Just made a rough comparison between ATAR 9C and RD-33 based on figures from open source. The difference in the diameters of ATAR 9C and RD-33 looks minor i.e. ~4 cm to be precise.
Diameter is the most critical parameter in case a jet engine-swap is made. A smaller overall length (almost 1.7m less with RD-33) would mean more space available for fuel or avionics if the swap is successful for instance. Although a higher thrust with RD-33 series of engines would mean more stress on the airframe, but the study could be interesting for PAF. Such studies might act as a reference point for trying newer engines later in JF-17 or Project AZM.
IMHO, PAF has nothing to lose by taking over such a small developmental projects on a regular basis. We already have the raw materials for such a project i.e. spare RD-93s and Mirage airframes in our inventory. A combination of Masters and PhD candidates from NUST or Air University could be handed over the projects to see if it is at all worth it. The project could be further divided into
1. Homologation studies (Physical Integration of RD-93 in the airframe of Mirages)
2. Fatigue and Stess Testing with new Engine on a Testbench (using non-destructive Ultrasonic testing (UT) and/or in Testflights
3. Electronic Integration of RD93 with Mirage's main ECM (Electronic Control Module)
It still might not work and the whole study might bring nothing, but this is what R&D is all about. Negative results also count as results in R&D. On the other hand, a success could bring long term dividends; both on our operational (commonality of engines across the JF-17 and Mirage fleet) and by enriching our R&D skill levels!
Additionally if such a study is successful, we could try to use our expertise developed around the manufacturing of JF-17 airframes to develop newer airframes based on the existing Mirage design by reverse engineering. Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM) these days could provide exact coordinates of any part (PAF possesses this capability) which could then be exported to any CAD software like Dassault Systemes CATIA V5, SolidWorks or Siemens NX to generate 3D drawings. These drawings could then be used to carry out FEM calculations with solvers like Dassault Systemes Abaqus, Ansys or Siemens Nastran to do the stress modeling. CFD calculations including simulations and tunnel testing wouldnt be that thoroughly needed as long as airframe design is carried over. Furthermore, these drawings could then be coupled with 3D Printing technology to print some of the complex parts afterwards. Our JF-17 manufacturing experience including the development of jigs and fixtures, high tensile riveting and surface heat treatment of body panels would be utilized as well.
View attachment 621248