India Includes Russia in Negotiations for 5th-Gen AMCA Fighter Jet Engine, 177S Engine with 146kN Thrust Emerges as Potential Contender

In a major development for India's Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) program, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has opened the door for Russia to participate in negotiations regarding the engine for the indigenous fifth-generation fighter jet.

This represents a change in strategy, as previous discussions had largely centered on Western engine manufacturers like General Electric (US), Safran (France), and Rolls-Royce (UK).

The inclusion of Russia reflects a growing acknowledgement of the country's advancements in fighter jet engine technology. These advancements could offer substantial benefits to the AMCA, which is intended to be a stealth, multi-role combat aircraft.

Sources familiar with the AMCA program have confirmed that Russia's Rostec, a state-owned defense conglomerate, has proposed its 177S engine. The 177s is presented as a hybrid of the AL-41F1 and AL-51 powerplants. The 177S is specifically designed for fifth-generation tactical aircraft and is claimed to offer increased thrust, better fuel efficiency, and a longer operational lifespan.

The 177S engine, a product of Rostec's United Engine Corporation (UEC), is a significant step forward in Russian engine technology. It leverages technology from the AL-41F1 (currently powering the Sukhoi Su-57 "Felon") and the more advanced AL-51. The engine is reported to deliver a maximum thrust of 14,500 kgf (approximately 142 kN).

Its service life is projected to be up to 6,000 hours, significantly outlasting older engines like the AL-31FP used in India's Su-30 MKI fleet. Furthermore, reports indicate that the 177S achieves at least a 7% reduction in fuel consumption, which is crucial for extending the range of a stealth aircraft like the AMCA.

Further research suggests that the AL-41F1, on which the 177S is partially based, features a Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) system, enhancing engine management and responsiveness. This likely carries over to the 177S.

Russian officials have highlighted the 177S's adaptability, stating that it is designed to meet the rigorous demands of fifth-generation aircraft. They suggest that the engine's thrust can be even further increased by relaxing service life needs, offering potential performance gains.

This flexibility makes the 177S a potential candidate not only for the AMCA but also for other aircraft, including the Su-57E export variant, which Russia has previously proposed for co-production with India's Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

A key consideration is the 177S engine's thrust rating. AMCA engineers have previously indicated a need for an engine in the 110-120 kN thrust range to achieve the desired balance of stealth, supercruise (the ability to fly at supersonic speeds without using afterburners), and overall performance. The 177S, with its 142 kN thrust, surpasses this requirement.

A Russian official has suggested that the additional power could provide significant advantages in terms of speed and maneuverability. The official further proposed that India could optimize the engine's performance by incorporating a 2D flat nozzle design, reminiscent of the one used on the American F-22 Raptor.

Unlike the more common axisymmetric nozzles, a 2D nozzle can improve an aircraft's stealth characteristics by reducing its infrared signature and enhance maneuverability through thrust vectoring. These are essential capabilities for a fifth-generation fighter expected to operate in challenging environments.

The inclusion of Russia in the engine negotiations broadens India's options as it moves forward with the critical AMCA program. A final decision on the engine selection will likely involve a complex evaluation of technical specifications, cost, technology transfer, and strategic considerations.

 

[AK S]

F-35 is very similar in this regard - too much power for a single engine that's not variable cycle (bypass), coating issues... It's true for old RUS engines, but they're catching up. Looks like the AL-51 is a variable engine - that's why it takes so long (and by the thrust figures too). Btw, Russia made a fiberglass "cover" for stealth paint, so it's lifetime, which is a huge operational advantage.

AL-51 is a variable-cycle turbofan engine with specs matching or exceeding Western engines, except for the electronics (which are of Chinese origin) and a slightly lower MTBH. A simple comparison with the F119, which powers Raptors, would tell you volumes. The AL-51 not only produces more thrust at levels more efficiently, but even the AL-51's TWR (dry - 7.4, wet - 11.5) is quite superior to that of the F119 (dry - 5.2, wet - 7.5). The Russians have come a long way.

 

[AK S]

Did Bharat get any high-tech from the Russians since 1947? If we had got it, then why are we still the second-biggest importer of military equipment?

A lot. Thanks to the Russians, we have a fledgling aviation industry. SSBNs, missiles (even the Astra MkIII / Gandiv has Russian roots), jets, jet engines, tanks, tank engines... This list is really endless. Personally, I'm really thankful to the Russians and appreciate their contribution to our nation-building.

 

[AK S]

If AL41 is a drop in replacement for AL31. Then India should go for AL41 for Su 30MKI Upgrade. But AL41 is a high thrust engine compared to AL31. So modification in the Airframe may be required.

It does not work out economically. Apart from the fees for new license and ToT, we need to invest significantly in the back-end (training, tools, new spare eco-systems and so on). There is a reason why IAF is not interested in AL41. But the case of Item 177S is very different. It's truly a generation ahead of Al41. It's certainly ahead of European design. It uses variable cycle to control the airflow dynamically to manage the thrust. Western tech is still experimenting. Russians are flying jets using this tech.

 

[P2S2]

It's not correct. Let us not belittle one of our most valued partners. True, Russian tech in certain areas, like jet engines and electronics, is inferior. But they have kept their part of the bargain. We have been maintaining Russian systems for years, despite Russia being at war with NATO-backed Ukraine. In fact, in many cases, we even upgraded them as well. These efforts have been very cost-effective. Our missiles (e.g., Brahmos) and SSBN (and maybe SSN) have a strong presence of Russian tech. The list of Russian tech is really long.

The Americans looked at our ability and mentioned F15s, they weren't belittling us, it was a honest assessment of our abilities. The Russians looked at us and mentioned existing infrastructure being assisted to make SU57. Now suddenly we have the money and things are changing fast. We need to concentrate on making money. Make hay while the sun shines. It is a joint public private sector effort. As a society we should stop saying what others can do for us but start saying what we can do for others and rake in the Rupees.

 

[P2S2]

If this engine is already developed, what will our engineers learn from this, as they were supposed to from co-development with Safran or RR? Or is it not developed yet? Again, if it is not developed yet, then again DRDO will take a year in exchanging or negotiating terms like share of co-production, IPR, and ToT.

Once again someone knows for certain what others will do. Congratulations

 

[P2S2]

It does not work out economically. Apart from the fees for new license and ToT, we need to invest significantly in the back-end (training, tools, new spare eco-systems and so on). There is a reason why IAF is not interested in AL41. But the case of Item 177S is very different. It's truly a generation ahead of Al41. It's certainly ahead of European design. It uses variable cycle to control the airflow dynamically to manage the thrust. Western tech is still experimenting. Russians are flying jets using this tech.

The Russians probably have decided that we ain't Chinese. So go all out to create this possibility. Before anything gets created, someone needs to think of its possibility. They have trusted India, don't let them down. They need people to work on creating this possibility. Hopefully some of the young builders will carry-on this heritage. We are builders not destroyers. Opportunities are dropping down upon us. Meri meri thaas bandan pandiya Narak suraq aur paar maya thaan diya my my needs body's requirements Hell heaven and further money wealth comes
Gold minerals even water drops from asteroids. Must've done something right mate.

 

[P.K Senapati]

Russian engine 177S, with 142 kN thrust and stealth features, is suitable for the Super Sukhoi upgrade program.

AMCA is looking for a 110 kN engine for co-development. Maybe a GE 414 variant will be more suitable. Better go for co-development with GE, with ToT and IP rights.

 

[Karan Gogoi]

AMCA CDR completed long time back. Dimensions are frozen. Metal cutting is in progress.

BTW, changing engine is a serious business and it's not just changing the dimension of the engine bay. It affects air-intake and centre of gravity and everything needs to be redesigned. It will be almost like a new design costing at least couple of years.

Metal cutting doesn't mean dimensions are frozen for the entire process leading up to the production run. Dimensions change even at the prototype stage and from the prototype to the final order stage. Metal cutting means nothing... They can cut more metal.

The Su-30MKI and other jets have had engine changes in the past for upgrades as well. It's a serious business, yes, but not that complicated in the design phase, where everything is still malleable, and concerns like COG, intakes, etc. can be readjusted comparatively easily and faster... especially with modern computing power. COG also depends primarily on placement and comparative weight difference. Do we have any concrete stat on that to make an educated judgment on whether the AMCA can only adopt Western engines? NO.Russia, in just 2-4 years (starting 2020), went from the AL-31 to the AL-41 to the AL-51 and AL-51F1 for the Su-57M, even though dimensions and weight changed, and the engines weren't drop-in compatible. Western engines also don't come with TOT, so that might be a wrinkle as well.

Considering the fan intakes (31 inches compared to 35 inches) of the engines are almost similar to the delayed Western ones, the intake valves also don't have to change that drastically and might even work as is. Again, this will depend on actual testing.

 

[P2S2]

Russian engine 177S, with 142 kN thrust and stealth features, is suitable for the Super Sukhoi upgrade program.

AMCA is looking for a 110 kN engine for co-development. Maybe a GE 414 variant will be more suitable. Better go for co-development with GE, with ToT and IP rights.

Sew up GE with stronger stitches. Strengthen our engine making abilities.

 

[P2S2]

Metal cutting doesn't mean dimensions are frozen for the entire process leading up to the production run. Dimensions change even at the prototype stage and from the prototype to the final order stage. Metal cutting means nothing... They can cut more metal.

The Su-30MKI and other jets have had engine changes in the past for upgrades as well. It's a serious business, yes, but not that complicated in the design phase, where everything is still malleable, and concerns like COG, intakes, etc. can be readjusted comparatively easily and faster... especially with modern computing power. COG also depends primarily on placement and comparative weight difference. Do we have any concrete stat on that to make an educated judgment on whether the AMCA can only adopt Western engines? NO.Russia, in just 2-4 years (starting 2020), went from the AL-31 to the AL-41 to the AL-51 and AL-51F1 for the Su-57M, even though dimensions and weight changed, and the engines weren't drop-in compatible. Western engines also don't come with TOT, so that might be a wrinkle as well.

Considering the fan intakes (31 inches compared to 35 inches) of the engines are almost similar to the delayed Western ones, the intake valves also don't have to change that drastically and might even work as is. Again, this will depend on actual testing.

When there's a will there's a way. For high value production there's always wastage. It was said they even used my discards but it didn't save them from shutting down a week after I left in 83.

 

[RG]

I wish a plug-and-play approach for engines was followed. Create a pluggable engine pod big enough to adopt various sized engines. Pods could be 2000 kg with 60x200 inch dimensions, that can be plugged into the engine bay of different fighters. The fighters should be designed to just accept this engine pod for power. This will avoid the need for a specific engine for specific fighters, avoiding the effort to try to get the best fit for all products and integration. A pluggable approach will lead to faster production. What if a higher weight engine may reduce 1-ton weapon load, perhaps from 4 tons to 3 tons for a single-engine, and 2 tons for a two-engine fighter? This would allow for independent development of the engine, and fighter overall design and avionics. The pod can accept different sized and weighted engines, with the remaining space used for battery, fuel, cooling, etc. It can take care of the CG and other aspects that are required to be tweaked and tested on the change of the engine. Also, for the engine, use current tech and produce the needed power, even if it comes at a higher weight. Focus on improving weight, size, and efficiency later in a phased approach.

 

[P2S2]

I wish a plug-and-play approach for engines was followed. Create a pluggable engine pod big enough to adopt various sized engines. Pods could be 2000 kg with 60x200 inch dimensions, that can be plugged into the engine bay of different fighters. The fighters should be designed to just accept this engine pod for power. This will avoid the need for a specific engine for specific fighters, avoiding the effort to try to get the best fit for all products and integration. A pluggable approach will lead to faster production. What if a higher weight engine may reduce 1-ton weapon load, perhaps from 4 tons to 3 tons for a single-engine, and 2 tons for a two-engine fighter? This would allow for independent development of the engine, and fighter overall design and avionics. The pod can accept different sized and weighted engines, with the remaining space used for battery, fuel, cooling, etc. It can take care of the CG and other aspects that are required to be tweaked and tested on the change of the engine. Also, for the engine, use current tech and produce the needed power, even if it comes at a higher weight. Focus on improving weight, size, and efficiency later in a phased approach.

Yes. Thinkers are vital otherwise we wouldn’t have any products. Centre of gravity calculations should be pretty simple. I'm sure weight distribution is already managed quite well. Go take it up higher and show how much easier it can be done by unwringing those long fingered hands.

 

[AK S]

US will not supply GE404 or GE414 jet engines anytime soon and will give all excuses until India succumbs to internal and external pressure and is forced to buy a US jet off the shelf, along with as much US defence products as possible. The GOI must resist this and must not fall into the trap.

Buying a few squadrons of F-35s off-the-shelf is not such a bad idea. It will evaporate the confidence of Chinese pilots. The challenge will come in terms of support. If only we can add weapons and other critical payloads of our choice. If the US allows these essential modifications, it's a decent bargain.

 

[P2S2]

Buying a few squadrons of F-35s off-the-shelf is not such a bad idea. It will evaporate the confidence of Chinese pilots. The challenge will come in terms of support. If only we can add weapons and other critical payloads of our choice. If the US allows these essential modifications, it's a decent bargain.

We are masters at supporting anything anyone gives us. We will do such a good job of utilising F-35s that we WOULD become the place to head for technical assistance during hostilities.

 

[Alok Gupta]

We can engage Russia to have an alternative for the F404 engine, based on Kaveri and RD-93, with increased thrust and better life expectancy, which could be used in the Tejas Mk1 MLU and HLFT.

I hope you are just joking with this statement. It is not as if developing an engine is something that can be done with the snap of a finger. It takes a lot of R&D and years to develop one of any size or type.