Pakistan will launch a two-seater version of JF-17 - Induction of JF-17B in 2017

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Now again more than a month later ... still no news ???

Normally when they say the new planes will arrive in few days it means middle of year

I think people fail to account for post completion the necessary Quality Assurance test and Various security tests that need to be done on plane and its components

Now the mention of a Third party Engine certainly a interesting mention
Snecma M88

I don't see why the plane cannot explore various engine options to diversify its platform

However I think the more closer target are two engines

a) Existing Russian Engine
b) New Improved Chinese Variant

But I would not mind some prototypes to use a French prototype so far just for prototype testing etc see the possibility of growth in that sector

 

[Star Expedition]

Thunder has to be produced as many as needed.
If we can't do that, we can't promote them to potential buyers who concerns about Russia's attitude.

Sure we can sort this out.

 

[Penguin]

ej200

• Length: 4 m (160 in)
• Diameter: 737 mm (29.0 in)
• Dry weight: 990 kilograms (2,180 pounds)

rd-33/93

• Length: 4,229 mm (166.50 in)
• Diameter: 1,040 mm (40.94 in)
• Dry weight: 1,055 kg (2,326 lb)

Specific fuel consumption EJ200:
75.6 kg/(kN·h) (0.74 lb/(lbf·h)) dry thrust;
169.2 kg/(kN·h) (1.7 lb/(lbf·h)) with reheat
Maximum thrust:
60kN (13,500lbf) dry thrust;
90kN (20,250lbf) with reheat


Specific fuel consumption RD33:
75 kg/(kN·h) (0.77 lb/(lbf·h)) dry,
188 kg/(kN·h) (1.85 lb/(lbf·h))
Maximum thrust:
50.0 kN (11,230 lbf) Dry,
81.3 kN (18,285 lbf) Afterburning

 

[Blue Marlin]

Specific fuel consumption EJ200:
75.6 kg/(kN·h) (0.74 lb/(lbf·h)) dry thrust;
169.2 kg/(kN·h) (1.7 lb/(lbf·h)) with reheat
Maximum thrust:
60kN (13,500lbf) dry thrust;
90kN (20,250lbf) with reheat


Specific fuel consumption RD33:
75 kg/(kN·h) (0.77 lb/(lbf·h)) dry,
188 kg/(kN·h) (1.85 lb/(lbf·h))
Maximum thrust:
50.0 kN (11,230 lbf) Dry,
81.3 kN (18,285 lbf) Afterburning

look at the physical size (diameter) of the engine.
also the germans wont be too happy with pakistan have such engines (an assumption)
if pakistan wanted them they can get them via rolls royce (majority shareholder) and they have approached rolls royce. that and mrs may is heading to pakistan this year. not gonna happen though as there's no need and the idea was brought up by the saudis as the ej200 is also on their typhoons (duh). and i doubt they would go for the jf-17 as they have the cash to go all out.


In terms of JF-17 powerplant, Air Commodore Mahmood told AIN that, “We’re satisfied with the [Russian Klimov] RD-93, but some customers may want another engine. We have done preliminary studies on the [Eurojet] EJ200 and [Snecma] M88. They are doable.”

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Well I always viewed the Thunder as a evolving bird , and the engine was always something that was suppose to be flexible enough for various in market solutions , a few squadrons 18-36 with M88 or EJ2000 certainly would be fantastic to test drive and then based on need for future order Airforce can work out deal.

The initial plans were for new Chinese Engine (Block 3) next 50 planes , however we can certainly have a prototype 2 squadrons with other engine variation

We can always have Block 3 (Chinese Engine) and Block 3+ (British or French)
to really push the platform from our side

Similar to the approach on F16 I think we had 2 variation for breif moment before all MLU upgrade was completed

Again completely hypothetical view point

RD-93 is doing the intended job for Block 1/2 can't complain in short term


JF-17 Thunder Block 1 - > 50 , Planes RD-93 ----> Will require Upgrade down the road
JF-17 Thunder Block 2 - > 50 , Planes RD-93 -----> Will require Upgrade down then road
JF-17 Thunder Block 3 - > 50 , Planes WS-13 (New Chinese prototype)
JF-17 Thunders Block 3 "Plus" -> 36 , Planes (????,????) - hypothetical view point

The scenario would be the time we get to our 186th plane and we are in position to upgrade our initial 100 planes , we would be in better position to decide what platform was easier to maintain , and reorder next batch etc

But I am sure some voices will say , well maintaining 2-3 engine types would be tremendous task etc that is a different issue altogether

 

[khanasifm]

O

Well I always viewed the Thunder as a evolving bird , and the engine was always something that was suppose to be flexible enough for various in market solutions , a few squadrons 18-36 with M88 or EJ2000 certainly would be fantastic to test drive and then based on need for future order Airforce can work out deal.

The initial plans were for new Chinese Engine (Block 3) next 50 planes , however we can certainly have a prototype 2 squadrons with other engine variation

We can always have Block 3 (Chinese Engine) and Block 3+ (British or French)
to really push the platform from our side

Similar to the approach on F16 I think we had 2 variation for breif moment before all MLU upgrade was completed

Again completely hypothetical view point

RD-93 is doing the intended job for Block 1/2 can't complain in short term


JF-17 Thunder Block 1 - > 50 , Planes RD-93 ----> Will require Upgrade down the road
JF-17 Thunder Block 2 - > 50 , Planes RD-93 -----> Will require Upgrade down then road
JF-17 Thunder Block 3 - > 50 , Planes WS-13 (New Chinese prototype)
JF-17 Thunders Block 3 "Plus" -> 36 , Planes (????,????) - hypothetical view point

The scenario would be the time we get to our 186th plan and we are in position to upgrade our initial 100 planes , we would be in better position to decide what platform was easier to maintain , and reorder next batch etc

But I am sure some voices will say , well maintaining 2-3 engine types would be tremendous task etc that is a different issue altogether

PAF- is satisfied with rd only folks on this forum are.not

 

[Penguin]

O
PAF- is satisfied with rd only folks on this forum are.not

It's about export potential

 

[messiach]

EJ200 has higher BPR.

asking.

 

[Blue Marlin]

EJ200 has higher BPR.

indeed a higher bpr.

i find quiet strange to find the ej200 being smaller than the rd33 yet the ej200 has more power.

kinda shows how far we have gone

a higher bpr does not mean is has more power it just means theres room to get more power. example being the ge-f110-132, its exactly the same as the ge-f110-129, but it has a larger bpr. just pointing it out.

 

[Deino]

Still no news on the JF-17B ??

 

[Chak Bamu]

Still no news on the JF-17B ??

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/jf-17-thunder-multirole-fighter-thread-7.427560/page-117#post-9362655

@messiach "Block-B completed static test & eval. last week."

I am assuming that this is at PAC Kamra, but that is just a guess.

 

[CriticalThought]

Another thing we have learnt is that it will have 3 dimensional digital fly-by-wire. Surprisingly, this point hasn't been discussed much. Previously, JF-17 was stabilized in yaw and roll. Digital fly-by-wire definitely means the airframe has been enhanced to introduce instability leading to enhanced manoeuvrability. I am so looking forward to behold this eye candy.

 

[Tempest II]

Another thing we have learnt is that it will have 3 dimensional digital fly-by-wire. Surprisingly, this point hasn't been discussed much. Previously, JF-17 was stabilized in yaw and roll. Digital fly-by-wire definitely means the airframe has been enhanced to introduce instability leading to enhanced manoeuvrability. I am so looking forward to behold this eye candy.

I am thinking not necessarily so. FBW was discussed by PAC as a option for improved control without reference to airframe modifications. While getting both improvements/upgrades is desirable, taking the introduction of FBW in all axis as a definite indicator of airframe modifications could be misleading

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I am thinking not necessarily so. FBW was discussed by PAC as a option for improved control without reference to airframe modifications. While getting both improvements/upgrades is desirable, taking the introduction of FBW in all axis as a definite indicator of airframe modifications could be misleading

I imagine the main gains of expanded FBW might be in weight reduction and/or freeing internal volume, which in turn can be used for fuel and/or other electronics.

 

[General General]

I am thinking not necessarily so. FBW was discussed by PAC as a option for improved control without reference to airframe modifications. While getting both improvements/upgrades is desirable, taking the introduction of FBW in all axis as a definite indicator of airframe modifications could be misleading

I was under the impression that the JF17 already had FBW in all axis, it was just a combination of digital and analogue. In the B version, they are probably implementing an all digital control.