What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 1]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alternate engines for Thunder

The Eurofighter's EJ200 has a very high T/W ratio of 9.175 with a thrust of some 20,000lb. Its nearest European counterpart can be Snecma's M88-3. Currently M88-2 is being used on Rafale but M88-3 can be Rafale's future engine.

The advantage of EJ200 is that Saudi Arabia shall also be deploying Eurofighters and thus a friendly neighbour shall be operating the same engine.

Among the US engines, GE F-414 that powers Super Hornet and Gripen NG fits the bill technically but the sanctions factor make it an unlikely candidate.

However both European engines have less weight than the GE F414 engine, which is an important consideration for a fighter jet.

The engine/power plant of JF-17 should give a T/W superior to 1 at least in air combat configuration which is two heat-seeking missiles and two BVRs without any external fuel tanks, assuming that belly fuel tank or under-wing tanks shall be jettisoned at the start of air combat or dogfight.

Among the Russian engines, there is no better than AL-31 of Su-27/30/35/37 series Flanker family. With this powerplant in JF-17, the pilot can virtually do any maneuver without fear of engine cut out or compressor stall. It was with this engine that Su-27 made almost 27 world records of performance.

But I think not all engines can be accomodated in the engine bay of Thunder with equal ease. Structural modifications can be done to a certain limit.

A larger diameter engine would entail enlargement of the fuselage and this shall in turn change all the external aerodynamics and then it would become almost redesign of aircraft.
 
Shehbazi

How realistic is the option for a Western power plant? Life cycle seems to be the main complaint - but is this worth leaving oneself open to a sanctions regime, the preferred method of "diplomacy" in the West?

As concieved JF-17 is not a deep strike platform, it is a multi-role but within a envolope narrowly defined.

A JF-17 with a Chinese J-11 engine will be a larger platform.
 
If the life cycle is short but its price is lower than western engines, then there is no need to think of replacement. Even if it costs a little more (over the western life cycle time) to use RD-93 but you have unrestricted access to spares and further supply, then too there is no need of replacement.

This factor can become serious if the cost is not even half but the life is 1/4th.

The only factor which is important is the flight performance of the fighter jet. I think computer simulations can be done to find out the effect on performance with a given engine. Even on the forum, we need some performance figures of Thunder with RD-93 to see whether it needs an engine replacement.

My posts were based on the reports that PAF is not happy with the current engine and wants an alternative.

If the performance like climb rate, acceleration, degree of thrust variation with altitude or any limitation on throttle usage are not satisfactory, then PAF can think of alternatives.
 
Last edited:
What I meant to say in the last post was that if RD-93's life is 1/4th then in principle 4 RD-93s should cost same as one western engine of the same thrust rating.

Giving weightage to free access, if 4 RD-93s cost $130 as compared to $100 of a single western engine, then its ok.

But I think we need further information on the engine life. It seems strange to me that whole engine needs replacement. To me it seems that the high temperature TURBINE section needs replacement instead of whole engine.

Thus we may reformulate our criteria as a single RD-93 with 3 extra TURBINE sections should cost the same as a single western engine of the same thrust rating if the life is really 1/4th.

Some western engines are using single crystal turbine blades with laser-drilled cooling holes and thus they are not cheap.
 
Well, an engine should serve two purposes:-

(a)....Produce enuf thrust to suit its mother jet so that it can fulfil all its assigned roles..

(b)... Should always remain available in the logistics depot along with its full spare support, any time all the time...

Any engine that achieves both, is good enough...:enjoy:

However, we have already witnessed that from Sabres to F-104s to F-16s, that PAF may be happy with (a) but always ran into problems when it came to (b).

As Thunder is concerned, its design philosophy was to build a medium tech , multi-role aircraft that promotes self-indigenisation and self sustenance ( as far as possible)...There are few areas where its considered unavoidable so dicision was taken to go ahead with western hardware but otherwise lets keep it as home-made..

I wont rely on Saudi too much because once fully operational, PAF will be operating around 240 Thunders (more than 13 squadrons) and don’t expect Saudis to support such a huge fleet ( in any crunch time)..

The Airforce version of Thunder will be mainly employed for an escort, point defence, Close Air support, Battlefield air interdiction and SEAD (once equipped with anti-radiation missiles) roles.

IMO, it won’t be serving as a deep strike fighter...With so many ground defences and AEWs and fighters hanging around everywhere, the days of manned deep-strike are probably over in Indo-Pak scenario….let that role be handled by H-2 and H-4 or something similar like these ( hint hint )..:azn:
 
Last edited:
So, to summarize:

Russian engine - possible problem with availablity?
Western Engine - possible problem with availablity

Chinese Engine - No problem with availablity (whenever it's ready for prime time) - No "serious" problem with performance

Sorry if I am being repetative - Pakistan do not have a white man's chance in harlem of availing Western engines - not until it has serious trade volumes with Europe and not untill it can pay without financing deals that amount to corporate welfare in Europe and witht he security arrangements that go with it --it will not have that any time soon.

Lets move on with what we have and can develop with our friends and allies and not spend time on farangi dreams.
 
Guys, may I present JF-17 in PAF colors. :enjoy:

da27cb94241b43584cbdaaf82c5e50be.jpg


Courtesy MuradK :pakistan:
 
dats the same plane that took part in 23rd march parade in 2007.

But the the plane i saw on documentary made by DAWN TV on JF-17, was quite different.

Nose looked very similar to F-16, maybe that was a more developed model of JF-17.
 
Look great!!!!!!!!!! :tup::yahoo:
 
Nice lines.. What is about those bigger nose posts? Is there a ersion with a bigger nose? Can anyone try to draw the new nose lines over this picture so we can start thinking? Mercy.
 
Finally, a new picture on the web! :smitten: I hope it's the first drop of rain in what could be called as long drought of Thunder pictures. :)
I don't think, water marks are an issue for the viewers so please don't hesitate, pictures are welcome in whatever form they come.
Thanks NEO & Tanks Sir Murad, it was a beautiful picture indeed. :tup:

This nose buzz sounds exciting....

I just wish that if the canopy was bit elevated and fuselage bit slimmer but I guess this is because of the available engine's diameter.

I will never forget that I stumble across this forum.... in search of Thunder's picture. Today I see this thread has over 70'000 hits :cheers:

If we make survey about how people came to know about :pdf: Thunder will top the poll :P
 
Araz, it is known that the quality problems which india faced in Russian equipment, specifically in engines of mig-29 were due to poor maintenance reasons. Germans were also using mig-29 but they managed to double the life span of engine as compare to india.
Still RD-93 has less life span as compare to western counterparts but that does not sacrifice performance. Chinese engine is rated even better.
Western engines have higher life span mainly due to their relatively advance know how of metallurgy.
However knowledge is spreading fast and as we say necessity is mother of invention. I expect to see improvement curve more steep in case of China, Pakistan and Russia as compare to west or US.
Coming to the subject of absorbing ToT, which is quite ambiguous term and can have different meaning from different perspective. We can very well assemble French engine which is more than enough but I would be more inclined to invest in China because this will also take away investment from west. So investing in China has kind a double effect.
Pakistan is in win win situation in both cases. Present regime will be more inclined towards French procurements rather than Chinese.
BTW, Why Russia is re-negotiating because USD has depreciated and metal prices rose 300% percent. This is called force majeure. No fault of Russians.

Batman
We do not have the metallurgical knowhow of the germans to make that difference. I fully agree that in the long run chinese engine will be the best of both worlds for us. But it is still not ready. Another thing to note is are there issues with the chinese engine that we do not know about?
People talk about US as an unreliable partner but in my humble opinion The russkies might be a bigger problem for us .
Another point (pure speculation on my part)is that if there is a french origin engine required with some element of know how transfer would it not helpus and our friends overcome issues with the engine.
The last thing is PAF has not been complacent with the chinese in the design of the aircraft and has constantly demanded changes and improvements. Is this another ploy to egg certain people into pullingtheir fingers out of their holes and get on with it? I think there is a lot going on behind the scene and we are merely scratching the surface.
my 2 paisas worth
Araz
 
Guys, may I present JF-17 in PAF colors. :enjoy:

da27cb94241b43584cbdaaf82c5e50be.jpg


Courtesy MuradK :pakistan:

Neo and Sir Murad K
Where are the rest of the photographs? Nobody will take just one photo and call it a day.Please guys let us see the rest of them.
Araz
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom