What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

Like I said, it is guess work on my part. I could be wrong & you could be right. We know that Block-III birds are being assembled as of now. If RD-93MA is not available then they would have to be powered by vanilla RD-93 - notice that I am treating WS-13E as a rumor because there is no confirmation about its use in JF-17. RD-93MA could easily be ~ 2 years away & that aligns with an order of 30 birds. PAF could easily place an order for 50 instead of 30. Its not as though JF-17 production is coming at an end, or that the completion of the order is somehow time-bound, or that PAF & PAC are in different hemispheres altogether. I do not see budgeting issues as the reason for an order of 30 vs an order of 50. But the availability & change of the engine could be a big enough reason to warrant a smaller order because that would effectively change the bird's performance. Again, this is pure guess-work & I would love to be wrong.

From a different point of view, it makes sense in all of its best guess work. I agree. Just wanted to add that in the meantime, PAF will be going through all the familiarization work & pilot getting acquaintance in process till the alleged new engine. At-least, it may not burden the operational process when it comes to learning the new engine as other tech/radar/EW/Weapons will be absorbed. Apparently, it is done in a manner to not to waste time and continue with process without delay. One cannot ignore the economic hammering & all the damage being done due to pandemic but, Force did a good job and kept with it without compromising. I say that, it's not that easy to absorb & induct a totally new tech from Electronics to Weaponry and Radar and everything at the same time while engine arrives and we start flying.

The above guess work seems plausible since, we are not insiders.

Till the time of initial 30s are inducted, pilots & ground crew are being trained accordingly or at-least as minimum bench mark except the new engine, the newer engine & its familiarization wouldn't take that much time as compare to sit and wait for it to come online. Even, theoretically speaking, these 30 engines can be swapped with newer and the older RD-93s can go to existing Block-IIs/Is fleet as an extra add and for spares. I see that instead of waiting for newer engine, PAF went along the existing RD-93s in inventory to fly Block-III, practice, evaluate it and if there is a replacement, these engines with so much of low hours spent; can be pretty much useful with Block-II/I frames and utilized accordingly. Nothing is wasted.

Just a crazy spin.
 
.
RD-93 & WS-13 are quite identical. I do not think there would be major issues. Remember that FC-1 went through tests with WS-13 a long time ago.

My hunch is (no sources at all, just guess work) that reason why Block-III order being only 30 units may be due to engine.

Sorry to report that my hunch seems to be correct.

See this:

The link to this article was posted in the JF-17 Exports thread by @siegecrossbow. The relevant part of the article is this:

"When asked if the JF-17 Block III will be powered by the new and more powerful Russian RD-93MA engine (modernized version of the RD-93 that equips the current Thunder) or the Chinese Guizhou WS-13, the answer was… neither.

PAC confirmed that for now there are no plans to change the propulsion plant of the JF-17, which will use the same model as the previous Thunder blocks."


So looks like the first production batch of JF-17 Block-III would use simple RD-93. This could mean that the present engine has enough (dry thrust) power for the avionics available, and also that PAC would wait for availability of RD-93MA and then retrofit it to the first batch.
 
.
2 PAC JF-17A Block IIs, each armed with 2 X SD-10 BVR missiles, 2 X PL-5EII IR missiles, x1 KG-600 jammer pods, 2 drop tanks. (Standard CAP load out)

1637758635987.png
 
.
.
Sorry to report that my hunch seems to be correct.
So looks like the first production batch of JF-17 Block-III would use simple RD-93. This could mean that the present engine has enough (dry thrust) power for the avionics available, and also that PAC would wait for availability of RD-93MA and then retrofit it to the first batch.
BUT , this was never in question. Block-3 will use RD-93 is already well known and nothing new here. THE QUESTION was will even the 2nd batch (after 30) use a different or upgraded engine or not?
 
.
BUT , this was never in question. Block-3 will use RD-93 is already well known and nothing new here. THE QUESTION was will even the 2nd batch (after 30) use a different or upgraded engine or not?

No second batch of JF17 Block IIIs have been ordered yet - so you have to assume they are vapour ware as of now.
 
.
Pakistan Airforce should continue to use existing Engine for next Block for the Thunder if Engine still need 2 more years.

Just release Engine with Block IV , I don't see a major issue

Block I Initial 50
Block II Next 50 with Refuel Capability + ASELAN ground Sight
Block II B Next 50 Twin Seat / Enhanced Ground Attack
Block III Next 30 AESA Enablement + Targeting Helmet (Next 1~2 Years)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Block IV Next 30 New Engine [Future]
Block II Convert 150 to Block III standard [Future]
Block III - Convert 150 to Block IV standard [MLU Upgrade Future Brand New Engine]


We should end up with 180 JF17 Block IV
 
Last edited:
.
Sorry to report that my hunch seems to be correct.

See this:

The link to this article was posted in the JF-17 Exports thread by @siegecrossbow. The relevant part of the article is this:

"When asked if the JF-17 Block III will be powered by the new and more powerful Russian RD-93MA engine (modernized version of the RD-93 that equips the current Thunder) or the Chinese Guizhou WS-13, the answer was… neither.

PAC confirmed that for now there are no plans to change the propulsion plant of the JF-17, which will use the same model as the previous Thunder blocks."


So looks like the first production batch of JF-17 Block-III would use simple RD-93. This could mean that the present engine has enough (dry thrust) power for the avionics available, and also that PAC would wait for availability of RD-93MA and then retrofit it to the first batch.
I don't get it RD-93MA is specially build for JF-17 which they have ordered in 2012.They may be hiding it because of CATSA and Aircraft life is 4000+ hours and Engine life is 2200 Hour which is poor in all aspects
I simply wonder why?

Well RD-93MA is based on RD-33MKM with same solution WS-13E (IPE)
 
.
BUT , this was never in question. Block-3 will use RD-93 is already well known and nothing new here. THE QUESTION was will even the 2nd batch (after 30) use a different or upgraded engine or not?
It was all guess work. No one could say with certainty that the engine would not be upgraded. The only indication of delay was the report that RD-93MA was undergoing testing, according to a report last year. JF-17 needs a more powerful engine with higher dry thrust even if PAF says that it is happy with RD-93.
 
. .
Looks like PAF is using a more capable KG-600 SPJ now. We used to see the older KG-300 being shown with the Thunders in the past.
 
.
Looks like PAF is using a more capable KG-600 SPJ now. We used to see the older KG-300 being shown with the Thunders in the past.
I don’t recall PAF ever using KG-300. It was only displayed at air shows. KG-600/700A has been in use for years.
 
.
Russia Says JF-17 Thunder, F-16 Fighters Key Competitor Of Checkmate Aircraft; UAE Shows Interest In New Stealth Jets

Tejas wasn't mentioned oh that's bad. No samosa for tea
 
. . .

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom