Rolls-Royce and Safran Sweetens AMCA Engine Offer with Variable Cycle Tech, Potentially Adapting to Future 6th-Gen Jets

The competition to develop the engine for India's next-generation fighter jet has intensified, as European aerospace leaders Rolls-Royce and Safran have both offered advanced Variable Cycle Engine (VCE) technology for the project.

In their proposals to India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), both companies have also guaranteed a complete 100% transfer of technology and intellectual property rights, a key demand for India's strategic autonomy.

The engine, which will have a thrust capacity between 110 and 130 kilonewtons (kN), is being co-developed with the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) to power the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).

The inclusion of VCE technology is a significant step, as it is typically associated with sixth-generation fighters, future-proofing the AMCA for decades to come.

The AMCA and its Strategic Importance​

The AMCA is the cornerstone of India's future air combat strategy and a critical element of its national defence modernization. This 5.5-generation stealth fighter is designed to give the Indian Air Force a technological edge over regional adversaries.

While the initial AMCA Mk-1 squadrons are expected to fly with an existing off-the-shelf engine, this new, powerful engine is being developed for the more advanced AMCA Mk-2 variant.

The project timeline aims for a first flight around 2029-2030, with induction into the armed forces slated for 2035.

For the aircraft to be effective, its engine must support demanding capabilities such as supercruise—the ability to fly at sustained supersonic speeds without using fuel-intensive afterburners.

It must also have a low infrared signature for stealth and be able to power advanced systems like AI-controlled drone swarms and directed-energy weapons.

Explaining Variable Cycle Technology​

The introduction of VCE technology directly addresses the DRDO's requirement for a future-ready power plant.

Unlike conventional jet engines that are fixed in their design for either high fuel efficiency or high thrust, a Variable Cycle Engine can change its internal airflow to adapt in flight.

It can operate with high fuel efficiency for long-range cruising and instantly switch to a high-thrust mode for combat manoeuvres.

This adaptability could provide up to 30% greater range and 20% faster acceleration compared to current fifth-generation engines, a crucial advantage for the AMCA platform.

Competing Offers from Aerospace Giants​

France's Safran has updated its initial proposal to meet India's requirements for complete technological sovereignty.

The company, known for the M88 engine that powers the Rafale jets, initially sought to retain 50% of the IPR. However, it has now matched its competitor's offer of full ownership.

This change comes after DRDO insisted on complete control, a lesson learned from past collaborations on the Kaveri engine program where limited technology access hindered independent development.

Safran's offer involves creating a brand-new 110–130 kN thrust engine that could also be used for India's Twin Engine Deck-Based Fighter (TEDBF).

Rolls-Royce of the United Kingdom is considered a strong contender in the race. The company has proposed a unique 110 kN engine specifically for India, distinct from the one it is developing for the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) with Italy and Japan.

Leveraging its extensive experience with the Eurofighter Typhoon's EJ200 engine and the advanced technologies from the GCAP project, Rolls-Royce has highlighted its ability to deliver superior thermal management and reduced infrared signatures.

The company has also committed to establishing a manufacturing ecosystem in India, which could position the country as a future hub for aero-engine production.

The Decision Ahead​

The final decision, which is being overseen by the Prime Minister’s Office, represents a monumental investment of approximately $4.5 to $5 billion.

The selected partner will work with Indian agencies over the next seven to ten years to develop, test, and certify the engine, with serial production anticipated to begin by 2032-33.

This choice will be pivotal in shaping the future of Indian air power and its ambition of achieving self-reliance in critical defence technologies.

 

HAL to Co-Develop LCH's Electronic Warfare Suite with A Global Partner, Reviewing Proposals from SAAB, Elettronica, Hensoldt, and Elbit

Smugglers attack BSF jawan along Indo-B'desh Border, two arrested

[Sudha]

But French can not be trusted. They even have not delivered what they promised for Rafel deal... This is the problem.

What they did not deliver? Moreover, the UK is a stooge for the US; how can one trust them, taking into account the delayed aero engines and delayed delivery of Apache helos?

 

[Superpower Bharat]

What they did not deliver? Moreover, the UK is a stooge for the US; how can one trust them, taking into account the delayed aero engines and delayed delivery of Apache helos?

Integration of SPICE 2000 bomb and Israeli targeting pod not done. Offset clauses not fulfilled. Even Meteor missile till date not supplied.

 

[Superpower Bharat]

Safran is better than Rolls Royce. Their engines are extremely light, can supercruise, better Stealth.

But French can not be trusted. They even have not delivered what they promised for Rafel deal... This is the problem.

 

[Akshat]

Although it is a good offer from both Safran and Rolls-Royce, the biggest question is that they didn't themselves make any high-thrust engine and also didn't make any fifth-generation engine too. So, can they make AMCA engines in time?

We are looking for a joint development project. So, isn't the first condition for such a project a lack of fifth-gen engine? If they have it, then there is nothing to develop and thus nothing to learn.

 

[Paul]

Look at GE. They have 120+ kN tech. Look at Pratt & Whitney; they have 120+ kN tech. Look at NPO Saturn; they have 120+ kN tech. Safran doesn't even have 85 kN tech. The Snecma M88-4 engine will take at least 5 years for rollout. It just produces 85 to 90 kN thrust.

It's not just about thrust—it's about the technology behind it. Safran doesn't have a 120 kN engine simply because they haven't needed one. The Rafale is a relatively compact aircraft that performs exceptionally well with the M88. Their focus has been on efficiency, reliability, and advanced tech, not raw power. So judging them solely on thrust rating misses the bigger picture.

 

[Akshat]

RR made one engine for the F-35 but got the project cancelled in the prototype testing phase. Safran, on the other hand, we should not choose. It never gave full IP, never optimised the Shakti engine; even the engine it is talking about is completed in dreams only.

They didn't actually. RR was involved with the VTOL part of the propulsion system. That was used in F35. But they had nothing to do with the engine itself.

 

[Anonymus]

If they have it, then there is nothing to develop and thus nothing to learn.

True, but it is also true that they are unable to make high-thrust engines, and Rolls-Royce, which made an engine that has a highest thrust of 90kN, required investment from four countries and almost 17 years to make it production-ready.

I am not doubting their capabilities, but can they make it on time, as both countries have never made a high-thrust engine, and that too a 5th-gen, and can the partnership achieve it on time with just the funds of India?

 

[Sandeep]

The best option should be to go with Safran to avoid any third country interference like the USA would if we chose UK.

In the contract if we receive 100% of the technology, manufacture 100% of it, use local raw materials, keep the IPR, freely make alterations or upgrades and able to sell it then we should pick Safran or RR if Safran doesn’t. All of this must be included in a legally binding agreement so they can’t escape from it or backtrack later on without financial penalties.

 

[Paul]

When we talk about AMCA, we need 120+ kN. Safran doesn't have an optimized, efficient, well-designed, low-weight engine of more than 75 kN. The idea is to produce an optimized, compact, efficient, well-designed, low-weight engine having thrust more than 120 kN for AMCA. It will take a minimum of 10 years for Safran to produce this engine, even if they have 50+ years of engine development history.

That’s a valid concern—but the goal of collaborating with Safran isn’t just to get an engine off the shelf; it’s about co-developing a new-generation engine tailored for AMCA’s needs. While Safran doesn’t currently have a 120+ kN engine, they bring decades of core technology expertise, modular design capability, and experience in stealth-optimized engines like the M88.

Also, developing a 120+ kN engine from scratch will take time no matter who we partner with—GE, Rolls-Royce, or Safran. The difference is in technology transfer, joint IP, and long-term independence. Safran is reportedly more open to such arrangements.

So yes, it may take close to 10 years—but it will be our engine, not just one we licence or assemble.

 

[Enigma]

But French can not be trusted. They even have not delivered what they promised for Rafel deal... This is the problem.

Agree with you. Not even ready to share customisation work on Rafale with us, and it's not a good option to rely on them. The only advantage with RR is they are already working on another engine.

 

[Anonymus]

Agree with you. Not even ready to share customisation work on Rafale with us, and it's not a good option to rely on them. The only advantage with RR is they are already working on another engine.

RR is also able to make high-thrust engines, and the engine which they made has a highest thrust of 90kN. It required investment from four countries and almost 17 years to make it production-ready.

 

[SURESH RAO]

That’s a valid concern—but the goal of collaborating with Safran isn’t just to get an engine off the shelf; it’s about co-developing a new-generation engine tailored for AMCA’s needs. While Safran doesn’t currently have a 120+ kN engine, they bring decades of core technology expertise, modular design capability, and experience in stealth-optimized engines like the M88.

Also, developing a 120+ kN engine from scratch will take time no matter who we partner with—GE, Rolls-Royce, or Safran. The difference is in technology transfer, joint IP, and long-term independence. Safran is reportedly more open to such arrangements.

So yes, it may take close to 10 years—but it will be our engine, not just one we licence or assemble.

I don't agree. You are diverting. Whatever technology they have is for low thrust. They don't have technology for a high-thrust engine. They didn't do it. They have just started doing it. The core technology for low thrust and high thrust is different.

 

[VF VF1]

France has invested a lot in Indian projects, and time and again they have created dependency by not sharing know-how. Even with Rafale, they want to guard their offset so we cannot shift all eggs into the French basket.

 

[Ashish Kumar]

Although it is a good offer from both Safran and Rolls-Royce, the biggest question is that they didn't themselves make any high-thrust engine and also didn't make any fifth-generation engine too. So, can they make AMCA engines in time?

Exactly very true.Neither Safran nor Rolls royce have any high thrust engine available.How they can achieve this complex objective of Creating a engine of such a high dry & wet thrust.Did MOD,IAF & GTRE people are sleeping or they r simply ignorant on this parameter.How can a Safran of Rolls royce who doesn't have any experience of having a 110kn dry engine will start to manufacture or pass TOT of a engine to GTRE who have not achieved such a complex feat.This is big question for me.The only available power plant is AL-51F & not anyone.

 

[Krishna]

I believe this is a trap which they are trying to pull India into. Just like the way our Tejas programme was and still is delayed by GE by not delivering GE404 engines in time and dragging on and on, they are now planning to sabotage our AMCA programme by controlling the engine design and development.

 

[Shawnone India]

Although it is a good offer from both Safran and Rolls-Royce, the biggest question is that they didn't themselves make any high-thrust engine and also didn't make any fifth-generation engine too. So, can they make AMCA engines in time?

True, they haven't built one yet, but they do have knowledge of the full life cycle of a fighter engine, including the hot core. This is highly expensive and closely guarded technology. Without a strong demand or strategic partnership, or government backing, no firm will start this.

 

[Paul]

I don't agree. You are diverting. Whatever technology they have is for low thrust. They don't have technology for a high-thrust engine. They didn't do it. They have just started doing it. The core technology for low thrust and high thrust is different.

Designing for low thrust doesn't imply technological inferiority—it reflects different design goals.

Also, the core thermodynamic cycle principles, metallurgy, blade technology, and cooling systems in low- and high-thrust engines are fundamentally the same. Scaling an engine to higher thrust involves modifying the core, increasing airflow, turbine temperatures, and material tolerance—but it doesn't require reinventing the wheel.