Could be. However, I don't understand IAF's obsession with twin engine aircraft so much now. This is what worries me since 2 engines means double the maintenance costs and India in general cannot afford that right now. We are not big enough and rich enough to manage something like this. Even US and party are going for single engine for a second stealth jet. IMO AMCA should be a powerful single engined fighter that balances IAF's 2-engine-heavy air force with single engine jets as well so as to keep costs low and to keep pilots maximum in the air. There is a very strong inverse correlation between these 2 factors that IAF planners know very well. 200 Tejas in both MKs will still be almost only 1/4th of our quarter air force in the coming years. Going by IAF's interest in Typhoon and Rafale & even the SH as skeptics believe, I would be amazed if they choose a single engine finally. I know that 2 engines mean more reliability but reliability has a high cost and when it comes to ripoffs like European jets or even the strings-bound US jets, either maintenance costs are high or the aircraft needs suppliers' nod to get used.
Wonder why IAF is pressing for 2 engine second stealth jets even after thinking of such factors. Simply imitating the Chinese is not the solution since they are still 3 times richer and well-off than us with lesser disparity. We are already going to have 2 engined FGFAs, MKIs, MRCAs(maybe), Naval MiGs etc. I think before the formal sanctioning of AMCA's official work begins, ADA must reconfigure the design to a single engine one also just once to test its effectiveness.
As such in the past we had such high costs despite having a largely single engine air force (MiG-21, 23, 27, Mirage) and we had trouble keeping our pilots in the air too long. This is what needs to be undone. The reason why Israeli air force maintains a blade's edge lethality in the region is its pilots remain MAX in the air; which is because of its largely single-engine air force. And besides, we already are going to have 3 twin engine platforms (taking MRCA's underdog equation out) to perform deep strike missions in case of war. That would already be driving IAF costs high in case of war time. Is it necessary to have an air force that have all 1,000 fighters (including the coming ones in near future) as twin engined? If we could have MRCA (NOT F-16), AMCA and Tejas as single engine (roughly 50% of IAF), we could still maintain a terrific deep strike capability with MKIs and FGFA/PAKFA while medium range assaults could be done by the medium jets all which our pilots retaining high clocking hours of training in the air, maintaining skill edge as well as keep costs low.
What do you think?