust vector nozzles should be possessed in AMCA. Several times already I have highlighted the shortcomings of the F-35. What about the Chinese? Some joker fools and comedians think China has moved ahead in fighter jets. They have not yet mastered 4th gen engines.

Pajeet copium

 

[Enforcer]

One of the most useless feature, it will only increase maintenance and developmental cost.

Then you don't understand 5th gen jets. The reason it doesn't increase maintenance is because it doesn't have to use afterburners.

The reason you have super cruise is to travel long distance and go in and out of airspace Quickly without using afterburners. IF you use afterburners then you will use up too much fuel for long flights.

 

[Chand Ashok]

AMCA Mk-2 needs not merely a 110 kN engine but a 130 kN+ engine, not for super cruise, but to power a plasma gun based active stealth system and high powered directed energy and laser guns. Maybe a 140 kN engine like the 177S will do. For super cruise capability, the writer forgets that HAL, ADA, and DRDO have specialized in carbon composites in fighter airframes during the development of LCA Tejas and shall extensively deploy it in AMCA, making it much lighter (per unit dimension) in comparison to other 5th gen platforms F-22, F-35, J-20, J-31, and Su-57. Hence, it will require a comparatively lower thrust engine to achieve super cruise.

 

[Sumanta Nayak]

To make a 5th generation engine, fund requirements are a minimum of $10 billion. As it will start from scratch and manufacturing the sophisticated technical components requires a new establishment, a trained workforce to absorb the technologies, and proved out help from Russia or the USA. GTRE is not capable of designing such a 75kN dry thrust engine. In the Kaveri project, we have seen practically their ability, the faulty design. I should not open up as it is a defence matter. Those who are thinking private players will play the crucial role, Tata, L&T, or Mahindra, they can produce automobiles, not fighter engines. So, huge money is required for R&D and also a 5th generation fighter is required in a short time to counter the 360° enemy who are always busy destabilizing India.

 

[Rinku Pandey]

If IAF wants that capability, then pay out of your portion of the budget into R&D (200m). Also, convince high brass to invest heavily into R&D. That is the way to show determinacy and accountability.

Agreed. As GOI is not spending on R&D, IAF must spend large sums on R&D especially now that GOI has alloted IAF $5.7 billion in 2025 to buy Aircrafts and Aero engines.

 

[Dhiren Punjabi]

At least GTRE should first show its capability by building an engine for Tejas Mark 1A. Instead, it's asking for funding for 110kN engine R&D! Crazy, such national organisations have an audacity like that!

 

[kranthi]

Then you don't understand 5th gen jets. The reason it doesn't increase maintenance is because it doesn't have to use afterburners.

The reason you have super cruise is to travel long distance and go in and out of airspace Quickly without using afterburners. IF you use afterburners then you will use up too much fuel for long flights.

It also helps fly at higher altitudes at greater speed, ensuring better release conditions for missiles and munitions. The extra release speed and altitude allows the payload a significantly greater range. Which means we can launch from a relatively safer distance.

 

[Sandeep]

For the AMCA jet engine we will definitely need it to have a super cruise feature. It will be expensive to 100% indigenously design, develop and manufacture a super cruise stealth engine but we have no choice. Also we can use this engine to power our Tejas MK1A and MK2 when the current engine completes its lifespan.

The main benefit is that we will receive 100% of the technology and manufacture it in India. Also we will get to learn more about the science, technology and engineering that’s involved in learning how to develop a jet engine. This technology is a closely guarded secret as without having jet engines your jet won’t move anywhere.

 

[kranthi]

At least GTRE should first show its capability by building an engine for Tejas Mark 1A. Instead, it's asking for funding for 110kN engine R&D! Crazy, such national organisations have an audacity like that!

They are also asking for funding to perfect the Kaveri engine.

We had no knowledge in this tech space when the Kaveri project started. We were merely license making Adours.

Yes, GTRE is not competent enough, so what do we do? The only answer is money. Pump money, give them all the testing facilities they need. Fund Midhani and other metallurgy related labs and private companies liberally. Leave no stone unturned, you will succeed eventually.

Piece-meal funding, waiting for foreign countries to lend their testing facilities, not funding the required labs and equipment for defence research won't give you cutting edge tech.

China, for example, left no stone unturned. They did everything they could - copy, steal, burn money, build any infra needed, what not. And yet, they took long enough to make the WS-10 finally.

Can we say we hardly put a fraction of the effort or money that the Chinese put? And yet, we want an engine to magically be born in India?

 

[skumarsblr]

Need of the hour is young and knowledgeable brains in GTRE. Must create a seperate research organisation under GTRE to make such high thrust engine. Yes, after recruiting good people, sufficient fund is also a key factor.

 

[Rakesh Sam]

It's doesn't cost to dream🤪🤪🤪 dreaming and talking without any actual work is India's trait. Purchases are not made in time, just talks about declining squadron strengths when it's well past the worrying limit and shove down to almost half....new projects are not sanctioned the required budgetary allocations and reach the productive efficiency even after close to 3 decades behind the timeline, jugaad is the motto of Indian government.
Jugaad perspective now dreaming to create an engine with 110 plus kn thrust and running news all over the media over the last couple of years...dream on.

 

[Sridhar]

If IAF wants that capability, then pay out of your portion of the budget into R&D (200m). Also, convince high brass to invest heavily into R&D. That is the way to show determinacy and accountability.

IAF is the end user. R&D responsibility lies with the manufacturer. Did you sponsor any funds on R&D for the vehicles you own?

 

[Enforcer]

IAF is the end user. R&D responsibility lies with the manufacturer. Did you sponsor any funds on R&D for the vehicles you own?

I don't know what world do you live in, many countries including USA, many times a branch of the armed forces sponsors particular research program from their own money.

In USA, actually all three branches have their own dedicated research centers.

 

[Enforcer]

Agreed. As GOI is not spending on R&D, IAF must spend large sums on R&D especially now that GOI has alloted IAF $5.7 billion in 2025 to buy Aircrafts and Aero engines.

The trick is to spend on R&D and then ask the gov for more money.

 

[Sridhar]

I don't know what world do you live in, many countries including USA, many times a branch of the armed forces sponsors particular research program from their own money.

In USA, actually all three branches have their own dedicated research centers.

I live very much in India. It's funny to note that you compare India with other western countries. They follow different policies. And India has its own. Pvt Companies do have their own R&D. There are pvt companies who are manufacturing drones. They have R&D labs.
By your own words U S Army sponsors some particular project. Not every project. So there are exceptions. Suggest you keep your eyes and ears wide open.

 

[Praveen]

Then you don't understand 5th gen jets. The reason it doesn't increase maintenance is because it doesn't have to use afterburners.

The reason you have super cruise is to travel long distance and go in and out of airspace Quickly without using afterburners. IF you use afterburners then you will use up too much fuel for long flights.

Most fighter jets go supersonic for only a few seconds because if they go supersonic for a long time, the airframe will fatigue, the stealth coating will peel off, and engine damage will occur, etc. The same will happen if they supercruise, except for engine damage, because we won't be using afterburners.

Do you know the availability rate of the F-22 is only 40%? There is already a big debate going on for years between the Pentagon and the USAF whether to keep the F-22 flying because of its high maintenance cost. The reason I mentioned it would need huge development funds is that the material needed to be developed specially for that, and then its unit cost per aircraft will also spiral. This is the main reason the F-22 costs 220 million USD for a single aircraft, and the US stopped buying more. Most of the time, fighter jets fly only at subsonic speeds. They know the reason.

The term "supercruise" started when the US developed the F-14D upgrade, which changed the original engine with the more powerful F-110 engine. This already gave it supercruise capability. Even the Rafale has that when it flies without any payload at Mach 1.3. Then the Su-57 has that also.

I'm not the one who does not know, but you should also know what things come as a byproduct of supercruise. Even the USAF is struggling with this issue, why should we pursue something illusory? For altitude climbing and other works, we only need normal thrust, which is dry thrust mainly. Only when we lose energy during rapid maneuvers and need to gain speed rapidly do we need to turn on the afterburner.

In fact, most of the time, afterburners are not allowed to be used because if used during take-off, they will damage the runway (used only in emergencies). And if used frequently for a long time, engine longevity will decrease. For example, the AL-31FP used in the Su-30MKI has a 1000 flight hours life. If the afterburner is used frequently for a long time, then first, its engine life will decrease to 800 hours (example only - sometimes some guys will come argue for no reason), then it will malfunction.

Things you see in simulation games are never real. Don't believe everything as it is. If you need to know more, then just Google it.