JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 6]

[araz]

Home :: Powerplants :: Fighter Aircraft Engines :: EJ200
Last Updated on 18 October 2015 08:26



EJ200
There are 3 images added between 8 December 2006 and 24 June 2007

• 
• 
• 

EJ200

Initial Operational Capability (IOC): 2000
Total Production: 1,142
Unitary Cost: GBP£6.9 million (USD$11 million)
Origin: Germany, Italy, Spain and United Kingdom
Corporations: Avio, EUROJET Turbo GmbH, Industria de Turbo Propulsores (ITP), MTU Aero Engines and Rolls-Royce* 36% (*) lead contractor
Parent System: EJ200
Initial Operational Capability (IOC): 2000
Total Production: 1,142
Reviews
There are no reviews so far


Description: The European EJ200 engine has been developed to meet the high performance requirements of multinational Eurofighter-Typhoon fighter. Eurojet consortium (Rolls Royce, MTU, FiatAvio and ITP) developed the EJ200 engine and will supply about 1,500 EJ200s to power 620+ Typhoons.
EJ200 engine is smaller and simpler in layout than current engines, fuel consumption is lower than precedent European engines. The EJ200 engine couldn't only be applied to the Typhoon fighter, but also to re-engine current aircraft or future aircraft programs.
EJ200 Applications

Strike & Fighter Aircraft Typhoon Typhoon T Trainers & Light Attack Aircraft Mako
EJ200 Specifications
Weight
Thrust: 20,250 pound (9,185 kilogram)
CEP: Circular Error Probable
Meters (m) Kilometers (km) Nautic Miles (nm) Inch (in) Yard (yd) Foot (ft) Millimeter (mm)
Pound (lb) Kilogram (kg) kN (KiloNewton) Ton (t)
Meters per Second (mps) Kilometers per Hour (kph) Knot (kt) Miles per Hour (mph)
Liter (l) Galon (gl)
Year (yr) Minutes (min) Second (sec)
Shaft-Horse-Power (shp)
EJ200 News
There are 4 news between
7 Dec 2007 and 15 Jan 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010Rolls-Royce Extends Support for UK Typhoon Fleet Through 2019
Tuesday, December 15, 2009Rolls-Royce Secures Saudi EJ200 Engine Support Contracts
Friday, July 31, 2009Production Contract for 112 Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 3 Aircraft Signed
Friday, December 7, 2007Saudi Typhoon Engine Contract Worth up to 1 Billion Pounds to Rolls-Royce
Operators & Related Equipment




Grand Total 1,1427


As to the RD93 please see the article below from strategy page:

Dirty Little Secrets




Everyone Wants A Piece Of The RD93
by James Dunnigan
October 24, 2009
China has ordered another hundred RD93 jet engines from Russia. This order is believed to be for an ungraded RD93, with additional thrust. India is not happy about Russia supplying China with RD93 jet engines for Chinese made fighters that are being sold to Pakistan. But India and Russia have worked out an unpublicized compromise. China is a major customer for RD93 engines (originally designed for the MiG-29), and has bought over a thousand of them. The RD93 engines currently cost about $2.5 million each.

After changing its mind several times over the last few years, Russia has apparently agreed to allow the use of Russian made engines, in Chinese made JF-17 (also known as FC-1) jet fighters that are exported (to Pakistan, Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria, Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia.) Lebanon, Burma, Iran and Sri Lanka have also shown interest in this low cost fighter that is similar to early model F-16s. The JF-17 is also being built in Pakistan.

China has been developing a similar (apparently identical) engine to the RD93, the WS-13. Actually, this effort is being aided by Russia, which is selling China technology needed for the manufacture of key engine components. Russia isn't happy about this, because they don't want competition in the low cost jet engine market. Then again, China has a history of stealing technology it cannot buy, so the Russians are making the best of a bad situation. China says the WS-13 is nearly ready for service. Maybe, maybe not. Building high performance military jet engines is difficult, and China has had problems mastering this kind of stuff. Not that they will not eventually acquire the skills, but until they do, they need the Russian made RD93s. And are ordering more of them. Officially, because they cannot produce enough of their WS-13s.

Pakistan already has eight JF-17 fighters, which it has received over the last two years. Recently, it signed a deal to buy the next 42, of 300, of these jets from China. These 42 will cost $14.3 million per aircraft. The final 250 will cost $12 million each. The aircraft is assembled in both Pakistan and China, with the engines coming from Russia, and most of the other components from China (which calls the aircraft the FC-1). Azerbaijan, Sudan and Zimbabwe have ordered the aircraft, or are negotiating to. Pakistan will replace its MiG-21s and Mirage IIIs with the low cost JF-17s.

When the first JF-17 fighter arrived in Pakistan two years ago, it ended over twenty years of development for what was first called the Super 7 fighter. The JF-17 was developed by China in cooperation with Pakistan, which originally only wanted to buy 150 of them. All this came about because Pakistan could not get modern fighters from anyone else, and turned to China. At the time, China had nothing comparable to the early model F-16s Pakistan already had.

The 13 ton JF-17 is meant to be a low cost alternative to the American F-16. The JF-17 is considered the equal to earlier versions of the F-16, but only 80 percent as effective as more recent F16 models. The JF-17 design is based on a cancelled Russian project, the MiG-33. Most of the JF-17 electronics are Western, with Italian firms being major suppliers.

The JF-17 can carry 3.6 tons of weapons and use radar guided and heat seeking missiles. It has max speed of nearly 2,000 kilometers an hour, an operating range of 1,300 kilometers and a max altitude of 55,000 feet. China has not yet decided on whether it will use the FC-1/JF-17 itself. This is apparently because China believes its own J-10 (another local design) and J-11 (a license built Russian Su-27) are adequate for their needs. The J-10, like the JF-17, did not work out as well as was hoped.

I understand the finesse of the EJ200 series, but for the cost of one engine you can buy 4 engines and have change left over. If you tell me that the cost is worth the effort of taking on an engine which is sanctionable against a possibly less sanctionable engine(read Chinese guarantees) and that one EJ200 engine is worth 4 RD93s for a country on the verge of defaulting on its loans and at least 200 fighters needing replacement then I will accept the argument.
Regards
A

i dont see any problem with it. but do understand its a smaller engine. and will cost more than the rd-93 the stage 2 variant will be around the same as the rd-93.
in term of getting the nod for exporting it. from what i know your guys at paf have already spoken to rolls royce about the possibilities and they would be happy to do it. the politicians in the eu will give the nod. the french may cause a problem. the us lot [the British] and the Italians will say yes, the germans? i'm not so sure. you should look at it for powering the j31 or look at the tfx which will be powered by a variant of the ej-200.

Can you please elaborate the highlighted part. In my post above i have given you a price compoarison for the two engines . The point is not of the benefit which is undeniable, but the cosat and the sanctions factor which creates problems for us.
A

 

[Blue Marlin]

Home :: Powerplants :: Fighter Aircraft Engines :: EJ200
Last Updated on 18 October 2015 08:26



EJ200
There are 3 images added between 8 December 2006 and 24 June 2007

• 
• 
• 

EJ200

Initial Operational Capability (IOC): 2000
Total Production: 1,142
Unitary Cost: GBP£6.9 million (USD$11 million)
Origin: Germany, Italy, Spain and United Kingdom
Corporations: Avio, EUROJET Turbo GmbH, Industria de Turbo Propulsores (ITP), MTU Aero Engines and Rolls-Royce* 36% (*) lead contractor
Parent System: EJ200
Initial Operational Capability (IOC): 2000
Total Production: 1,142
Reviews
There are no reviews so far


Description: The European EJ200 engine has been developed to meet the high performance requirements of multinational Eurofighter-Typhoon fighter. Eurojet consortium (Rolls Royce, MTU, FiatAvio and ITP) developed the EJ200 engine and will supply about 1,500 EJ200s to power 620+ Typhoons.
EJ200 engine is smaller and simpler in layout than current engines, fuel consumption is lower than precedent European engines. The EJ200 engine couldn't only be applied to the Typhoon fighter, but also to re-engine current aircraft or future aircraft programs.
EJ200 Applications

Strike & Fighter Aircraft Typhoon Typhoon T Trainers & Light Attack Aircraft Mako
EJ200 Specifications
Weight
Thrust: 20,250 pound (9,185 kilogram)
CEP: Circular Error Probable
Meters (m) Kilometers (km) Nautic Miles (nm) Inch (in) Yard (yd) Foot (ft) Millimeter (mm)
Pound (lb) Kilogram (kg) kN (KiloNewton) Ton (t)
Meters per Second (mps) Kilometers per Hour (kph) Knot (kt) Miles per Hour (mph)
Liter (l) Galon (gl)
Year (yr) Minutes (min) Second (sec)
Shaft-Horse-Power (shp)
EJ200 News
There are 4 news between
7 Dec 2007 and 15 Jan 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010Rolls-Royce Extends Support for UK Typhoon Fleet Through 2019
Tuesday, December 15, 2009Rolls-Royce Secures Saudi EJ200 Engine Support Contracts
Friday, July 31, 2009Production Contract for 112 Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 3 Aircraft Signed
Friday, December 7, 2007Saudi Typhoon Engine Contract Worth up to 1 Billion Pounds to Rolls-Royce
Operators & Related Equipment




Grand Total 1,1427


As to the RD93 please see the article below from strategy page:

Dirty Little Secrets




Everyone Wants A Piece Of The RD93
by James Dunnigan
October 24, 2009
China has ordered another hundred RD93 jet engines from Russia. This order is believed to be for an ungraded RD93, with additional thrust. India is not happy about Russia supplying China with RD93 jet engines for Chinese made fighters that are being sold to Pakistan. But India and Russia have worked out an unpublicized compromise. China is a major customer for RD93 engines (originally designed for the MiG-29), and has bought over a thousand of them. The RD93 engines currently cost about $2.5 million each.

After changing its mind several times over the last few years, Russia has apparently agreed to allow the use of Russian made engines, in Chinese made JF-17 (also known as FC-1) jet fighters that are exported (to Pakistan, Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria, Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia.) Lebanon, Burma, Iran and Sri Lanka have also shown interest in this low cost fighter that is similar to early model F-16s. The JF-17 is also being built in Pakistan.

China has been developing a similar (apparently identical) engine to the RD93, the WS-13. Actually, this effort is being aided by Russia, which is selling China technology needed for the manufacture of key engine components. Russia isn't happy about this, because they don't want competition in the low cost jet engine market. Then again, China has a history of stealing technology it cannot buy, so the Russians are making the best of a bad situation. China says the WS-13 is nearly ready for service. Maybe, maybe not. Building high performance military jet engines is difficult, and China has had problems mastering this kind of stuff. Not that they will not eventually acquire the skills, but until they do, they need the Russian made RD93s. And are ordering more of them. Officially, because they cannot produce enough of their WS-13s.

Pakistan already has eight JF-17 fighters, which it has received over the last two years. Recently, it signed a deal to buy the next 42, of 300, of these jets from China. These 42 will cost $14.3 million per aircraft. The final 250 will cost $12 million each. The aircraft is assembled in both Pakistan and China, with the engines coming from Russia, and most of the other components from China (which calls the aircraft the FC-1). Azerbaijan, Sudan and Zimbabwe have ordered the aircraft, or are negotiating to. Pakistan will replace its MiG-21s and Mirage IIIs with the low cost JF-17s.

When the first JF-17 fighter arrived in Pakistan two years ago, it ended over twenty years of development for what was first called the Super 7 fighter. The JF-17 was developed by China in cooperation with Pakistan, which originally only wanted to buy 150 of them. All this came about because Pakistan could not get modern fighters from anyone else, and turned to China. At the time, China had nothing comparable to the early model F-16s Pakistan already had.

The 13 ton JF-17 is meant to be a low cost alternative to the American F-16. The JF-17 is considered the equal to earlier versions of the F-16, but only 80 percent as effective as more recent F16 models. The JF-17 design is based on a cancelled Russian project, the MiG-33. Most of the JF-17 electronics are Western, with Italian firms being major suppliers.

The JF-17 can carry 3.6 tons of weapons and use radar guided and heat seeking missiles. It has max speed of nearly 2,000 kilometers an hour, an operating range of 1,300 kilometers and a max altitude of 55,000 feet. China has not yet decided on whether it will use the FC-1/JF-17 itself. This is apparently because China believes its own J-10 (another local design) and J-11 (a license built Russian Su-27) are adequate for their needs. The J-10, like the JF-17, did not work out as well as was hoped.

I understand the finesse of the EJ200 series, but for the cost of one engine you can buy 4 engines and have change left over. If you tell me that the cost is worth the effort of taking on an engine which is sanctionable against a possibly less sanctionable engine(read Chinese guarantees) and that one EJ200 engine is worth 4 RD93s for a country on the verge of defaulting on its loans and at least 200 fighters needing replacement then I will accept the argument.
Regards
A


Can you please elaborate the highlighted part. In my post above i have given you a price compoarison for the two engines . The point is not of the benefit which is undeniable, but the cosat and the sanctions factor which creates problems for us.
A

it smaller in terms of thrust capability and the engine diameter and the weight. this means the entire planes needs to be re balanced as the centre of gravity has been changed as the engine is lighter ans smaller. also the intakes would need to be reworked. due to the jf-17's modular layout this should not be too much of a problem. also do under stand its is doing to cost more, i cant find it's price but i would imagine some where north of $10 million, the stage 2 variant is a more powerful version of the ej-200 that gives about 120kn wet. considering it being a small engine it will make the f100-229 on the blk52 look bad. do remember the 229 gives of 129kn wet but it is on a heavier jet the f16 but the ej200 is lighter and the 9kn difference is alot considering it will be on a jet much smaller than the f16. it will easily give the jf-17 the ability to supercruise and thrust to weight ratio of more than 1:1.2

also for the post before you quoted me can you put the source in as well regarding the ej200 and the price of the rd-93

 

[JamD]

A-If an aircraft has a service life of 6000 hours and is installed with an engine with 2000 hours of service life then wouldn't it need engine replacement? & what will be the status of cost then?
B- The size difference is not big enough to cause structural changes and also because JF-17's engine bay was designed with keeping in mind the engine availability problem. Same was the case with "Al-Khalid".
C- We are producing 16 jets a year. Eurojet has the capacity to produce 150 to 180 EJ-200's per year

A- I would imagine the RD-93 would still be cheaper. Unfortunately I am not in a position to say this with any certainty without the actual costs for the engines. If we go by the costs posted here a few posts ago this seems to be the case.
B- Yes agreed. I think EJ200 was a contender from the beginning so provisions must be there for its installation.
C- I did not mean to say that production would slow down because there won't be enough EJ200s to install. I meant integration would take time. Many posters have identified what this integration would involve already.

 

[araz]

it smaller in terms of thrust capability and the engine diameter and the weight. this means the entire planes needs to be re balanced as the centre of gravity has been changed as the engine is lighter ans smaller. also the intakes would need to be reworked. due to the jf-17's modular layout this should not be too much of a problem. also do under stand its is doing to cost more, i cant find it's price but i would imagine some where north of $10 million, the stage 2 variant is a more powerful version of the ej-200 that gives about 120kn wet. considering it being a small engine it will make the f100-229 on the blk52 look bad. do remember the 229 gives of 129kn wet but it is on a heavier jet the f16 but the ej200 is lighter and the 9kn difference is alot considering it will be on a jet much smaller than the f16. it will easily give the jf-17 the ability to supercruise and thrust to weight ratio of more than 1:1.2

also for the post before you quoted me can you put the source in as well regarding the ej200 and the price of the rd-93

Thank you for your reply. The source of the EJ200 series price is deagel.com The source for RD93 is strategy page. Both of them are clearly highlighted in my post. I would expect the EJ200tranche 2/3 engine to be a bit more expensive than tranche one. My querry was regarding your statement regarding "the stage 2 variant will be around the same as the RD93" and I could not and unfortunately still dont understand what you were trying to say. Coulsd I ask what is the context of this statement.
A

 

[Syed Hussain]

Thank you for a really good post. Can I ask you the cost of the EJ200 series engine and the availability, ie the EU being willing to let PAF use the engine for JFT?
Regards
A

Around 7 million per unit if around 100 engines are ordered, a bigger order will further decrease the price. RD-93 comes at half the price of around 3 million per piece but has 3 times less service life and twice the life cycle costs.
And believe me, Europeans are dying to get anything that would pay off in 10 figures. And example of their desperateness can be seen in the fact that unlike the Rafale or the American counterparts, Typhoon is available with complete ToT and besides India an example is that of Malaysia as well that were offered even the "source codes" if they would have procured the Typhoon. It will become more secure when once Turkey kicks the TFX program cuz they are making a deal for home manufacturing of an upgraded variant of EJ-200.

 

[Blue Marlin]

Thank you for your reply. The source of the EJ200 series price is deagel.com The source for RD93 is strategy page. Both of them are clearly highlighted in my post. I would expect the EJ200tranche 2/3 engine to be a bit more expensive than tranche one. My querry was regarding your statement regarding "the stage 2 variant will be around the same as the RD93" and I could not and unfortunately still dont understand what you were trying to say. Coulsd I ask what is the context of this statement.
A

the rd-93 is 79 kn dry and 98kn wet
the ej-200 (stage 2) is 78 dry and 120kn wet
yes it would be in excess of 10 million.
the point i am making is think of the benefits of having the engne regardless of price.
true the jf-17 was made to be cheap, but it has the benefits of being more effecient/faster, more range, more stealthy with the ability to super cruise and its lighter as well.

 

[Syed Hussain]

Home :: Powerplants :: Fighter Aircraft Engines :: EJ200
Last Updated on 18 October 2015 08:26



EJ200
There are 3 images added between 8 December 2006 and 24 June 2007

• 
• 
• 

EJ200

Initial Operational Capability (IOC): 2000
Total Production: 1,142
Unitary Cost: GBP£6.9 million (USD$11 million)
Origin: Germany, Italy, Spain and United Kingdom
Corporations: Avio, EUROJET Turbo GmbH, Industria de Turbo Propulsores (ITP), MTU Aero Engines and Rolls-Royce* 36% (*) lead contractor
Parent System: EJ200
Initial Operational Capability (IOC): 2000
Total Production: 1,142
Reviews
There are no reviews so far


Description: The European EJ200 engine has been developed to meet the high performance requirements of multinational Eurofighter-Typhoon fighter. Eurojet consortium (Rolls Royce, MTU, FiatAvio and ITP) developed the EJ200 engine and will supply about 1,500 EJ200s to power 620+ Typhoons.
EJ200 engine is smaller and simpler in layout than current engines, fuel consumption is lower than precedent European engines. The EJ200 engine couldn't only be applied to the Typhoon fighter, but also to re-engine current aircraft or future aircraft programs.
EJ200 Applications

Strike & Fighter Aircraft Typhoon Typhoon T Trainers & Light Attack Aircraft Mako
EJ200 Specifications
Weight
Thrust: 20,250 pound (9,185 kilogram)
CEP: Circular Error Probable
Meters (m) Kilometers (km) Nautic Miles (nm) Inch (in) Yard (yd) Foot (ft) Millimeter (mm)
Pound (lb) Kilogram (kg) kN (KiloNewton) Ton (t)
Meters per Second (mps) Kilometers per Hour (kph) Knot (kt) Miles per Hour (mph)
Liter (l) Galon (gl)
Year (yr) Minutes (min) Second (sec)
Shaft-Horse-Power (shp)
EJ200 News
There are 4 news between
7 Dec 2007 and 15 Jan 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010Rolls-Royce Extends Support for UK Typhoon Fleet Through 2019
Tuesday, December 15, 2009Rolls-Royce Secures Saudi EJ200 Engine Support Contracts
Friday, July 31, 2009Production Contract for 112 Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 3 Aircraft Signed
Friday, December 7, 2007Saudi Typhoon Engine Contract Worth up to 1 Billion Pounds to Rolls-Royce
Operators & Related Equipment




Grand Total 1,1427


As to the RD93 please see the article below from strategy page:

Dirty Little Secrets




Everyone Wants A Piece Of The RD93
by James Dunnigan
October 24, 2009
China has ordered another hundred RD93 jet engines from Russia. This order is believed to be for an ungraded RD93, with additional thrust. India is not happy about Russia supplying China with RD93 jet engines for Chinese made fighters that are being sold to Pakistan. But India and Russia have worked out an unpublicized compromise. China is a major customer for RD93 engines (originally designed for the MiG-29), and has bought over a thousand of them. The RD93 engines currently cost about $2.5 million each.

After changing its mind several times over the last few years, Russia has apparently agreed to allow the use of Russian made engines, in Chinese made JF-17 (also known as FC-1) jet fighters that are exported (to Pakistan, Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria, Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia.) Lebanon, Burma, Iran and Sri Lanka have also shown interest in this low cost fighter that is similar to early model F-16s. The JF-17 is also being built in Pakistan.

China has been developing a similar (apparently identical) engine to the RD93, the WS-13. Actually, this effort is being aided by Russia, which is selling China technology needed for the manufacture of key engine components. Russia isn't happy about this, because they don't want competition in the low cost jet engine market. Then again, China has a history of stealing technology it cannot buy, so the Russians are making the best of a bad situation. China says the WS-13 is nearly ready for service. Maybe, maybe not. Building high performance military jet engines is difficult, and China has had problems mastering this kind of stuff. Not that they will not eventually acquire the skills, but until they do, they need the Russian made RD93s. And are ordering more of them. Officially, because they cannot produce enough of their WS-13s.

Pakistan already has eight JF-17 fighters, which it has received over the last two years. Recently, it signed a deal to buy the next 42, of 300, of these jets from China. These 42 will cost $14.3 million per aircraft. The final 250 will cost $12 million each. The aircraft is assembled in both Pakistan and China, with the engines coming from Russia, and most of the other components from China (which calls the aircraft the FC-1). Azerbaijan, Sudan and Zimbabwe have ordered the aircraft, or are negotiating to. Pakistan will replace its MiG-21s and Mirage IIIs with the low cost JF-17s.

When the first JF-17 fighter arrived in Pakistan two years ago, it ended over twenty years of development for what was first called the Super 7 fighter. The JF-17 was developed by China in cooperation with Pakistan, which originally only wanted to buy 150 of them. All this came about because Pakistan could not get modern fighters from anyone else, and turned to China. At the time, China had nothing comparable to the early model F-16s Pakistan already had.

The 13 ton JF-17 is meant to be a low cost alternative to the American F-16. The JF-17 is considered the equal to earlier versions of the F-16, but only 80 percent as effective as more recent F16 models. The JF-17 design is based on a cancelled Russian project, the MiG-33. Most of the JF-17 electronics are Western, with Italian firms being major suppliers.

The JF-17 can carry 3.6 tons of weapons and use radar guided and heat seeking missiles. It has max speed of nearly 2,000 kilometers an hour, an operating range of 1,300 kilometers and a max altitude of 55,000 feet. China has not yet decided on whether it will use the FC-1/JF-17 itself. This is apparently because China believes its own J-10 (another local design) and J-11 (a license built Russian Su-27) are adequate for their needs. The J-10, like the JF-17, did not work out as well as was hoped.

I understand the finesse of the EJ200 series, but for the cost of one engine you can buy 4 engines and have change left over. If you tell me that the cost is worth the effort of taking on an engine which is sanctionable against a possibly less sanctionable engine(read Chinese guarantees) and that one EJ200 engine is worth 4 RD93s for a country on the verge of defaulting on its loans and at least 200 fighters needing replacement then I will accept the argument.
Regards
A


Can you please elaborate the highlighted part. In my post above i have given you a price compoarison for the two engines . The point is not of the benefit which is undeniable, but the cosat and the sanctions factor which creates problems for us.
A

1= F-135 is coming with a unit price of 13 million, now do the labor of rest of the math and google yourself.
2= Even in Block 3, JF-17 will be no where near Block 52+ cuz it simply don't have the air frame capacity.
3= J-10 didn't worked out?
It's B variant falls between the block 52 and 60 in sensors+avionics and aerodynamically it just outclasses the falcon with an air frame even superior to that of the flankers.
The Aviationist » Chinese J-10A Fighter Jet Locks on Su-30MKK2 Flanker

 

[ziaulislam]

Hi,


Just like in a car---HP is nothing without torque----like if you have 300 HP engine with a 150ft/lbs of torque----it ain't going anywhere----.

Similarly---the thrust does not mean much by itself---but need to be kept in mind in relation to the acceleration that it can produce and how fast----the ooomph factor is very important----.

If it was upto me----I would go for the EJ200----remember in the end---the engine is for a ' war machine '---so the cost factor is there---but then look at the advantages as well.

The engine will almost be close to 1.5 to 2 times more efficient than the RD93MA---which means a longer LOITER time---.

A longer loiter time is better than a shorter loiter time any day----it decreases the number of TAKE OFFS & LANDINGS---and that is a massive savings in itself---.

Longer loiter time also means shorter intervals for the enemy attack---.

Also---longer time between overhauls as well---.

If the loiter time is time and a half---a larger oxygen unit could be installed to keep it afloat longer between refuelling.

i doubt it would 1.5 times more efficient as that is a massive difference..

 

[MastanKhan]

i doubt it would 1.5 times more efficient as that is a massive difference..

Hi,

I think it maybe twice as fuel efficient.

 

[Zarvan]

1= F-135 is coming with a unit price of 13 million, now do the labor of rest of the math and google yourself.
2= Even in Block 3, JF-17 will be no where near Block 52+ cuz it simply don't have the air frame capacity.
3= J-10 didn't worked out?
It's B variant falls between the block 52 and 60 in sensors+avionics and aerodynamically it just outclasses the falcon with an air frame even superior to that of the flankers.
The Aviationist » Chinese J-10A Fighter Jet Locks on Su-30MKK2 Flanker
View attachment 295970

If J-10 C prototype exists than we should have a look at and if it goes soon in mass production than we should check it out and may be buy three squadrons

 

[JamD]

i doubt it would 1.5 times more efficient as that is a massive difference..

You are right and wrong. Let me explain.

You are right that the Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption certainly wouldn't be halved.

But what is being meant by efficiency here (I concede rather carelessly) is not the fuel efficiency but perhaps performance parameters like range or loiter time. And rather small changes in TSFC can have rather significant effect on range and loiter time. If you went from let's say 0.7 lb/lbf-h to 0.5 lb/lbf-h.that would probably double your range...of course I'm ballparking the numbers and assuming it's a large aircraft and what not. This is because TSFC and things like range are related not linearly but exponentially... if you want I could do some rough plots showing the trends qualitatively.

EDIT: So I pulled out some very old codes and made a rough plot. Please keep in mind these are for a very large flying wing type aircraft with four turbofan engines so the numbers shouldn't be taken seriously, just the trend and that it is nonlinear. And yes I realize my earlier ballpark numbers are off but this plot is for a hypothetical 470,000 lb 4 engined flying wing so it hardly representative in terms of numbers.

Hi,

I think it maybe twice as fuel efficient.

Twice as fuel efficienct? I would certainly doubt that. That would be huge in terms of tsfc. That would mean if rd93 is 0.8 lb/lbf-h dry ...ej200 would be 0.4 lb/lbf-hr. That is the most modern, high bypass, civilian turbofan territory.

EDIT: I suppose I may be oversimplifying as the EJ200 would be operating more often dry where the RD-93 would need to operating wet. That would certainly half the TSFC or even more.

 

[Tank131]

Firstly, Thanks to @Syed Hussain for some great info. Lets set a few things in plain laymans english.

1. RD-93 IS NOT BOUGHT FROM CHINA ANYMORE. PAF buys it directly from Russia. If relations go sour, they could easily embargo Pakistan just as any other nation.

2. Cost of RD-93 is said to be ~$2.5M/unit and has a mean service life of 2200hrs. The afformentioned RD-93MA will have more power but a lower service life (it sacrifices life for power, meaning over the course of the life of the airframe it will have gone through more engines).

3. RD-93 has a wet output of 19,400lbs whereas the EJ200 20,250lbs, but the EJ200 weighs 200lbs less, costs ~$5.5-7M (rough estimates that I have found on internet) and has a mean service live of 6000hrs (Nearly 3X what the RD-93 has an more than 3X what the Rd-93MA will have. It has far better fuel consumption and given its smaller dimensions the EJ200 will allow for the ability to carry more fuel and electronics (smaller engine tube opens space for other material/equipment).
- In the end it will allow more payload with far better range (given more fuel capacity and better fuel efficiency) with overall less cost (by ~$500K - 2M/aircraft/engine vs RD-93) given you will replace 3 Rd-93 by the time your EJ200 is due for replacement.

*** I got the cost of the EJ200 by looking at the Trach II Typhoon contract for 519 EJ200s. Rolls Royce announced that their share was worth £750M (2007) (which translates into ~£970M today). As their share was 36% the total cost in 2007 of the 519 engines was ~£2Billion (2007--> £2.7B today) or £4M/engine (2007-->£5M today) that translates to $5.5M/engine (2007) or $7M today. If you translate even todays costs savings of $500K/aircraft/EJ200, that means over 50 aircraft (lets say only block III for now) you would save $25M over the coarse of the engines, that does not include fuel savings.

Typhoon Order Worth Over £750 Million to Rolls-Royce

4. Regarding sanctions, from what I have read and please correct me if I'm wrong (@Quwa, @MastanKhan, @Syed Hussain, @Blue Marlin and any others), the UK's post-Nuclear test sanctions have specifically targeted dual use technology that can go into making nuclear weapons or missiles. There have been limited to no ecnoomic/military sanctions against Pakistan from UK, so talking about sanctions regarding the EJ200 is a bit premature. Additionally when you consider the fact that it has less parts than the RD-93 and costs roughly 1.5X what the RD-93 does, you are able to likely buy enough engines that the fleet would (1) be protected against sanctions until it could switch engines, and (2) have enough service life on the engines that the fleet would be able to operate still. The same could not be said for the RD-93.

5. JF-17 is said to have a modular design, with the ability to host numerous engines with little redesign (including the RD-93, EJ200, M-88-2, and some have even reported M-53-P2 in the past (which would have been a great first selection)).

Now an interesting wrinkle in all of this is the EJ2X0 which is an uprated variant of the EJ200 which in stage 1 produces upwards of 23000lbs of thrust on reheat and with stage 2 mods will produces up to 27000lbs of thrust. These may cost a bit more but may be worth considering as well if PAF does ever go for EJ200. Additionally, even if PAF never chooses to go for the EJ200, it should have PAC definitely invest in modifying a test bed for JF-17 for engine testing (especially for EJ200 or M-88-2 and WS-13) so as to have the ability to quickly make the necessary modifications to the aircraft for potential sales. KSA (who off and on still stick their hat into the JF-17 ring) would probably love to see a block III with AESA operating an EJ200 which would give it commonality and cost savings with their Typhoons.

Additionally, let us not forget that the Italians are also members of the Eurojet consortium (via Avio) and that any EJ200 sale could potentially also be encouraged as part of a large package including avionics for block III via Selex ES/Finmeccanica who owns Avio.

 

[princefaisal]

Engines should be procured from at least two different sources to keep them sanction free in the following ratio.

70% RD-93 MA and 30% EJ200

 

[Tank131]

Engines should be procured from at least two different sources to keep them sanction free in the following ratio.

70% RD-93 MA and 30% EJ200

Well, that depends on if you want to have a specialized variant in the fleet utilizing EJ200. Otherwise it makes more sense from a utilization of resources to have only 1 engine with enough spare parts to last few years (as PAF is currently doing with their F-16s). Otherwise you need to duplicate your overhaul facilities for only a handful of air-frames AND your per unit cost of both engines will be higher (the larger the order, often the lower the unit price).

 

[Viper0011.]

Engines should be procured from at least two different sources to keep them sanction free in the following ratio.

70% RD-93 MA and 30% EJ200

Why would you go EJ2000 for the JFT? The engine and overhaul, spare and maintenance would cost billions of dollars for no good reason. Stick to RD-93 MA and hopefully get TOT for a Chinese variant soon, specific to the JFT. You'll never hve to worry about sanctions. Plus Russia has never sanctioned anyone unless they were at a conflict with them. In Pakistan's case, they are getting ready to start investing $ 5-5 billion packages and then there is a $ 20 billion package slated for 2018 to help Pakistan find, extract and mine Iron and Copper and then build Metal at the Steel mills in Karachi and Punjab. So for a few million per engine, why would they risk their own billions they'll be investing into Pakistan??

The JFT, at some point, needs to have all the TOT provided to Pakistan, including a Chinese engine. That way, the entire soup to nuts will be produced and manufactured in Pakistan (at-least up till block II and III).