Although the engine has come under a lot of scrutiny from Pakistani quarters, the main aspect has been over performance issues. The engine is considered to be smoky & under-powered, while reliability has also been expressed as a point of concern. With a presumed low TBO (Time Between Overhauls) the type has been stated as a weak-point.The RD-93 is actually superior to all PAF service engines except the F100 series of the F-16 (however, it does have better response cycle to turbulence & dust), & is more fuel efficient, quieter, & reliable (as well having a longer lifespan) than the Atar 9C (Mirage III/5), WP-7 (F-7P) & WP-13 (F-7PG) in PAF service, all being turbojets & not comparable. The RD-93 itself actually would save the PAF on fuel & logistics, being economical to acquire & operate. It also offers much more thrust & efficiency than even the F100.
Its main weaknesses remain the smoky nature of the engine, & low-lifespan compared to the F100. Other weaknesses can be found in its design. Though not low on thrust (it is actually lighter than the Atar 9C & saved 400kg on South African Mirage F.1s during fits) the type is optimised for the twin-engined MiG-29. One possible solution is to produce the RD-33MK/MR (Naval) standard, with 19,400lb reheat coupled with weight savings on the FC-1.What appears to be unmentioned is that the RD-93 is much more powerful than the European RD199 (Tornado F3) & much more durable than the M53 (Mirage 2000) & is much better performing than both at high altitudes or turbulence. It also beats the F100 in such conditions. It's also designed for rapid repair & field maintenance & contrary to popular belief is not a thirsty engine. Though less durable than the F404 or PW1120 series (its US equivalents) it is actually more responsive to bird-strikes, & FOD.The next phase of RD-93 development would focus on enlarging the blades of the fans (much the same way as the EJ200 or M88 & some re-designs around the engine. This should make it a revolution (as opposed to just an evolution) of the basic design, & may well go beyond 22k at reheat. Coupled with reduced FC-1 weight, this would equalise the F-16C/D with uprated PW F100-229E engines, (note: the F-16C/D is heavier & less agile) & the possibility of super-cruise.My hope is that the Chinese can develop a suitable replacement but in all honesty as this rate they aren't doing too well. The WS-9 (Spey 202 copy) has the power but consumes more fuel & is too big & heavy, where the WP-14 is too under-powered & thirsty (being a turbojet) so improvements to the RD-93 is the only way to go.
First FC-1 is:
14,134 lb (Empty)
20,062 lb (Fueled + Two Wing-tip missiles)
28,000 lb (Max. Take Off Weight)
5,130 lb of fuel
Comparison of engines: (Note: fuel consumption of the Eurocanards haven't been given yet but are lower than both the RD-93 or F404).
RD-93:
- Dry weight: 2,325 lb
- Military Thrust 11,230 lbf
- Reheat Thrust 18,285 lbf
Specific fuel consumption:
0.77 lb/(lbf·h)) military thrust
2.05 lb/(lbf·h)) with reheat
F404:
- Dry weight: 2,282 lb
- Military Thrust 11,000 lbf
- Reheat Thrust 17,700 lbf
Specific fuel consumption:
0.81 lb/(lbf·h) military thrust
1.74 lb/(lbf·h) with reheat
M88:
- Dry weight: 1,978 lb
- Military Thrust 11,250 lbf
- Reheat Thrust 17,000 lbf
Specific fuel consumption:
??? lb/(lbf·h) military thrust
??? lb/(lbf·h) with reheat
EJ200:
- Dry weight: 2,180 lbs
- Military Thrust 13,500 lbf
- Reheat Thrust 20,250 lbf
Specific fuel consumption:
??? lb/(lbf·h) military thrust
??? lb/(lbf·h) with reheat
M53P2:
- Dry weight: 3,340 lbs
- Military Thrust 14,300 lbf
- Reheat Thrust 21,384 lbf
Specific fuel consumption:
0.92 lb/(lbf·h) military thrust
2.15 lb/(lbf·h) with reheat
Perhaps most surprisingly to some, the RD-93 is actually more efficient than the F404 on military thrust but on military thrust despite being thirstier, it's still more efficient from a combustion standpoint. Therefore the RD-93 on merit, but the EJ200 is the best power-plant & the M88 is competitive but just too under-powered.