Opinion Safran vs RR: The Engine Gamble India Can’t Afford to Lose.

I’ve been following the AMCA engine saga closely, and I can’t help but feel disappointed its current direction. So, who are the competitors and what are they offering? Here's Safran's original offer- A 4th gen core, no Variable Cycle Engine (VCE)- while they quietly kept their real 6th gen clean-sheet program with VCE to themselves. On top of that, they came in asking for 50% IPR. Basically: “You pay, we own half.” Classic old playbook.

Now contrast that with Rolls-Royce. From day one, RR laid their cards on the table: clean-sheet, 6th gen design, VCE included, 100% IPR transfer from the start. No fine print, no shifting goalposts. That’s what you call a rock-solid partner.

And here’s the kicker- Safran only “matched” RR’s 100% IPR offer when it became painfully obvious they were about to lose the bid. That says everything. One side tried to nickel-and-dime India, the other treated it like a true strategic partner from day one.

What is the 6th generation of engines, and why is it so important?​

6th generation fighter engines aren’t just about more thrust- they’re about flexibility, efficiency, and multi-role capability. The core feature is the Variable Cycle Engine (VCE), which physically adjusts airflow paths mid-flight. In practice, this means the engine can switch from a low-bypass mode- giving maximum thrust and speed for dogfighting or supersonic dash- to a high-bypass mode, which prioritizes fuel efficiency and loiter time for long missions. No old 4th or 5th gen engine can do that on the fly.

Beyond VCE, 6th gen engines integrate advanced materials like CMCs capable of withstanding much higher combustion temperatures, which increases thermal efficiency and extends service life. They also incorporate full-authority digital engine controls (FADEC), allowing precision tuning for every phase of flight and adaptive response to damage or enemy action. They are slated to feature predictive maintenance, which incorporates sensors on the engine feeding real-time data to its digital twin, using AI and machine learning to predict maintenance issues and optimize service schedules.

Other key aspects include stealthy infrared signatures, reducing detection by enemy sensors, and high electrical output, which is critical for powering directed energy weapons (lasers), advanced radars, electronic warfare systems, and more. These engines essentially become enablers of the whole 6th gen fighter package- without them, aircraft can’t fully exploit speed, range, stealth, survivability, or future weapon integration.

Comparing Safran and RR's offer​

Safran: 4th gen core, without VCE capabilities, stretched to its limits with 5th gen avionics integrated. Lack of modularity/ scalability because of its inherent 4th gen core. Attempted to hold 50% IPR for an engine which would be obsolete from the start, only switched to 100% once RR was leading. The timeline is quoted to be ~10 years from start to finish.

Rolls-Royce: Clean-sheet 6th gen WITH VCE, incorporating all of the aforementioned 6th generation technologies. It promises to be modular and scalable, with adjustments to the fan stages facilitating an increase of thrust-class to 130-140kn. Promised 100% IPR to India from the start- no shifting goalposts. Offer has remained the same since the year it was put forth, contrasting with Safran. Though it does have a slightly longer timeline at ~13 years.

My opinion​

Here's my two cents on this. IF India wants to leapfrog to the top in terms of engine technology and manufacturing, RR's offer is the clear choice. It pushes the frontiers of military engines, while offering modularity and the technological edge against rivals like China, and to a lesser extent, Pakistan. One offer here dwarfs the other- and that is RR to Safran. A 4th gen core with no VCE, as upgraded as it is with 5th gen avionics, does not even remotely match up to RR's 6th gen design, which of course features VCE. Safran's timeline is ~3 years shorter than RR's, being ~10 years.

BUT: India needs to ask itself whether the 3 years shorter timeline NOW, is worth being obsolete 3 decades earlier THEN? RR's offer is only ~3 years longer, at ~13 years.

However: it promises to leapfrog India from the bottom of the pecking order in terms of engine capability, right to the top alongside the US and Europe, and be relevant to 2050 and beyond. Safran's offer, on the other hand, is dead on arrival. Its the core of an engine developed in the 1990s, which is inherently lesser than modern engines- make no mistake, this engine will leave India behind the rest of the world, again.

When you line it up, the choice is obvious. India can’t afford to get saddled with yesterday’s tech and half-baked ownership. If we’re building AMCA to stand toe-to-toe with the best, the engine program has to be future-proof- not a hand-me-down.

 

India prevents global crisis by purchasing Russian oil, keeps markets stable

"No permanent friends, only interests," says Indian Defence Minister, signalling a firm stance against US tariffs

[AJS]

Private Indian companies should join together with RR to produce a 6th gen engine, while DRDO-HAL work with Safran. Government must fund part of each project equal terms, and select the best. If RR is willing to design a 6th gen engine then no way Safran can stick to 4-5th gen.

 

[AMCA446]

I wondered why IHI-Xf9 engine is not discussed here in the topic which is with 6th Gen tech, shortest time for its completion when compared to Safran 10 yrs and RR 13yrs, more advanced and highest thrust of about 148KN and more...
Every nation has its own relationships and they may be twisted by pressure tactics, like our PM is recently done with Japan.
So if RR once considered and dropped later then why not Japan once again, specially when this type of situation is arising with Safran and RR.

 

[ddzz13687]

I support RR offer. It is value for money.
Safran is jumping from 4th gen to 6th gen to develop clean sheet engine.
Better the government goes with RR offer.

 

[priyanshu3657]

Saffran's offer is of a 5.5th generation jet engine, and also france has a clear independent foreign policy which means no one can manipulate them, hence SAFFRAN is the winner and since GTRE will have IPR hence they can modify engine designs as per their requirements in future

 

[sushantsourav]

Who should we write to influence the decision towards RR?

 

[gaganm]

India should clearly define the aircraft quantities that would be needed for keeping production line humming for a 25 year cycle for any aircraft type and a further 25 year spare components manufacturing for a 50 year lifecycle of any aircraft type inducted. Further, aircraft types and quantities per year need to be defined. This would dictate that multiple engine variants are needed and thus even more than one company can be chosen for for each separate engine type.

Say, as our economy grows, most of our increased defence budget will be devoted to Air defence/offense role either on ground or carrier based operation.

Taking an example, say we need the following aircraft types:

1. 4G++ Single engine LCA : Role Short range air interceptor and tactical ground attack UAV capable - Qty 2500 over 50 years with 80% committed in first 25 years - Engine 50KN Dry thrust, say Safran Kaveri fusion. something like MIG 21 or Tejas. Induction starting in 5 years

2. 4G++ Single engine Medium Combat: Same role as above but Carrier based VSTOL capable for shore and ship defense /offense - Qty 500 over 50 years Engine - Engine 100KN Dry thrust, say RR with lift system. Something like Rafale or TEDBF. Induction starting in 10 Years

3. 5G Double Engine Medium Combat: Medium Range Air Defence and Ground Attack for operations on Logistics disruption - Qty 250 over 50 years - Engine 50KN Dry thrust, say from Russian sourcing. Something like SU-57 or AMCA. Induction starting in 5 years.

4. 5G++/6G Double Engine Heavy Strategic Nuclear capable Long Range Strategic Bomber capable of operating upto Beijing - Qty 250 over 50 years - Engine 100 KN Dry thrust, say from Russian sourcing. Something like B2 or SU34. Induction starting in 10 years.

Similar scenarios for Transport Aircraft, AWACS.

Indian govt can fund it's Private companies to buy into foreign maker shares and /or hire International Human Resources to buy into IPR rights, example of Dornier buy by Chinese company.

Objective should also be to apply those technologies into civil use and dominate global markets, basically to create an AeroSpace Industry ecosystem.

The quantities mentioned above are highly inflated, but one thing one can learn from Dhirubai/ Mukesh Ambani is that if you have a large enough vision and ability to execute, companies/ resources would fall into line.

A similar rearmament was executed by Nazi Germany in a period of 6 peace time years and 6 War time years, while the Allies did the same in 6 Wartime years.

 

[Snowstrike]

I wondered why IHI-Xf9 engine is not discussed here in the topic which is with 6th Gen tech, shortest time for its completion when compared to Safran 10 yrs and RR 13yrs, more advanced and highest thrust of about 148KN and more...
Every nation has its own relationships and they may be twisted by pressure tactics, like our PM is recently done with Japan.
So if RR once considered and dropped later then why not Japan once again, specially when this type of situation is arising with Safran and RR.

Hi! yours is a good question- I did not include the IHI corporation's XF9 engine here, as I was focusing on the two frontrunners, RR and Safran. IHI was widely considered not to be a frontrunner in the deal, so to keep things short I only mentioned two. And yes, the XF9 is a great engine being offered to India, however many have questions if they will be able to keep the engine commitment with India while being engaged in the GCAP, apart from the fact that they are relatively new in this field, which may lead to delays or production issues.

 

[Adityavardhan]

While I agree with the assessment that RR engine is a better fit for Bharat technology-wise vis-a-vis Safran, I think other factors are in play here:
1. Safran has an existing infrastructure, with its proposed MRO taking shape.
2. Indian companies already manufacture critical components for Safran.
3. Safran engine is proven; RR engine, while technologically far ahead, is still conceptual as of now with real-world validation pending. Generally, any armed forces are averse to getting caught unawares on new technology which might throw up the initial teething problems until it stabilizes.
4. Safran has been an opportunistic partner who has not fully honored their commitments with regards to re-investinf and developing local ecosystems; however, it is a known devil that the Govt has picked over an unknown one (RR).
5. The IAF is familiar with Safran in terms of training, operational deployment, capacity, infrastructure, etc. Moreover, with 62 jets already in its kitty (36 IAF and 26 IN), I think the Indian armed forces are looking for commonality across operations, spares, training, etc.
6. Most importantly, UK is more prone to pressure from the US in a fluid geopolitical alignment of dynamic power-plays as compared to France. May be this crucial assumption may have been playing in the minds of our military planners?
7. Lastly, while 3 years is not much of a time difference comparatively, in absolute terms it matters in matters of defence preparedness; what if there is a war in that duration? 50% of something is definitely better than 100% of nothing.

Hence, I support the Indian Government's decisions purely on the above terms.

 

[Technospirit]

Go with RR fir anca mk1 and japanese engine for Amca mk2
Kaveri2 for Tejas mk1 and Tejas mk1A
Kaveri3 for Tejas mk2
In the future kaveri 4 and kaveri5 for Amca 1 and Amca mk2 respectively

 

[Maverick23]

You have to look at the complete picture while taking all sides into consideration. Safran also plans to retrofit key tech elements from the VCE back into the current generation M88s which power the Rafales for the French Air Force. By hard negotiations and going the French way, India could effectively leverage the same by ensuring that it's own AF & Naval Rafales too are upgraded with the same tech in future, especially, in view of the fact that the IAF is actively considering procurement of another batch of Rafales from France now. This is not going to be possible with RR. Further, in case the U.S. plays the sanctions card on the deal or uses any other arm twisting tactic, the French will not walk away, unlike the British, who are way too deep in the American orbit geopolitically...They are offering a better deal because RR desperately needs overseas customers as they don't have a dedicated domestic customer, unlike the French, who have the Rafale and the French Air Force and Navy for bread & better. Further, except GE and P&W, no other companies in the world have a fully ready VCE tech available right now. Both the French and the British are still developing it for their FCAS/GCAP programs respectively and delays on timelines are invariable in high tech sectors... Nobody is doing it for goodwill or charity, it's all business and/of geopolitics...POV is appreciated but dig deeper before acting...