JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[Dazzler]

That's what i'm trying to say from last couple of posts. RD-93 will be over stretched if Aesa, Extra hardpoint, IRST or any other weight consuming or power consuming thing is added to JF-17 and will put a negative effect on JF-17. Already Maximum thrust of RD-93 is 86 KN~

Please stop thinking of yourself as the ultimate wise guy, you think these issues were not considered by the users/ developers of the weapon system? Ever heard of Gripen NG? it has an AESA radar (vixen series) and which engine does it use? it is not the monstrous F-100/110 but a medium sized F414 ranging at around 85-90 kn. Power management on an aircraft does not mean to equip it with most powerful engine out there always, it also requires complex integration optimization to get maximum out of it.

 

[fatman17]

can any one plz compare AESA and KLJ-7.if we are getting KLJ-7 is it good or not?

any progression on the KLJ-7 could be the KLJ-10 (?)

 

[alimobin memon]

Rotatory plate is a new feature in klj-7 and radar range ... SAR was already present ..

 

[arya]

Please stop thinking of yourself as the ultimate wise guy, you think these issues were not considered by the users/ developers of the weapon system? Ever heard of Gripen NG? it has an AESA radar (vixen series) and which engine does it use? it is not the monstrous F-100/110 but a medium sized F414 ranging at around 85-90 kn. Power management on an aircraft does not mean to equip it with most powerful engine out there always, it also requires complex integration optimization to get maximum out of it.

i think u r not right, everone in this forum know about Gripen NG , but my dear friend NG is powered by the General Electric F414G, This engine produces 15 % more thrust at 98 kN (22,000 lbf)compared to RD 93.

 

[shbaziz]

A quick question... At Zhuhai 2010, Kilmov poster claimed RD-93's thrust to be upto 98KN. Does that require some tweaking? Can this be done to cater for power demand for multiple Transmitters of an AESA radar?

 

[satishkumarcsc]

A quick question... At Zhuhai 2010, Kilmov poster claimed RD-93's thrust to be upto 98KN. Does that require some tweaking? Can this be done to cater for power demand for multiple Transmitters of an AESA radar?

No. It cannot be tweaked but can be possibly increased to 98 Kn by a redesign of the engine. Russians(Klimov) have been claiming it in most of their RD-33 series engines.

The thrust is not the major factor in powering the avionics but it is the electrical output of the engine.

 

[shbaziz]

No. It cannot be tweaked but can be possibly increased to 98 Kn by a redesign of the engine. Russians(Klimov) have been claiming it in most of their RD-33 series engines.

The thrust is not the major factor in powering the avionics but it is the electrical output of the engine.

Redesign is a huge term bro!!! to what extent i mean. And Engine power should directly affect Electrical output of an engine, isn't it?

 

[Dazzler]

i think u r not right, everone in this forum know about Gripen NG , but my dear friend NG is powered by the General Electric F414G, This engine produces 15 % more thrust at 98 kN (22,000 lbf)compared to RD 93.

and you missed the point, the NG engine is still no F100, GE 110 class, but a medium thrust engine below 100 KN with afterburner.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Redesign is a huge term bro!!! to what extent i mean. And Engine power should directly affect Electrical output of an engine, isn't it?

Remember the F 404 to F 414EPE....that's the difference...The F 404 was a leaky engine....and the F 414 was an upgrade of it. And the Electrical output depends in the dynamo not the engine thrust...

am drunk...forgive me for typos

 

[BATMAN]

Why shall AESA consume more energy than a comparable range PESA?

IMO, it shall be other way around!

About Gripen, don't they use RM12 design of Volvo!

http://www.volvoaero.com/volvoaero/...aft engines/RM12/Pages/introduction_RM12.aspx

RM12 technical engine data
total length
4.04 m/159 in
max.diameter
0.884 m/34.8 in
inlet diameter
0.709 m/27.9 in
engine dry weight
1055 kg/2325 lbs
bypass ratio
0.31:1
total compression ratio
27.5:1
max thrust with afterburner
80.5 kN/18100 lb
max thrust without afterburner
54 kN/12150 lb

 

[SQ8]

Remember the F 404 to F 414EPE....that's the difference...The F 404 was a leaky engine....and the F 414 was an upgrade of it. And the Electrical output depends in the dynamo not the engine thrust...

am drunk...forgive me for typos

F404's design is called a leaky turbojet.. the F414 maintains that design philosophy.
The F404 in its day had better engine stall resistance than the F-100.. but due to the fact that it was still a glorified turbojet.. it burned up a lot more fuel as well.
Todays F-100-220 is much much less prone to engine stalls compared to the original.. and it burns much less gas as well while providing more power for the pound.
An F-15 is actually more fuel efficient than a hornet.. both having twin engines
The F414 has improved over the paltry fuel economy of the F404 and it is now in turbofan territory, but it still suffers from bad fuel specifics when compared to a PW F-100.
Even the RD-93 or Al-31 derivatives have it over the F-404 or F414 in terms of more power or fuel efficiency per pound..
its western reliability that matters with the F-414 and its maintenance friendly design.

 

[shbaziz]

Why shall AESA consume more energy than a comparable range PESA?

An AESA radar consists of an array of antennae each one of them having a separate power source. While the phase shifts suppresses and steers the beam in a certain direction, different Trans/receivers could be used for separate purposes e.g., Some of them could be used for jamming etc. In a PESA radars though we have an array of radars, yet they SHARE a common power source. Different antennae would only be used to steer the beam (so we wont need the mechanical movement of the dish) but they aint able to work independently like in an AESA radar.... Hence to fully utilize the goodies of an AESA radar, it must be provided with more energy.

 

[hatf IX]

As per my info . . .
one T/R Moduel need about 40 to 60 watt at peak . . . and if there are 1000 T/R modual than that AESA need about 40,000 to 60,000 watts that would be equal to 40 to 60 Kilo Watt comparative to mechanical array radar 5 to 6 kilo watt

AESA need 10 time more power than KLJ-7

i think it will be a big issue . . . . . .

 

[satishkumarcsc]

F404's design is called a leaky turbojet.. the F414 maintains that design philosophy.
The F404 in its day had better engine stall resistance than the F-100.. but due to the fact that it was still a glorified turbojet.. it burned up a lot more fuel as well.
Todays F-100-220 is much much less prone to engine stalls compared to the original.. and it burns much less gas as well while providing more power for the pound.
An F-15 is actually more fuel efficient than a hornet.. both having twin engines
The F414 has improved over the paltry fuel economy of the F404 and it is now in turbofan territory, but it still suffers from bad fuel specifics when compared to a PW F-100.
Even the RD-93 or Al-31 derivatives have it over the F-404 or F414 in terms of more power or fuel efficiency per pound..
its western reliability that matters with the F-414 and its maintenance friendly design.

And I thought F 404 was an after-burning turbofan....and it couldnt maintain constant pressure in the compressors and hence was called a 'leaky' engine.

And Mod I thnk we might end up derailing the thread...so we will stop here.

 

[Imran Khan]

count the front landing gears