JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 3]

[TaimiKhan]

Hi,

I believe that a lots of posters are being carried away by the idea that newer is better. RD 93 is a proven engine with a successful track history. you simply just don't dump an engine because there is something new out there.

If the F 14 tomcat could do the job for being labelled under powered so can the JF 17. I would rather have the upgraded version of the rd93 that the russians are developing---if need be.

A lesser powered engine will not stop the jf 17 for doing its job---it will be due to a lack of electronic warfare and weapons package.

Sir, we know RD-93 is a tested platform, but its track record has been pretty bad too. Here are a few lines from what the IAF went through when they purchased Mig-29s with RD-33s.

"There were extensive problems encountered in operational and maintenance due to the large number of pre-mature failures of engines, components, and systems. Of the total of 189 engines in service, 139 engines (74&#37 failed pre-maturely and had been withdraw from service by July 1992, thus effectively shutting down operations. 62 of these engines had not even accomplished 50% of their 300 hours first overhaul point. Thus the desired serviceability showed a steadily decreasing trend."

You can further read here:
Fighter Aicraft, MiG-29/4
RD-33 Engine & Design Problems - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums

Russians are making the new RD-33Mks, but problem would be that would they be willing to sell it or come under Indian pressure and not sell.

The Russian engine has big ?s for different reasons.

WS-13 may be new and after coming into operation, it will further go through its maturity, but in the end we would be independent of the issues which we face while using the Russian engines.

And as per specifications wise, WS-13 so far looks better when compared to RD-93s.

It may give us problems in the start as it would be a new engine, but in the long run, it will be benefiting us a lot.

 

[aliyusuf]

WS-13 Specs comparison with RD-93 ...

Source

Length (m)
WS-13-->4.15
RD-93-->4.25
%Diff-->-2.35%

Diameter (m)
WS-13-->1.02
RD-93-->1.04
%Diff-->-1.92%

Weight (Kg)
WS-13-->1135
RD-93-->1055
%Diff-->7.58

Thrust (Full After-Burning, kN)
WS-13-->86.37
RD-93-->81.3
%Diff-->6.24%

Thrust (Dry, kN)
WS-13-->56.75
RD-93-->50.0
%Diff-->13.50%

Bypass ratio
WS-13-->0.57
RD-93-->0.49
%Diff-->16.33%

This would indicate that WS-13 would be providing better TWR wrt RD-93 in dry thrust but lesser TWR in full AB-thrust because it's weight increase is 7.58% which is not offset fully by just a 6.24% increase in full AB-thrust. However it is more fuel efficient and we will be certainly seeing improvements in it's specs in the near future.

 

[araz]

a very old pic of a model with chinese and pak officials...

Already posted
Araz

 

[araz]

thunder's refueling probe..

This is interesting.If i am not mistaken this is a retractable IFR probe like that of the Gripen NG.I know this has been posted as the one to go on thunder but the current IFRs are non retractable. It will add more weight but from the radar signature point of view, it will be a huge improvement.
Araz

 

[araz]

Hi, would the tail end of the JF-17 not have to be redesigned to accomodate TVC? The parachute housing hangs over the engine cowling, and the amount of space that the engine can move sideways in the horizontal axis is limited. I guess the engine cowling could be pushed further out of the aircraft though. Thanks!

As far as i know TVC is not on the horizon of PAF for the thunder. There are doubts as to the benefits vs the cost increase not only in redesigning and integration but also in the maintenance. PAF is very happy with the current maneouverability of the thunder and I dont think we would want a TVC on it.
Araz

 

[Kompromat]

This is interesting.If i am not mistaken this is a retractable IFR probe like that of the Gripen NG.I know this has been posted as the one to go on thunder but the current IFRs are non retractable. It will add more weight but from the radar signature point of view, it will be a huge improvement.
Araz

You might wana look at my thread sir.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/55269-thunders-fitted-retractable-ifr-probes-unconfirmed.html

 

[araz]

Hi,

I believe that a lots of posters are being carried away by the idea that newer is better. RD 93 is a proven engine with a successful track history. you simply just don't dump an engine because there is something new out there.

If the F 14 tomcat could do the job for being labelled under powered so can the JF 17. I would rather have the upgraded version of the rd93 that the russians are developing---if need be.

A lesser powered engine will not stop the jf 17 for doing its job---it will be due to a lack of electronic warfare and weapons package.

Mastankhan
Brother where as what you say has a lot of merit to it, PAFs perspective for change is on account of the uncertainty that surrounds the supply chain.You may remember that we ourselves do not have an agreement with the Russians for the supply of RD93 but rely on the good will of the chinese to source engines for us.Once Chinese stop buying RD93, we are in a dilemma and have to be reliant on the chinese for what they provide or go and make another agreement with the Russkies for direct supply, which is fraught with problems of its own without going into details. PAF will hold on till they are absolutely happy with the chinese engine, but once this happens , for the continuity of uninterrupted supplies, our best bet is to go with the chinese. I agree thatthere could be problems, but the chinese wont send an engine out to us unless it has been thoroughly tested, nor will the PAF accept it.
Regards
Araz

 

[imranyounasbutt]

salam
i have a question from sir mudrakh that. f-16 have space of three missiles under wing excluding tip of wing missile. but j-f-17 only have two. although this plan made after f-16. so why jet designer forgot or ignored this thing on jf-17 to make space of three missile under wing.

would you explan this thing.
thanks

Kind Regards
imran younas butt

 

[TaimiKhan]

salam
i have a question from sir mudrakh that. f-16 have space of three missiles under wing excluding tip of wing missile. but j-f-17 only have two. although this plan made after f-16. so why jet designer forgot or ignored this thing on jf-17 to make space of three missile under wing.

would you explan this thing.
thanks

Kind Regards
imran younas butt

hahahahahhahaahahha, good one.

Well there is a simple answer, F-16 is kind of a medium weight aircraft, meaning it has a more powerful engine, thus it can take more weight, and F-16s wings are bigger compared in length as well as area.JF-17 is a light weight fighter.

JF-17: Wingspan: 9.45 m around 31 Feet
F-16: Wingspan: 9.96 m around 32.5 feet.

Hope it satisfies the question.

 

[P4Pakistan]

hahahahahhahaahahha, good one.

Well there is a simple answer, F-16 is kind of a medium weight aircraft, meaning it has a more powerful engine, thus it can take more weight, and F-16s wings are bigger compared in length as well as area.JF-17 is a light weight fighter.

JF-17: Wingspan: 9.45 m around 31 Feet
F-16: Wingspan: 9.96 m around 32.5 feet.

Hope it satisfies the question.

Sir ,so it mean when JF-17 will be equiped with WS-13, he will be able to taken more weight !!! ??

 

[TaimiKhan]

Sir ,so it mean when JF-17 will be equiped with WS-13, he will be able to taken more weight !!! ??

Yeah, more powerful engine, more capability to take heavy weight.

Currently its 3,800+KG of load, which includes the external fuel tanks also and weapons. So with more powerful engine, it can cross and will cross the 4000+KG barrier, which as per my info has already been crossed.

With more composites and powerful engine, the payload capacity would increase.

 

[nangyale]

Sir ,so it mean when JF-17 will be equiped with WS-13, he will be able to taken more weight !!! ??

Or you may still want to keep the original payload for better thrust-to-weight ratio. It would specially usefull in anti air load. As better twr would translate into better manuverability and speed.

 

[razgriz19]

You might wana look at my thread sir.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/55269-thunders-fitted-retractable-ifr-probes-unconfirmed.html

thunder is too small for a retractable probe...
just my opinion

 

[razgriz19]

hahahahahhahaahahha, good one.

Well there is a simple answer, F-16 is kind of a medium weight aircraft, meaning it has a more powerful engine, thus it can take more weight, and F-16s wings are bigger compared in length as well as area.JF-17 is a light weight fighter.

JF-17: Wingspan: 9.45 m around 31 Feet
F-16: Wingspan: 9.96 m around 32.5 feet.

Hope it satisfies the question.

well but its a light weight fighter for US..

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

The chinese will send what they have----chinese have a different standard of certification of enginese than the west---in china---the factory cerifies it first---but that does not mean that it is flight certified---then it goes to flight certification----and china being china---no checks and balances---flight certifications are not as severe as the western certifications.

Its a long and time consuming process---as I stated in the previous posts---too
much dependence is put on totally brand new untested chinese systems---they have a higher tendencey of failure, are not ready when you need them. There is a consistency of under performance---.

Pakistan was better off shopping somewhere else.