the first flight of LCA TD-1 was just seven years after the design freeze, For AMCA fly by wire tech development will be obviously shortened by the competence developed for the LCA fly by wire tech and control laws.
As this is the most critical technology ,besides stealth shaping. The initial stealth configuration seems to have been finished. And with the considerable experience of developing and testing LCA which too is a fully unstable fly by wire fighter with compound delta wing , the challenges on AMCA front are not as daunting as expected.
Only problem again will be the engine. The 3 year wasted negotiation time with snecma for k-10 development will be the most crucial issue for AMCA.
The initial prototypes may be powered by Ge engines(we have to get american concurrence for this. if not we may be forced to use k-9 , which could be flight certified on TEJAS prototypes ) which may not be ideal . But engine can be developed side by side as the test flight program develops,
Also the experiences gained for the AURA program too will play it's part in the aerodynamic configuration of stealth airframes,however smaller it may be.
Subsequent delays in LCA program was due to the wing redesign for the higher weight BVRs which impose much higher stress on airframe and change of specs dragging it to mk-2.
Well, lets hope the AMCA program won't be dragged through the same sordid requirement creep cycle.
Look at FGFA after much consternation we are quietly accepting a much lesser stealth ,single seater opposed to IAf demand of higher stealth,two seater variants.you can't fault SUKHOI for this, they have a production program to look after they refused IAf demands of fine tuning it further as FGFA. And delegated the responsibility to HAl.
I don't think HAl has any design experience to finetune a complex fighter like PAKFA. So in effect we are getting the same russian pakfa with some cosmetic changes.
So once specs are given they shouldn't be altered for AMCA.
.
