Introducing - JF-17 Thunder Block - II

[PakEye]

Some new information has been released on the current and future status of JF-17 Thunder.
Reportedly, Block-3 will feature a high thrust engine, AESA radar and other new sensors, full authority digital FBW and expanded weapons capabilities.

High Thrust Engine means WS-13 ?

 

[Windjammer]

Sir does it imply we are going for a new Engine and FBW provision in roll axis too?

Reportedly the WS-13E has achieved certification and will go into serial production by mid-2017..
Presently the JF-17 does incorporates digital FBW technology in the pitch axis as well as duplex analog FBW in the roll axis.
The new engine will provide a thrust of 95 kN compared to the current RD-93 rated at 81.3 kN.

 

[aftab_s81]

Reportedly the WS-13E has achieved certification and will go into serial production by mid-2017..
Presently the JF-17 does incorporates digital FBW technology in the pitch axis as well as duplex analog FBW in the roll axis.
The new engine will provide a thrust of 95 kN compared to the current RD-93 rated at 81.3 kN.

Any source of WS-13E certification?

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

The IFR probe which appeared on the aircraft 2-29 will be the standard on all new build block-2 air frames.
The likes of Brazilian MAR-1, C-802AK and CM-400AKG are now operational with the JF-17.
Additionally KG-300G or KG-600 countermeasure pods can be carried for self protection while Chinese WMD-7 infra-red / laser designation pod is now compatible for targeting.

What about the ASELPOD that was bought by PAF?

 

[Windjammer]

What about the ASELPOD that was bought by PAF?

I guess that's where GBU-12 comes in.

 

[Sulman Badshah]

Reportedly the WS-13E has achieved certification and will go into serial production by mid-2017..
Presently the JF-17 does incorporates digital FBW technology in the pitch axis as well as duplex analog FBW in the roll axis.
The new engine will provide a thrust of 95 kN compared to the current RD-93 rated at 81.3 kN.

Thing i noticed in Pac broucher that engine thrust is 79kn dry to 98 kn

 

[Windjammer]

Thing i noticed in Pac broucher that engine thrust is 79kn dry to 98 kn
View attachment 314632

Specifications (RD-33)
Data from Janes Aero Engines, Klimov Website

General characteristics

• Type: afterburning turbofan
• Length: 4,229 mm (166.50 in)
• Diameter: 1,040 mm (40.94 in)
• Dry weight: 1,055 kg (2,326 lb)

Components

• Compressor: 2 spool axial, 4 low pressure stages, 9 high pressure stages
• Combustors: annular combustor
• Turbine: Single stage high pressure, single stage low pressure

Performance

• Maximum thrust: 50.0 kN (11,230 lbf) Dry, 81.3 kN (18,285 lbf) Afterburning.
• Overall pressure ratio: 21:1
• Bypass ratio: 0.49:1
• Turbine inlet temperature: 1,407 °C (2,565 °F)
• Specific fuel consumption: 75 kg/(kN·h) (0.77 lb/(lbf·h)) dry, 188 kg/(kN·h) (1.85 lb/(lbf·h))
• Thrust-to-weight ratio: 4.82:1 (dry), 7.9:1 (afterburning)
• Life expectancy: 4,000 hours

 

[Sulman Badshah]

Specifications (RD-33)
Data from Janes Aero Engines, Klimov Website

General characteristics

• Type: afterburning turbofan
• Length: 4,229 mm (166.50 in)
• Diameter: 1,040 mm (40.94 in)
• Dry weight: 1,055 kg (2,326 lb)

Components

• Compressor: 2 spool axial, 4 low pressure stages, 9 high pressure stages
• Combustors: annular combustor
• Turbine: Single stage high pressure, single stage low pressure

Performance

• Maximum thrust: 50.0 kN (11,230 lbf) Dry, 81.3 kN (18,285 lbf) Afterburning.
• Overall pressure ratio: 21:1
• Bypass ratio: 0.49:1
• Turbine inlet temperature: 1,407 °C (2,565 °F)
• Specific fuel consumption: 75 kg/(kN·h) (0.77 lb/(lbf·h)) dry, 188 kg/(kN·h) (1.85 lb/(lbf·h))
• Thrust-to-weight ratio: 4.82:1 (dry), 7.9:1 (afterburning)
• Life expectancy: 4,000 hours

Brother I know the data .it was meant to be 81kn .. But .the above pic is from PAC official brochure ... Why they mention 79-98 KN ???

and Also manufacturer Kilmov poster in Zhuhai airshow that one also mentioned 79-98 KN

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

The first two JF-17B dual-seat currently under production will be handed over to the PAF in December.

Which engine would these aircraft have?

 

[Windjammer]

Brother I know the data .it was meant to be 81kn .. But .the above pic is from PAC official brochure ... Why they mention 79-98 KN ???

and Also manufacturer Kilmov poster in Zhuhai airshow that one also mentioned 79-98 KN
View attachment 314641

Some confusion there, elsewhere it's reported to be 84.6

• Powerplant: 1 × Klimov RD-93 or Guizhou WS-13[3]
  • Dry thrust: 49.7 kN / 51.2 kN (11,106 lbf / 11,510 lbf)
  • Thrust with afterburner: 84.6 kN (19,000 lbf)
• G-limit: +8 g / -3 g

Which engine would these aircraft have?

It's reported that the WS-13 will not be available until later in 2017, so i guess initially they will have the same Russian engines.

 

[Bratva]

Brother I know the data .it was meant to be 81kn .. But .the above pic is from PAC official brochure ... Why they mention 79-98 KN ???

and Also manufacturer Kilmov poster in Zhuhai airshow that one also mentioned 79-98 KN
View attachment 314641

It is the same case of putting 1.8 Mach on many posters until PAC began posting real 1.6 mac figure for JF-17. 98 KN is just a feel good figure, as ghalib said, "Dil ko behlanay key lye ye khayal acha hai ghalib""

 

[Arsalan]

It is the same case of putting 1.8 Mach on many posters until PAC began posting real 1.6 mac figure for JF-17. 98 KN is just a feel good figure, as ghalib said, "Dil ko behlanay key lye ye khayal acha hai ghalib""

What worries me more is the dry thrust which is quite poor to be frank. However, on the positive side, what worries me or what seems poor to me is of secondary importance and as long as PAF is happy with it i am willing to put my trust in there judgement (despite a few bad calls). I hope that the future holds something even better for the JF17 project.

 

[Bratva]

What worries me more is the dry thrust which is quite poor to be frank. However, on the positive side, what worries me or what seems poor to me is of secondary importance and as long as PAF is happy with it i am willing to put my trust in there judgement (despite a few bad calls). I hope that the future holds something even better for the JF17 project.

lets face it, PAF is happy because they dont got any other choice so they have to put up the brave face every now and then. You have seen F-16 and JF-17 flypasts, You have seen how JF-17 seems so restricted in its maneuvers vis a vis F-16 maneuvers. Or check the Vertical climb of LCA, can JF do that ? no it breaks the vertical climb in the middle.

There are only two choices for JF. Either WS-13 or RD-93MA. Neither of them coming before 2018 at the very earliest.

 

[Arsalan]

lets face it, PAF is happy because they dont got any other choice so they have to put up the brave face every now and then. You have seen F-16 and JF-17 flypasts, You have seen how JF-17 seems so restricted in its maneuvers vis a vis F-16 maneuvers. Or check the Vertical climb of LCA, can JF do that ? no it breaks the vertical climb in the middle.

There are only two choices for JF. Either WS-13 or RD-93MA. Neither of them coming before 2018 at the very earliest.

Well i agree with the lack of options part but if you dissect that you will see it also have two parts, lack of resources and lack of a real need. In JF17 both the cases are present and to be true, we have to admit both.
I am not sure about maneuverability thing as i have seen near vertical take off of JF17 and the maneuverability seems good enough. Surely it wont be as acrobatic as some others but we made it not for that reason and if it do gets the job done even if it does nothing fancy, that is what actually matter to us. PAF and Pakistan really do not afford to be in fancy things right now and value for money is the name of the game even if it means cutting it too close.

 

[Windjammer]

Well i agree with the lack of options part but if you dissect that you will see it also have two parts, lack of resources and lack of a real need. In JF17 both the cases are present and to be true, we have to admit both.
I am not sure about maneuverability thing as i have seen near vertical take off of JF17 and the maneuverability seems good enough. Surely it wont be as acrobatic as some others but we made it not for that reason and if it do gets the job done even if it does nothing fancy, that is what actually matter to us. PAF and Pakistan really do not afford to be in fancy things right now and value for money is the name of the game even if it means cutting it too close.

There's no comparison viz-a-viz the F-16 but claiming that the Tejas has a better performance is just a shot in the dark.
We have all seen the JF-17 take off and go vertical even with gear down and then it levels out not because it can't sustain the climb but rather as it reaches it's display altitude....on the contrary the LCA doesn't perform a vertical take off and those claiming need to work on their observation closely.....after getting airborne, the Tejas runs along the runway, gathers power and speed before zooming up. Something which is even often displayed by subsonic machines. And if the performance of the JF-17 is so average then one wonders how it managed to hold more than it's own during recent joint exercises....perhaps the other sides were just feeling generous.