What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem is in the trust deficit between pakistan and Russia. there are plenty of suggestions that we would like to go on to incorporate WS13 /WS15 when it becomes available. I think it would be in Russia's interest rather than Pakistan's to propose such a step. Obviously the advantages dfor Russia are immense and continued custom of PAF would basically hamper the WS13 project of China. By the way I was under the impression that the MTBO of the RD93 series was certainly better than the RD33 series which the 29s have. Would love to hear your response.
Araz

That is why I gave the figure of 300-400 hrs.. older RD-33 are even worse at 200 hrs for next MTBO.
Although we must take into account that Mig29 have two engines and the load is not as high during peacetime... while JF-17 has only single engine.. as the amount of armament increases with time the load on engine would also increase... I can show you a few photos of IAF Mig29 bazz landings being made on single engine with one engine shut off.

Besides that the new Klimov RD-33K is being talked off as a good engine with better TBO... it remains to be seen what it comes up with.
 
.
By the way I was under the impression that the MTBO of the RD93 series was certainly better than the RD33 series which the 29s have. Would love to hear your response.
Araz

United engine corporation managing company -
tKRh7.jpg
 
. . .
i envy this Fighter plane "JF-17". If only pakistani realise what they have acheived with this platform.
i dont know how long it will take for tejas mass production,:hitwall:
1
 
.
i envy this Fighter plane "JF-17". If only pakistani realise what they have acheived with this platform.
i dont know how long it will take for tejas mass production,:hitwall:
1

actually IAF dosnt need tejas if it keeps purchasing rafale and additional SU30's. then to top it off the PAKFA. tejas seems to be someone's personal project.
 
.
there is apparantly a revised production schedule for the JFT.
the block-1 production of 8+42 a/c has been completed.
the block-11 production should start immediately after standing up of the 3rd JFT squadron. the new date is October-2012.
2013-14 will be utilized to produce the block-11 as well as upgrades of the block-1. first 16sq, then 26sq and then the 3rd JFT sq in 2014.
block-111 (the final version) production will start in 2015 and continue till 2016.
somewhere in this time-frame, the dual seat JF-17B will be inducted.
 
.
Further on the RD-33 engines and derivatives. Not the most up to date.
AERO-ENGINES - TURBOFAN, Russian Federation

Date Posted: 07-Oct-2004

Jane's Aero-Engines
ST PETERSBURG NPO IM KLIMOV

KLIMOV RD-33

Overview

Isotov's last and greatest achievement, an outstanding fighter engine in global service

In the late 1960s S P Isotov, who had previously designed only helicopter engines, decided to compete for the propulsion of the completely new next-generation MiG fighter, the MiG-29. Unexpectedly, his submission of an outstanding two-shaft augmented turbofan won in competition with two other engine bureaux. Detail design began in 1968 and the first complete-engine bench test took place in 1972. In 1976-91 more RD-33s were delivered than the total for any other engine in the world, but demand thereafter almost collapsed. However, all is not lost, and although production of new aircraft of the MiG-29 family is today confined to one-off prototypes, later versions -- notably the carrier-based MiG-29K series -- are being produced in India. Moreover, a later derivative engine powers the Sino/Pakistani FC-1. Perhaps more problematical are the two programmes for indigenous fighters being worked on by in Iran by two divisions of IAIO (see under Iran). The smaller aircraft, the IACI Shafagh (pre-dawn light), slightly resembles a two-seat F/A-18E on a reduced scale, but with a single RD-33 engine. The larger fighter, the IAMI Azarakhsh (lightning) is unofficially said to be a reverse-engineered and considerably enlarged two-seat Northrop F-5, powered by two RD-33 engines. The latter appears to be further advanced in timing (and to have completed flight testing in June 1997). See latest Jane's All the World's Aircraft for available details. There has been no indication that the RD-33 will be produced in Iran under licence. No details are available on the engine sub-type, but it must be similar to the RD-33N or RD-93, with accessories on top. Development of RD-33 derivatives continues under the direction of Chief Designer Valentin Stavroitenko.

RD-33

Initial production version. Ratings (max dry) 49.4 kN (11,110 lb st), (a/b) 81.4 kN (18,300 lb st). Powers MiG-29 and MiG-29UB, UBT, SD and SM. Deliveries began in 1976, and mass production at Chernyshov and Omsk followed in 1981-97. Total production approximately 5,000, of which more than half have been upgraded to later versions. TBO for the RD-33 Series 1 was initially 300 hours, but by 2001 this had been increased to 1,200. In May 2002 it was announced that, in collaboration with Klimov, the Series 1 engines of the 23 MiG-29s of Poland's WLOP (air force), as well as the engines of 22 MiG-29s taken over by the WLOP from Germany, had all been upgraded to a 1,600-hour TBO. Transfers were completed in June 2004, since when the WLOP's 45 MiG-29s have formed the core of the Polish air assets dedicated to NATO. Together with 74 spare engines, these MiG-29s are expected to serve until 2012 to 2014, even though the WLOP is due to receive Block 52M+ F-16s from 2008. RD-33 Series 2 engines have always been operated to a TBO of 1,600 hours. This interval is increased to 2,000 hours in the Series 3 and 3M, the latter being redesignated RD-33K (see below). In May 2004 Hungary announced that it had received from Russia the first five of 14 life-extended engines, and that the remaining nine would "follow shortly". These will keep Hungarian MiG-29s viable until the Gripen force is operational. A month later Slovakia announced that it had at last reached agreement with Russia over an overdue upgrade of 12 MiG-29s in a contract worth US$43 million signed with RSK-MiG; the work concentrates on the airframe, and the need for NATO interoperability. In recent years the Islamic Republic of Iran has devoted much time, including serious design effort, to producing indigenous aircraft powered by baseline RD-33 engines, of which it has a considerable stock (see brief comments above). The RD-33 was the basis for the SMR-95 (see Aerosud-Marvol in the International section).

RD-33I

Unaugmented version produced in 1980 for Ilyushin Il-102 anti-tank prototypes. T-O rating 52.15 kN (11,728 lb st).

RD-33K

Powers carrier-based MiG-29K, advanced MiG-29M and derivatives. Increased maximum airflow and turbine entry temperature, special coatings on all blading to resist salt-water corrosion, and dual DECU control. Normal T-O rating unchanged from RD-33, but special regime cleared to 92.17 kN (20,723 lb st). After years of negotiation, in January 2004 the Indian government finally a US$700 million contract with RSK-MiG for an initial batch of 16 MiG-29K fighters, for deployment aboard the Indian Navy's aircraft carrier previously named Admiral Gorshkov. The intention is that the eventual buy will total 46 (some of which will be MiG-29KUB trainers), though not all will be on board at any one time. In June 2004 Valeriy Toryanin, Director-General of RSK-MiG, told Jane's Defence Weekly that "This contract has a crucial importance for us; it is a powerful impulse for the creation of further aircraft of the MiG-29 family". He added that, at India's request, his company was working on a MiG-29 with "a smaller version of the Su-30MKI radar and an upgraded engine. In April 2004 a second customer, Algeria, was expected to sign a US$1.8 billion contract for 42 MiG-29SMT multirole fighters and seven UBT trainers, all powered by the RD-33K

RD-33N

Klimov designation for SMR-95 (see below). Accessories relocated on underside, modified lubrication system and changes to suit single-engine installation. Thrust ratings as RD-33. Powers Super Mirage F1 and Super Cheetah D2. Available from Klimov for MiG-21 upgrades.

RD-93

Basically similar to the RD-33N, with thrust ratings as the RD-33. Accessories on the underside, and other minor changes to suit the single-engine installation, with lateral inlets, of the Sino/Pakistani (Chengdu/Mikoyan) JF-17 Thunder (previously reported as the FC-1 Super-7). This aircraft is essentially being created by China under contract to Pakistan, as a new-generation aircraft to replace the long-running J-7 family. Several JF-17 prototypes are being made at the No 132 factory at Chengdu. The first JF-17 looked complete in late 2002, when it was stated that the first flight was scheduled for February 2003, and that series production had been launched, with 12 aircraft due to be delivered to Islamabad in 2004. In fact the first aircraft was not completed until 29 May 2003, when it was ceremonially rolled out (at which time three or four more aircraft could be seen in the assembly hall). This first aircraft did not fly until 25 August 2003, and formal flight testing began on 2 September. Western sources have stated that production of this aircraft is due to start in 2004 (one report even said June 2004), but the Editor considers this an impossible objective. He believes that by late 2003 no decision had been taken on production, except that the agreement with Pakistan still held. The number of 150 aircraft has appeared in the Chinese press, but by 2004 unofficial reports stated that the PAF has an ultimate requirement for 1,000, made under licence at Islamabad for about one-quarter the cost of Western fighters. Since 7 April 2004 two Pakistani test pilots have handled an increasing share of the test flying, at least the first prototype bearing PAF markings. However, Robert Karniol, the Asia-Pacific Editor of Jane's Defence Weekly, reported at the beginning of October 2003 that Russia has pointed out that the engine exported to China cannot legally be re-exported to Pakistan. Neither the cash-strapped Russian government nor Klimov wish to halt the export (to whoever) of RD-93 engines, and this situation would appear to call merely for further negotiations. Other sales prospects -- apart from the by no means certain prospect of China itself -- have been named as Bangladesh, Egypt and Nigeria. If numbers are adequate, the engine could be produced under licence by LMC (see under China), though the JF-17 prototypes are being powered by a small batch of RD-93 engines supplied by Klimov from existing stocks.

SMR-95

See under Aerosud-Marvol in International section.

RD-133

Intended engine of the highly agile MiG-29M4. It is basically an RD-33 to the latest production standard, fitted with KLIVT (Klimov's Vectoring Thrust) axi-symmetric nozzle with vectoring to any position within a cone of 15º semi-angle. Control of nozzle angle is effected by the conventional hydro-mechanical flight controls of the MiG-29OVT testbed, via a simple interlink. The RD-133 is installationally interchangeable with the RD-33, and the nozzle can be retrofitted to existing RD-33 engines. T-O rating (a/b) 88.25 kN (19,841 lb st), max dry 54.89 kN (12,346 lb st).

RD-333

Though derived from the RD-33 this is regarded by Klimov as a new `fifth-generation' engine. Features include a redesigned fan handling 85 kg (187.4 lb)/s, a rebladed compressor, an HP turbine with maximum entry gas temperature increased to 1,527ºC and a rectangular 2-D nozzle vectoring in the vertical plane. Maximum thrust is to be 98.1 kN (22,057 lb st). Testing complete engines was to start in 1999, but has slipped. The RD-333 is intended for the LMFI (Light Multirole Fighter), also known as the MiG-35.

VKS-5, VKS-10

See later entry KLIMOV RD-43.

The following refers to the original production RD-33:

Type

Two-shaft afterburning bypass turbojet (low-ratio turbofan).

LP Compressor

Four stages. Front bearing carried in four-strut nose, but no inlet guide vanes. Mass air flow 76.0 kg (167.5 lb)/s. Bypass ratio 0.49.

HP Compressor

Nine stages. Overall pressure ratio 21.

Combustion Chamber

Annular with air-blast fuel nozzles giving generally smokeless combustion of a range of fuels.

HP Turbine

Single-stage with single-crystal cooled blades. Maximum entry gas temperature, 1,257ºC at T-O, 1,407ºC in flight.

LP Turbine

Single-stage turbine.

Afterburner

Combustion in both core and bypass flows. Nozzle with fully variable area and profile in primary and secondary flows. Outer nozzle has 24 flaps. Vectoring nozzles under preliminary development by CIAM and Soyuz.

Accessories

Tank for IPM-10 oil, hydro-mechanical fuel control and auxiliaries grouped above engine to reduce cross-section. Closed lubrication system functions under all positive or negative g-loads. Multi-purpose self-diagnostic system.

Dimensions

RD-33:
Length 4,229 mm (166.50 in)
Inlet diameter 730 mm (28.74 in)
Maximum diameter 1,000 mm (39.37 in)
RD-33K:
Length 4,230 mm (166.54 in)
Inlet diameter 733 mm (28.86 in)
Maximum diameter 1,040 mm (40.945 in)
RD-33N:
Length 5,440 mm (214.17 in)
Maximum diameter 1,040 mm (40.94 in)
RD-93, RD-133:
Length 4,230 mm (166.54 in)
Maximum diameter 1,040 mm (40.94 in)


Weight, Dry

RD-33, RD-93 1,055 kg (2,326 lb)
Complete power plant 1,217 kg (2,683 lb)
RD-33K 1,050 kg (2,315 lb)
RD-33N 1,295 kg (2,855 lb)
RD-133 1,145 kg (2,524 lb)


Performance Ratings

See model listing. Time from idle to maximum afterburner 4.0 s. Maximum Mach number 2.35.

Specific Fuel Consumption

RD-33, RD-33K, RD-33N, RD-93:
Maximum augmented 52.40 mg/Ns (1.85 lb/h/lb st)
Maximum dry, S/L 21.8 mg/Ns (0.77 lb/h/lb st)
RD-133:
Maximum dry, S/L 22.08 mg/Ns (0.78 lb/h/lb st)


UPDATED


RD-33 section drawing (without afterburner)


RD-33


RD-33 afterburner and nozzle


RD-33 accessories


RD-33K


Cutaway drawing of RD-33


Vectoring nozzle for RD-133 and VKS-10. The logo is that of the Klimov Corporation (Yefim Gordon)


RD-33N


RD-93


RD-133 with KLIVT Thrust Vectoring Nozzle


RD-33


Detail of cutaway afterburner nozzle of Chernyshev-made RD-33
 
.
Further on the RD-33 engines and derivatives. Not the most up to date.

TBO for the RD-33 Series 1 was initially 300 hours, but by 2001 this had been increased to 1,200.

upgraded to a 1,600-hour TBO.

RD-33 Series 2 engines have always been operated to a TBO of 1,600 hours. This interval is increased to 2,000 hours in the Series 3 and 3M

And I am the most powerful person on earth.

This is pure BS... the whole life of RD-33(earlier series) don't exceed 1400-1600hrs.
However the latest one is being claimed to be having a life period of 4000hrs(which is highly optimistic).

RD-33(1st series)---MTBO=150hrs or less(they claimed it to be of 300hrs).
RD-33(improved varient)---MTBO=200-250hrs(figures given were 400-500hrs).
RD-33K(latest and much improved)---claimed MTBO=700hrs.

Russian engines are not as good when it comes to maintenance... If you have lab staff them you can achieve the figures of 700hrs as demonstrated by the Germans technicians.

No doubt the Klimov company would give you figures of 700hrs and 1000hrs.. they'll also demonstrate that... however that happens only with Lab staff.. No Air force can afford such high level technicians for its entire fleet.
 
. . .
And I am the most powerful person on earth.

This is pure BS... the whole life of RD-33(earlier series) don't exceed 1400-1600hrs.
However the latest one is being claimed to be having a life period of 4000hrs(which is highly optimistic).

RD-33(1st series)---MTBO=150hrs or less(they claimed it to be of 300hrs).
RD-33(improved varient)---MTBO=200-250hrs(figures given were 400-500hrs).
RD-33K(latest and much improved)---claimed MTBO=700hrs.

Russian engines are not as good when it comes to maintenance... If you have lab staff them you can achieve the figures of 700hrs as demonstrated by the Germans technicians.

No doubt the Klimov company would give you figures of 700hrs and 1000hrs.. they'll also demonstrate that... however that happens only with Lab staff.. No Air force can afford such high level technicians for its entire fleet.

AFAIK, the MTBO and Service life of the Klimov engines have'nt increased substantially from the past; nothwithstanding Klimov claims.
And BRD maintenance is subtantially different from Factory maintenance. Not to forget that the life of these engines drops in the hot, dusty environment in the sub-continent- which is very different from Russia.

IAF even uses measures like single engine operation of its Klimovs, esp in landings to stretch engine hours. Which is possible in the twin-engine MiG-29s.

So, it is not surprising that the IAF plumped for GE F414 engines instead, though HAL has a production line for RD-33 series 3 engines at HAL Koraput.
 
.
^^our indian colleagues are really trying their best to 'degrade' the JFT project by any means whatsoever - now it really sounds like sour grapes as their vaunted Tejas IOC is now further delayed into 2013..........

the PAF will not have any problem overhauling these engines after 400-500 hours - this will be a huge plus since the PAF is/was used to overhauling F-6 engines only after 100 hours and kept the huge fleet in operation at 70-80%.
 
.
^^our indian colleagues are really trying their best to 'degrade' the JFT project by any means whatsoever - now it really sounds like sour grapes as their vaunted Tejas IOC is now further delayed into 2013..........

the PAF will not have any problem overhauling these engines after 400-500 hours - this will be a huge plus since the PAF is/was used to overhauling F-6 engines only after 100 hours and kept the huge fleet in operation at 70-80%.


Fatman17, coming from you; this response is both amazing and disappointing.

Where is the relevance to Tejas, that you had to drag that into this thread?
The issue being discussed was the MTBO and service life of the Klimov RD-33/93 engines which happens to power the JF-17 just as it happens to power the IAF MiG-29s. The problems/shortcomings with these engines is well documented in the public domain and has found reference here. You would be well advised to refer to the literature available on the net to confirm that.

If the PAF (or anybody else for that matter) is comfortable with that factor, then so be it. About the abysmally low service life of the F-6 engines, even that is common knowledge just as the fact that humongous numbers of engines had to be kept available just to keep the aircraft serviceable. But that was a different time and age. Now will any AF be comfortable with trying to maintain a similar logistical chain, esp. if the engines come from a Third-Party supplier?

I sincerely hope that you will consider all factors before penning a response, that may IMVHO be considered to be 'half-c0cked'?
 
.
Fatman17, coming from you; this response is both amazing and disappointing.

Where is the relevance to Tejas, that you had to drag that into this thread?
The issue being discussed was the MTBO and service life of the Klimov RD-33/93 engines which happens to power the JF-17 just as it happens to power the IAF MiG-29s. The problems/shortcomings with these engines is well documented in the public domain and has found reference here. You would be well advised to refer to the literature available on the net to confirm that.

If the PAF (or anybody else for that matter) is comfortable with that factor, then so be it. About the abysmally low service life of the F-6 engines, even that is common knowledge just as the fact that humongous numbers of engines had to be kept available just to keep the aircraft serviceable. But that was a different time and age. Now will any AF be comfortable with trying to maintain a similar logistical chain, esp. if the engines come from a Third-Party supplier?

I sincerely hope that you will consider all factors before penning a response, that may IMVHO be considered to be 'half-c0cked'?

there is a measurable difference between the two cousins of the same powerplant family
The Rd-93 has demonstrated better MTBO times than the ones put forward as comparisons(although not as good as advertised by Klimov). It has however, surprised most PAF logistical planners with its metalurgical reliability as compared to the Chinese engines in operations with other PAF fighters.
Infact... the PAF has declined the Chinese engine specifically because it does not meet its reliability quota.
The Rd-93 is destined to power all versions of the JF-17.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom