Featured Russia would be developing upgraded engines for Pakistan's JF-17 fighters

[Basel]

basically its the same engine core..rd93ma is not a different engine

IMO even though i am amateur.. sticking with old rd93 even if rd93ma is available is ridiculous

PAF have upgraded it's RD-93 engines with getting certain tech from France and some other countries.

 

[ziaulislam]

PAF have upgraded it's RD-93 engines with getting certain tech from France and some other countries.

i doubt it is as comphrensive update as rd93ma.
rd93 was simply not certified for single engine aircraft..this issue among other were addressed in ma version

anyway there are no other customers for rd93ma..either its PAF or for export customer of FC1/JF17..

 

[Marker]

Its not, The MA is a huge sunk cost, more money out of our forex reserves, we also pay for every JF-17 out of pocket. The MA would be costlier as the RD-33 benefits from the 93s EoS whereas we would not have the same advantage with the MA.

In 2015, IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly reported Pakistan would continue to use Russian engines for the JF-17 even though China was developing an alternate engine. “We are completely satisfied with this Russian-made engine,” an official Pakistan Aeronautical Complex had told IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly. Pakistani officials had claimed "changing to another engine would not make any sense and would be disruptive and cause a huge expense for the JF-17 programme"

@Akh1112 , Assalamualikum
You are right about PAF willingness to continue using RD-93 on PAF JF-17s as it is more reliable and has low downtime. However, engine upgradation cannot be rule out.

Lets take the example of F-16s and F-15s. Initial blocks of these aircraft were having Pratt & Whitney's F-100-PW-100 engines. During engine usage number of shortcomings were highlighted by users and engines were upgraded to F-100-PW-200. Subsequent shortcoming reviews resulted in further upgradation of engine F-100-PW-220/220E. Newer blocks of F-16s are having F-100-PW-229 engines.

RD-93 is also an offshoot of RD-33 engine being used in number of Russian aircraft. In fact both engines are same except the gear box position is relocated in RD-93.

RD-93s are being upgraded to RD-93MA under the contract of Chinese company.
Source: https://www.defenseworld.net/news/2...ts__Enters_Thermal_Chamber_Tests#.X4O959AzbIU

Of course unit cost of RD-93MA will be more than older RD-93s, however, since 400 engines are being procured, per unit cost will obviously reduce due to bulk purchase and may be some ToT!!!!!

Please appreciate that RD-93MA is not a different brand of engine, same engine but upgraded to enhance its thrust performance, fuel efficiency and may be increase in service life.

Furthermore, upgraded engine will also positively effect the aircraft max speed (from mach 1.6 to mach 2.0)

JF-17 Blk 3 with load of EW/ECM avionics and engine with more power will attract more foreign buyers, hence the burden on Pakistan financial resources will be greatly reduce.

 

[Akh1112]

@Akh1112 , Assalamualikum
You are right about PAF willingness to continue using RD-93 on PAF JF-17s as it is more reliable and has low downtime. However, engine upgradation cannot be rule out.

Lets take the example of F-16s and F-15s. Initial blocks of these aircraft were having Pratt & Whitney's F-100-PW-100 engines. During engine usage number of shortcomings were highlighted by users and engines were upgraded to F-100-PW-200. Subsequent shortcoming reviews resulted in further upgradation of engine F-100-PW-220/220E. Newer blocks of F-16s are having F-100-PW-229 engines.

RD-93 is also an offshoot of RD-33 engine being used in number of Russian aircraft. In fact both engines are same except the gear box position is relocated in RD-93.

RD-93s are being upgraded to RD-93MA under the contract of Chinese company.
Source: https://www.defenseworld.net/news/2...ts__Enters_Thermal_Chamber_Tests#.X4O959AzbIU

Of course unit cost of RD-93MA will be more than older RD-93s, however, since 400 engines are being procured, per unit cost will obviously reduce due to bulk purchase and may be some ToT!!!!!

Please appreciate that RD-93MA is not a different brand of engine, same engine but upgraded to enhance its thrust performance, fuel efficiency and may be increase in service life.

Furthermore, upgraded engine will also positively effect the aircraft max speed (from mach 1.6 to mach 2.0)

JF-17 Blk 3 with load of EW/ECM avionics and engine with more power will attract more foreign buyers, hence the burden on Pakistan financial resources will be greatly reduce.

Yes but no.

While yes, you can use the F-16 and F-15 example, there is a massive difference in fiscal resources available to both programs. There was also the keyword being shortcomings, whereas the PAF is entirely satisfied with the RD93.

Also, i don't see the where it refers to the 93 being upg to MA.

The fact is right, what i have been saying is, for the PAF, the MA, is very unlikely- beyond unlikely to be inducted. Simply because of the fact that the JF-17B3 is already on the line. It makes no sense to have a handful of aircraft of X type but then have the rest of them be Y type, this complicates maintenance and ofc, adds cost to the JF-17 program.

However, i did not rule out the application of the MA to export customers, infact, i think i mentioned that as a potential use. I,e Malaysia being unsatisfied with RD-33 on their 29's, they would be ideal to pitch a JF-17 with a 93MA to.

While yes, its of the same family, there are some major differences, for example, a larger fan.

In terms of speed, you could have the JF-17 fly at mach 2, sure, the JF-17s airframe may be fine for that, however, you may find issues with the inlet design, DSI's typically are rated at Mach 2 as the never exceed/max speed etc, I do not know the details of the design of the JF-17s inlet but there could be a need to mess with that as well to accommodate higher speeds.

Yes there is the POTENTIAL issue of power generation, meaning yes, you could have issues heavily loading the JF-17 with vast amounts of external EW gear etc, but you can account for this by giving the pods their own power generation source in the form of a RAT like the ALQ-99. Alternatively you could just design more efficient systems, i,e switch from GaA based TRMs on EW gear to GaN based ones, which provide the same level of output for vastly less power, or the reverse, vastly greater output with the same footprint and same power input.

 

[Marker]

There was also the keyword being shortcomings, whereas the PAF is entirely satisfied with the RD93.

Also, i don't see the where it refers to the 93 being upg to MA.

"The RD-93MA engine has improved performance characteristics. In particular, increased thermodynamic parameters, improved design of the fan and hot section, modernized power plant automatic control system. Also, the main indicators have been increased - the assigned resource and thrust. An additional mode of emergency start of the engine in the air is provided and the possibility of emergency fuel draining is implemented. All this is due to the specifics associated with the possible use of the power plant on a single-engine aircraft, which entails additional safety requirements".
https://www.uecrus.com/rus/presscenter/odk_news/?ELEMENT_ID=3280

"According to UEC, the RD-93MA offers a range of improvements over the RD-93. These include “increased thermodynamic parameters” as well as improved fan design and automatic powerplant control system. It also improved the RD-93MA’s safety features – such as the addition of an emergency engine start mode – a necessity because the engine is meant for single-engine aircraft".
https://quwa.org/2020/07/12/is-the-new-klimov-rd-93ma-engine-an-option-for-the-jf-17-2/

 

[ziaulislam]

@Akh1112 , Assalamualikum
You are right about PAF willingness to continue using RD-93 on PAF JF-17s as it is more reliable and has low downtime. However, engine upgradation cannot be rule out.

Lets take the example of F-16s and F-15s. Initial blocks of these aircraft were having Pratt & Whitney's F-100-PW-100 engines. During engine usage number of shortcomings were highlighted by users and engines were upgraded to F-100-PW-200. Subsequent shortcoming reviews resulted in further upgradation of engine F-100-PW-220/220E. Newer blocks of F-16s are having F-100-PW-229 engines.

RD-93 is also an offshoot of RD-33 engine being used in number of Russian aircraft. In fact both engines are same except the gear box position is relocated in RD-93.

RD-93s are being upgraded to RD-93MA under the contract of Chinese company.
Source: https://www.defenseworld.net/news/2...ts__Enters_Thermal_Chamber_Tests#.X4O959AzbIU

Of course unit cost of RD-93MA will be more than older RD-93s, however, since 400 engines are being procured, per unit cost will obviously reduce due to bulk purchase and may be some ToT!!!!!

Please appreciate that RD-93MA is not a different brand of engine, same engine but upgraded to enhance its thrust performance, fuel efficiency and may be increase in service life.

Furthermore, upgraded engine will also positively effect the aircraft max speed (from mach 1.6 to mach 2.0)

JF-17 Blk 3 with load of EW/ECM avionics and engine with more power will attract more foreign buyers, hence the burden on Pakistan financial resources will be greatly reduce.

Yes its the same engine just an upgrade
PAF not procuring it will be due to cost issue rather then anything else

 

[Marker]

Yes its the same engine just an upgrade
PAF not procuring it will be due to cost issue rather then anything else

What is your source?

Then which engine will be used for JF-17 Block 3? Source needed.

 

[FuturePAF]

i doubt it is as comphrensive update as rd93ma.
rd93 was simply not certified for single engine aircraft..this issue among other were addressed in ma version

anyway there are no other customers for rd93ma..either its PAF or for export customer of FC1/JF17..

If the PAF buys the J-31 or some variant, and it shows promise, other countries may become interested in it shortly thereafter, namely Iran, and perhaps even North Korea in limited numbers, or perhaps in large numbers considering the number of F-35s being procured by both nations’ neighbors. Both are spending heavily on defense, and the J-31 maybe a platform that could be “competitive”. The Russians shouldn’t underestimate the demand for a RD-93MA class engine.

 

[Marker]

.....the PAF, the MA, is very unlikely- beyond unlikely to be inducted. Simply because of the fact that the JF-17B3 is already on the line. It makes no sense to have a handful of aircraft of X type but then have the rest of them be Y type, this complicates maintenance and ofc, adds cost to the JF-17 program.

While yes, its of the same family, there are some major differences, for example, a larger fan.

First of all we must realize that the cost of maintaining weapon systems specially air platforms are very high. Unfortunately due to adverse geopolitical situation, Pakistan has to bear such burden. However, PAF always managed to acquire and maintain large inventory of same or offshoots of weapon systems to minimize the cost by having common support facilities and equipment. Furthermore, the maintenance process for various offshoot aircraft are almost same or with slight difference. All complications can be addressed by having up to date maintenance job guides. Mirages and JF-17s are few good examples of this strategy.

Installing upgraded version of RD-93 will not require noticeable variation in support facilities and equipment at least for first and second line maintenance.

RD-93MA offers following improvements:
1. Increased thermodynamic parameters
2. improved design of the fan
3. Improved design of the hot section
4. Modernized power plant automatic control system.
5. Improved single engine aircraft safety features such as
A. An emergency engine start mode
B. Provision of emergency fuel draining.

The extent of upgradation clearly reveals that RD-93s fan module, combustion chamber, Turbine module and power plant automatic control system were either redesigned or modified to attain the required thermodynamic parameters.

In my opinion new RD-93 MAs will be installed on Block 3 production aircraft whenever these are made available.

However, older RD-93s upgradation to MAs depends on the extent of upgradation and its cost.

Due to RD-93 MAs installation on JF-17s, maintenance manuals and job guides will be up dated to cover all the variations in the maintenance process. There will be no noticeable change in consumables, support facilities and equipment requirement. However, some new spare parts for the MA engines will be required in the first and second line supply stock.

 

[denel]

Yes its the same engine just an upgrade
PAF not procuring it will be due to cost issue rather then anything else

It does not mean existing engines can be upgraded. There is no point to it;

Entire integration and test cycle needs to be redone. Option is there to exercise it for later blocks is how i would put it.

 

[ziaulislam]

It does not mean existing engines can be upgraded. There is no point to it;

Entire integration and test cycle needs to be redone. Option is there to exercise it for later blocks is how i would put it.

it simply means there will be alot of testing( & cost) needed to upgrade the engine but it is still possible and may be even useful

if indians can update old jaguars with darin III with completely new engines..rd93ma, afterall has same dimensions as the basic one

 

[denel]

it simply means there will be alot of testing( & cost) needed to upgrade the engine but it is still possible and may be even useful

if indians cant update old jaguars with darin III with completely new engines..rd93ma, afterall has same dimensions as the basic one

ABsolutely - like a mid life upgrade for Blk 2's assuming all blk1 have been upgraded to 2'.

 

[Marker]

In terms of speed, you could have the JF-17 fly at mach 2, sure, the JF-17s airframe may be fine for that, however, you may find issues with the inlet design, DSI's typically are rated at Mach 2 as the never exceed/max speed etc, I do not know the details of the design of the JF-17s inlet but there could be a need to mess with that as well to accommodate higher speeds.

JF-17 is having DSIs which helps in slowing down the engine inlet air.

Since thermodynamic parameters are improved in RD-93MAs, the engine will be able to provide higher dry and wet thrust. Installation of RD-93MAs will not only enhance the aircraft max speed but also improve overall combat performance.

In addition, this engine will be able to provide power to new AESA radar and EW/ECM package.

Yes there is the POTENTIAL issue of power generation, meaning yes, you could have issues heavily loading the JF-17 with vast amounts of external EW gear etc, but you can account for this by giving the pods their own power generation source in the form of a RAT like the ALQ-99. Alternatively you could just design more efficient systems, i,e switch from GaA based TRMs on EW gear to GaN based ones, which provide the same level of output for vastly less power, or the reverse, vastly greater output with the same footprint and same power input.

Your suggestion will not only decrease the net payload, reduce internal fuel capacity due to extra weight and space of power generation sources of individual avionic components, but also increase the cost of the avionics package.

JF-17 being a smaller aircraft needs optimum utilization of weight and space, not only to house, AESA radar, modern EW and ECM avionics package, various flight and mission computers and comm equipment but also to carry adequate amount of internal fuel along with weapons and external fuel tanks as payload according to assigned missions.

It does not mean existing engines can be upgraded. There is no point to it;

Entire integration and test cycle needs to be redone. Option is there to exercise it for later blocks is how i would put it.

If the upgradation of older engines is cost effective, with a reasonable gain in service life, PAF will go for such upgradation.

The process of engine upgradation and test cycle for older engine will be done once or may be two or three times as test cases to ascertain and finalize the upgradation knock down kit, tech manuals and test procedures.

 

[Trango Towers]

It does not mean existing engines can be upgraded. There is no point to it;

Entire integration and test cycle needs to be redone. Option is there to exercise it for later blocks is how i would put it.

Not true...
For example. Rd93 is a smokey engine.
By increasing the burn time and vertex generation in the combustion chamber the fuel burn could be much more efficient maximising thrust and range

 

[jamal18]

@Akh1112 , Assalamualikum
You are right about PAF willingness to continue using RD-93 on PAF JF-17s as it is more reliable and has low downtime. However, engine upgradation cannot be rule out.

Lets take the example of F-16s and F-15s. Initial blocks of these aircraft were having Pratt & Whitney's F-100-PW-100 engines. During engine usage number of shortcomings were highlighted by users and engines were upgraded to F-100-PW-200. Subsequent shortcoming reviews resulted in further upgradation of engine F-100-PW-220/220E. Newer blocks of F-16s are having F-100-PW-229 engines.

RD-93 is also an offshoot of RD-33 engine being used in number of Russian aircraft. In fact both engines are same except the gear box position is relocated in RD-93.

RD-93s are being upgraded to RD-93MA under the contract of Chinese company.
Source: https://www.defenseworld.net/news/2...ts__Enters_Thermal_Chamber_Tests#.X4O959AzbIU

Of course unit cost of RD-93MA will be more than older RD-93s, however, since 400 engines are being procured, per unit cost will obviously reduce due to bulk purchase and may be some ToT!!!!!

Please appreciate that RD-93MA is not a different brand of engine, same engine but upgraded to enhance its thrust performance, fuel efficiency and may be increase in service life.

Furthermore, upgraded engine will also positively effect the aircraft max speed (from mach 1.6 to mach 2.0)

JF-17 Blk 3 with load of EW/ECM avionics and engine with more power will attract more foreign buyers, hence the burden on Pakistan financial resources will be greatly reduce.

With such large order it would be criminal not to insist on some ToT. Youwon't get much, buta little would help.

Also local assembly and manufacture of non-critical parts.