JF-17

[Owais]

Does any one have complete information about WS13A?is this the derivative of WS10A?

 

[tphuang]

Alright, just a few points:
1. WS-10A has finished all tests and is awaiting certification, but this is for J-10 and J-11B. WS-10A's core is based on CFM-56
2. WS-13A is currently in development. It hasn't even started any testing yet. The official line by the people developing WS-13A is that the engine will be certified by 2008. WS-13A is supposedly based on RD-33, but it's core is designed to be better than RD-33 to allow for future growth.
3. Both of these engines have T/W ratio of around 7.8 to 8.1. You may expect engines with T/W ratio of 9 developed based on these engines.
4. JF-17 is not underpowered! It's a really really small fighter. It doesn't need more than a single medium sized engine.
It's like this:
JF-17/LCA/Gripen (small size) : use one medium size engine
EF-2000/J-10/F-16/Mig-29 (medium size): use two medium size or one large size engine
F-15/su-27 (heavy fighters); use two large size engine

As for other engines, not a chance. This plane is developed specifically for RD-33/WS-13A. It's too late in the development to make such a change.

JF-17 has enough payload and hardpoints for a plane its size.

As for radar, I believe the first 50 are using Chinese radar/avionics. It will be a smaller version of the one on J-10. If Grifo-S7 is making changes that PAF asked for, I say bring it on. I'm sure China will have PESA radars by the time FIAR is done.

 

[EagleEyes]

:clapping: Awesome information provided!

In your post you have said that the hardpoints and payload will not be changed, how much confirm are you? Or is it just you think that they are good enough for JF-17?

Originally posted by tphuang@Nov 13 2005, 05:04 AM
Alright, just a few points:
1. WS-10A has finished all tests and is awaiting certification, but this is for J-10 and J-11B. WS-10A's core is based on CFM-56
2. WS-13A is currently in development. It hasn't even started any testing yet. The official line by the people developing WS-13A is that the engine will be certified by 2008. WS-13A is supposedly based on RD-33, but it's core is designed to be better than RD-33 to allow for future growth.
3. Both of these engines have T/W ratio of around 7.8 to 8.1. You may expect engines with T/W ratio of 9 developed based on these engines.
4. JF-17 is not underpowered! It's a really really small fighter. It doesn't need more than a single medium sized engine.
It's like this:
JF-17/LCA/Gripen (small size) : use one medium size engine
EF-2000/J-10/F-16/Mig-29 (medium size): use two medium size or one large size engine
F-15/su-27 (heavy fighters); use two large size engine

As for other engines, not a chance. This plane is developed specifically for RD-33/WS-13A. It's too late in the development to make such a change.

JF-17 has enough payload and hardpoints for a plane its size.

As for radar, I believe the first 50 are using Chinese radar/avionics. It will be a smaller version of the one on J-10. If Grifo-S7 is making changes that PAF asked for, I say bring it on. I'm sure China will have PESA radars by the time FIAR is done.

[post=2829]Quoted post[/post]​

 

[Best of the Best]

Originally posted by tphuang@Nov 13 2005, 11:34 AM
Alright, just a few points:
1. WS-10A has finished all tests and is awaiting certification, but this is for J-10 and J-11B.  WS-10A's core is based on CFM-56
2. WS-13A is currently in development.  It hasn't even started any testing yet.  The official line by the people developing WS-13A is that the engine will be certified by 2008.  WS-13A is supposedly based on RD-33, but it's core is designed to be better than RD-33 to allow for future growth.
3. Both of these engines have T/W ratio of around 7.8 to 8.1.  You may expect engines with T/W ratio of 9 developed based on these engines.
4. JF-17 is not underpowered!  It's a really really small fighter.  It doesn't need more than a single medium sized engine.
It's like this:
JF-17/LCA/Gripen (small size) : use one medium size engine
EF-2000/J-10/F-16/Mig-29 (medium size): use two medium size or one large size engine
F-15/su-27 (heavy fighters); use two large size engine

As for other engines, not a chance.  This plane is developed specifically for RD-33/WS-13A.  It's too late in the development to make such a change.

JF-17 has enough payload and hardpoints for a plane its size.

As for radar, I believe the first 50 are using Chinese radar/avionics.  It will be a smaller version of the one on J-10.  If Grifo-S7 is making changes that PAF asked for, I say bring it on.  I'm sure China will have PESA radars by the time FIAR is done.

[post=2829]Quoted post[/post]​

I dont agree with your statement that JF-17 was only made around one engine as it was clearly stated by the ACM of PAF the JF-17 can host 3 different types of engine so i believe in what had to say rather than you secondly how good are 7 hard points when 3 of them would be used for fuel pod's :ranting: about the rader you are right i agree with you 100% JF-17 will be using a KRL-9 the down sized version of the rader which is going to be used in J-10 that is KRL-10 by the way i love JF-17 but i believe its engine should have a thrust of 21000 pounds with after burn and its top speed should be atleast Mach 2 compared to its current speed of Mach 1.6 :thumbsup:

By the way nice post's from you good to see you around here man keep up those good post's and open nice topic's we all would love to discuss things with you takecare man bye .

 

[tphuang]

Originally posted by Best of the Best@Nov 13 2005, 10:35 AM
I dont agree with your statement that JF-17 was only made around one engine as it was clearly stated by the ACM of PAF the JF-17 can host 3 different types of engine so i believe in what had to say rather than you secondly how good are 7 hard points when 3 of them would be used for fuel pod's :ranting: about the rader you are right i agree with you 100% JF-17 will be using a KRL-9 the down sized version of the rader which is going to be used in J-10 that is KRL-10 by the way i love JF-17 but i believe its engine should have a thrust of 21000 pounds with after burn and its top speed should be atleast Mach 2 compared to its current speed of Mach 1.6 :thumbsup:
By the way nice post's from you good to see you around here man keep up those good post's and open nice topic's we all would love to discuss things with you takecare man bye .

[post=2853]Quoted post[/post]​

sorry, but do I know you from one of the other forums?

As for engine, again, it's a sensitive issue. Whenever there is a change in engine, you have to do recalculation and everything and more testing. Even WS-13A is slightly smaller than RD-93, so there will be more testing when CAC changes engine to 13A. You can't just put a new engine into an aircraft and ask it to fly.

As for top speed, it's actually not that bad. The reason for it not being higher is the fact that it can't operate at higher altitudes. I bet the true top speed is probably greater than mach1.6. For example, J-10 is often listed at mach2.0, but it's really at least mach2.2. As for thrust, you will need an engine with T/W ratio of 10 to achieve 21000 pounds of thrust. Which means, EJ-200 and the Europeans aren't going to sell that.

7 hardpoints and 3500 KG really isn't that bad for a fighter this size. 4 AAMs, 3 bombs/external tanks.

 

[Best of the Best]

Originally posted by tphuang@Nov 14 2005, 02:56 AM
sorry, but do I know you from one of the other forums?

As for engine, again, it's a sensitive issue. Whenever there is a change in engine, you have to do recalculation and everything and more testing. Even WS-13A is slightly smaller than RD-93, so there will be more testing when CAC changes engine to 13A. You can't just put a new engine into an aircraft and ask it to fly.

As for top speed, it's actually not that bad. The reason for it not being higher is the fact that it can't operate at higher altitudes. I bet the true top speed is probably greater than mach1.6. For example, J-10 is often listed at mach2.0, but it's really at least mach2.2. As for thrust, you will need an engine with T/W ratio of 10 to achieve 21000 pounds of thrust. Which means, EJ-200 and the Europeans aren't going to sell that.

7 hardpoints and 3500 KG really isn't that bad for a fighter this size. 4 AAMs, 3 bombs/external tanks.

[post=2872]Quoted post[/post]​

ya may be in know you from another forum depnds which froum your talking about anyways....back to the topic


i never said it was that easy that u put in a engine in JF-17 and you could just fly it but all the engines i have stated are very similar or equal in size to the RD-93 which is the upgraded version of the RD-33.............who said EJ-200 is needed you can install M53-2 coz it has a thrust of 20000 to 21000 some where in between and is about the same size as the RD-33. :eyebrow:

 

[tphuang]

I got this off somewhere:
RD-33
length - 166.5 inch
width - 39.4 inch
thrust - 18300 lb
weight - 2326 lb

M53-P2
length - 199.6 inch
width - 41.5 inch
thrust - 21355 lb
weight - 3307 lb

M-88-3
length - 142 inch
width - 31 inch
thrust - 21350 lb
weight - 2171 lb

The RD-33 dimension seems to fit the specs on the Russian sites. M-53 is too big. M-88 isn't, but it's the next generation powerplant used on Rafale.

 

[Best of the Best]

Originally posted by tphuang@Nov 14 2005, 08:56 AM
I got this off somewhere:
RD-33
length - 166.5 inch
width - 39.4 inch
thrust - 18300 lb
weight - 2326 lb

M53-P2
length - 199.6 inch
width - 41.5 inch
thrust - 21355 lb
weight - 3307 lb

M-88-3
length - 142 inch
width - 31 inch
thrust - 21350 lb
weight - 2171 lb

The RD-33 dimension seems to fit the specs on the Russian sites.  M-53 is too big.  M-88 isn't, but it's the next generation powerplant used on Rafale.

[post=2877]Quoted post[/post]​

Hummmm M53-2 seems quite big compared to the RD-93 but damn i never knew M88-3 could be fit into JF-17 quite easily damn i would would love M88-3 to be on JF-17 thunder but skiping back to reality thats not possiable unless or until PAF buys some Rafale being realistic if PAF ever buys Rafale this engine can be a option for the JF-17 giving the fact that french would sell anything for money i hope EU's arms embargo on china drops :thumbsup: i would love seing these babies being stalled on the thunder damn thanks fort the info man .

 

[EagleEyes]

# Engine's Improvements:

a. EF-2000:
1. EJ-200's full potential: 21,375 ~ 22,495 Ib / 15,520 Ib (AB thrust / Maximal military thrust)
2. EJ-230 (post-2010?): 23,280 ~ 23,620 Ib / 16,200 Ib (AB thrust / Maximal military thrust)
3. EJ-270 (post-2015?): 27,000 ~ 27,350 Ib / 17,550 Ib (AB thrust / Maximal military thrust)
4. Studies of reduction of engine's weight and SFC (15~20%)
5. Studies of TVC, including 2-D and 3-D configurations

b. Rafale:
1. M88-3 (post-2010): 20,000 ~ 20,500 Ib / 13,500 Ib (AB thrust / Maximal military thrust)
2. M88-4 (post-2015?): 23,620 ~ 24,7500 Ib / ????? Ib (AB thrust / Maximal military thrust)
3. Study of elimination of after-burnner.

# Radar and IRST improvements:

a. EF-2000:
1. Captor AESA radar (post-2014?): 1,200~1,500 T/R, > 75% improvement of detective range.
2. Upgrade of Pirate IRST (post-2014?): Multiple targets identification, and engagement.
3. Studies of AESA radar + mechanical motor and Conformal Smart Skin AESA Array.

b. Rafale:
1. RBE-2 AESA radar (post-2010?): 1,000~1,100 T/R, > 50% improvement of detective range.
2. FSO IRST + data-link + MICA IR (post-2007): capability of “Passive” BVR combat.

# Stealthy improvements:

a. EF-2000:
1. Study of internal weapon-bays’ insertion.
2. NG stealthy skin and RAM.
3. Study of IR signal reduction.

b. Rafale:
1. Stealthy techonology of active cancellation.
2. “Cocoon” stealthy weapon.suitcase.
3. Project of Rafale D: Stealthy upgrade of Rafale.

Check out Rafale improvements and EU-F improvements although they have nothing to do with JF-17 but we should also keep in mind the engine of Eurofighter. It seems to be pretty good too.

Originally posted by Best of the Best@Nov 14 2005, 02:36 AM
Hummmm M53-2 seems quite big compared to the RD-93 but damn i never knew M88-3 could be fit into JF-17 quite easily damn i would would love M88-3 to be on JF-17 thunder   but skiping back to reality thats not possiable unless or until PAF buys some Rafale being realistic if PAF ever buys Rafale this engine can be a option for the JF-17 giving the fact that french would sell anything for money i hope EU's arms embargo on china drops  :thumbsup: i would love seing these babies being stalled on the thunder damn thanks fort the info man  .

[post=2878]Quoted post[/post]​

 

[EagleEyes]

Check that out man.

They will be developing

M88-4: 23,620 ~ 24,7500 Ib / ????? Ib (AB thrust / Maximal military thrust). For Rafale after 2015, M88-3: 20,000 ~ 20,500 Ib / 13,500 Ib (AB thrust / Maximal military thrust) is going to be replaced.

Then later improvements will be elimination of after-burners.

So as you can M88-3 is not yet stable enough, they are to be fit in Rafale after 2010~? Then how can we acquire such engine, it sure will be expensive too!

I think Chinese WS-13A will be the only answer if not RD-93.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by WebMaster@Nov 13 2005, 06:35 AM
:clapping: Awesome information provided!

In your post you have said that the hardpoints and payload will not be changed, how much confirm are you? Or is it just you think that they are good enough for JF-17?

Do we need more hardpoints?
Unless we develop a dedicated ground attack / strike version more hardpoints are not needed.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by WebMaster@Nov 20 2005, 07:05 PM
I think Chinese WS-13A will be the only answer if not RD-93.

Unfortunately the WS-13A will not be available befor 2008.
The uncertainity about the engine is killing me! :reading1:

 

[mohammadkhan70]

The specification for JF-17 thunder can be found on this site:
http://www.pac.org.pk/amfsite-final/jf17specifications.html