Featured Project Azm: Pakistan's Ambitious Quest to Develop 5th Generation Military Technologies.

[Figaro]

A medium weight design - maximum take-off weight (MTOW) around +25,000 kg housing 2 RD-93MA producing total thrust of +100 kN dry thrust and +180 kN wet thrust. Is it not enough?

Furthermore, this is most reliable available option. Continuous supply of western engines and their spares cannot be guaranteed. Chinese engines are still at evolving phase. None of Chinese engines provide service life more than 3000 hrs. Further more reliability is uncertain. Whereas, PAF had flown RD-93s for more than 7000 hrs.
According to Air Commodore Mehmood engines are solid and reliable: “We’ve flown 7,000 hours with the engine and we haven’t had any problems”, he said.

There is no way the RD-93 has a service life of 7000 hours when the AL-31F, a considerably more advanced and later engine, can hardly reach over 900. Just ask the Indians with their Su-30MKI engines about how good the "lifespan" of Russian engines is.

 

[Marker]

The Turks may try developing a 87-92 kN-class engine for the Hurjet.I think we should look at co-funding it (or the 132 kN TR Motor engine) for use on AZM -- depending on the size class of AZM. I don't think any of those engines would factor into anything for 15 years, if not longer, but it's a way to get a start in developing our own turbofans for use 30+ years later.

Tusas Engine Industries, Inc. is producing aviation motors, diesel engines and small jet engines for helicopters and drones.

TR motors was established in 2017 and still in its infancy. If Pakistan go for collaboration with Turkey in aviation engine field, then right candidate is TEI specially to power its MALE, HALE UAVs and its loitering munition.

However, future collaboration to design and develop indigenous jet engine will be possible depending on the progress of TR motors. This joint venture may include China and Russia if possible as other stake holders. Western and Eastern fusion will be interesting to watch and learn.

 

[MIRauf]

F-35 can Dash for 150 miles at 1.2 about 15 odd mins of flight, yes it was a sacrifice made to create a single platform for tri-services. I bet we don't do that again, if PAF thinks that Super Cruise is not needed and happy with how J-31 is handling itself with RD-93 then sure, go for it.

 

[Marker]

There is no way the RD-93 has a service life of 7000 hours when the AL-31F, a considerably more advanced and later engine, can hardly reach over 900. Just ask the Indians with their Su-30MKI engines about how good the "lifespan" of Russian engines is.

If RD-33MK produced in 2001 have a service life of 4000 hrs then why RD-93 cannot flew above its predicted service life? If the air commodore is stating the fact then what is the reason of discussion.

RD-93 is a modular engine, that is, it can be separated into number of modules such as Fan module, Core compressor module, Turbine module and so on. The modular concept eases the maintenance and decreases the down time.

 

[Marker]

F-35 can Dash for 150 miles at 1.2 about 15 odd mins of flight, yes it was a sacrifice made to create a single platform for tri-services. I bet we don't do that again, if PAF thinks that Super Cruise is not needed and happy with how J-31 is handling itself with RD-93 then sure, go for it.

Who said super cruise cannot be achieved with these engines. Airframe design can ensure super cruise ability at higher altitudes.

Why PAF choose YF-23 as starting design? Apart from its stealthier design, it has greater speed and attained super cruise of 1.6 mach at higher altitude. My guess is PAF final design will be much sleeker and scaled down version of YF-23 fuselage (around 4:5).

 

[Figaro]

If RD-33MK produced in 2001 have a service life of 4000 hrs then why RD-93 cannot flew above its predicted service life? If the air commodore is stating the fact then what is the reason of discussion.

RD-93 is a modular engine, that is, it can be separated into number of modules such as Fan module, Core compressor module, Turbine module and so on. The modular concept eases the maintenance and decreases the down time.

I am saying that what he said was probably misinterpreted ... there is no way the RD-33 produced in 2001 can have a lifespan of over 4000 hours in 2001 when the much more advanced AL-31F series cannot even go beyond 1000 hours. To claim that a Russian engine like the RD-33 can have a lifespan not far from Western engines is simply untenable.

 

[UKBengali]

I am saying that what he said was probably misinterpreted ... there is no way the RD-33 produced in 2001 can have a lifespan of over 4000 hours in 2001 when the much more advanced AL-31F series cannot even go beyond 1000 hours. To claim that a Russian engine like the RD-33 can have a lifespan not far from Western engines is simply untenable.

RR's EJ-2000 for Eurofighter has a lifespan of 6000 hours and they are one of the top 3 along with GE and P&W.

 

[MIRauf]

If RD-33MK produced in 2001 have a service life of 4000 hrs then why RD-93 cannot flew above its predicted service life? If the air commodore is stating the fact then what is the reason of discussion.

RD-93 is a modular engine, that is, it can be separated into number of modules such as Fan module, Core compressor module, Turbine module and so on. The modular concept eases the maintenance and decreases the down time.

PAF has modded the RD-93 for some extra power / umph, in return they have scarified some life. IAF ( Israeli, had modded the F-16 engine to get more power out of them but in return reducing service life. ) If PAF is following the same then don't expect RD-93 to give you the listed Service life.

On the same note, since you are sold on RD-93 varient for AMZ, best of luck to you in your endevour of convincing the PAF team to select it for AZM.

 

[Marker]

I am saying that what he said was probably misinterpreted … there is no way the RD-33 produced in 2001 can have a lifespan of over 4000 hours in 2001 when the much more advanced AL-31F series cannot even go beyond 1000 hours. To claim that a Russian engine like the RD-33 can have a lifespan not far from Western engines is simply untenable.

RD-93/33 is not in the same class as AL-31.

AL-31 is bigger and heavier engine developed by Lyulka, now NPO Saturn and in production since 1981. AL-31 MTBO is 1000 hrs and its total service life is 3000 hrs.

RD-33/93 developed by Klimov and in production since 1974.

Both engines were continuously upgraded since their initial production.

In my opinion both engines were exposed to the latest technologies available with Russia. So we cannot say that AL-31 is more advance than RD-33/93.

The problem lies in the basic engine design. RD-33/93 is a better designed engine then larger and bulkier AL-31.
RD-33/93's continuous upgradation has not only enhanced its service life and reliability but also improved its overall inflight performance.

Second important fact is modular concept. Engine is divided into various modules. Defective module can be replaced easily with serviceable one and in very short time. Then the defective module can be worked upon in the second or third level maintenance facility or if needed can be sent to overhaling facility for further repair.

Preventive inspections and timely maintenance also increase the reliability.

Do you know how PAF was able to convert a 50 year old 3rd gen aircraft, into a 4 th gen aircraft, still maintaining and flying it? Preventive inspections, timely maintenance and thorough "overhauling".

It is the overhauling phase where engines and aircraft gain their additional life.

 

[Marker]

PAF has modded the RD-93 for some extra power / umph, in return they have scarified some life. IAF ( Israeli, had modded the F-16 engine to get more power out of them but in return reducing service life. ) If PAF is following the same then don't expect RD-93 to give you the listed Service life.

On the same note, since you are sold on RD-93 varient for AMZ, best of luck to you in your endevour of convincing the PAF team to select it for AZM.

Who told you that engine upgradation to improve thrust may result in reduction of service life.

F-16 was initially powered by F-100 PW 100 engine, The engine was upgraded to F100 PW 200 which improved its performance and durability, Then after sometime the engine was again upgraded to F100 PW 220/E , not only its service life was increased but also its performance. Major thrust improvement came in the form of F100 PW 229 which incorporates modern turbine materials, cooling management techniques, compressor aerodynamics, and electronic controls.

I am not selling RD 93 to PAF. This is the only reliable and viable option available at present. I wish that PAF have the opportunity to procure western jet engines from PW or GE. But present situation do not give even false hope.

 

[HostileInsurgent]

Not indigenous engine then

We will have the IPR and indigenous components will be used, the design and development will be done together rest will be upto us, its not bad, jet engines are the most difficult thing to make on the planet.

 

[Trango Towers]

We will have the IPR and indigenous components will be used, the design and development will be done together rest will be upto us, its not bad, jet engines are the most difficult thing to make on the planet.

Indeed the west holds the world at ransom due to turbine blade and combustor technology

 

[Yasser76]

Indeed the west holds the world at ransom due to turbine blade and combustor technology

Yes, the one area where even China struggles.

 

[UKBengali]

RD-93/33 is not in the same class as AL-31.

AL-31 is bigger and heavier engine developed by Lyulka, now NPO Saturn and in production since 1981. AL-31 MTBO is 1000 hrs and its total service life is 3000 hrs.

RD-33/93 developed by Klimov and in production since 1974.

Both engines were continuously upgraded since their initial production.

In my opinion both engines were exposed to the latest technologies available with Russia. So we cannot say that AL-31 is more advance than RD-33/93.

The problem lies in the basic engine design. RD-33/93 is a better designed engine then larger and bulkier AL-31.
RD-33/93's continuous upgradation has not only enhanced its service life and reliability but also improved its overall inflight performance.

Second important fact is modular concept. Engine is divided into various modules. Defective module can be replaced easily with serviceable one and in very short time. Then the defective module can be worked upon in the second or third level maintenance facility or if needed can be sent to overhaling facility for further repair.

Preventive inspections and timely maintenance also increase the reliability.

Do you know how PAF was able to convert a 50 year old 3rd gen aircraft, into a 4 th gen aircraft, still maintaining and flying it? Preventive inspections, timely maintenance and thorough "overhauling".

It is the overhauling phase where engines and aircraft gain their additional life.

You are correct about different classes.

RR's EJ-2000 has 6000 hours of lifespan and so impossible for RD-93 to be more at 7000 hours.

Western engines typically have double or more the lifespan of Russian engines and so around 3000 hours for RD-93 would be right.

@Figaro Your quoted 900 hours for AL-31 is first major overhaul and China actually managed to increase this to 1500 hours. Saying that WS-10 lifespan was put at 1500 hours back in 2018 by Chinese State media and so China is still behind the Russians.
If the AL-31 only had 900 hours of service life then Chinese planes with these would need a change every 5 years!

 

[Marker]

You are correct about different classes.

RR's EJ-2000 has 6000 hours of lifespan and so impossible for RD-93 to be more at 7000 hours.

Western engines typically have double or more the lifespan of Russian engines and so around 3-4000 hours for RD-93 would be right.

@Figaro Your quoted 900 hours for AL-31 is first major overhaul and China actually managed to increase this to 1500 hours. Saying that WS-10 lifespan was put at 1500 hours back in 2018 by Chinese State media and so China is still behind the Russians.
If the AL-31 only had 900 hours of service life then Chinese planes with these would need a change every 5 years!

Life span do not define class. It is thrust parameters and dimensions which define the class.

Life span depends on the metallurgy, engine design and number of engine cycles.

Western engines use better metallurgy and their engines are well designed to cater high heat stress.

In addition to this they do serialized tracking of every part to determine MTBF of that part. Data collection and its analysis helps them to isolate critical parts and reasons of failure. Upgradation or redesigning is subsequent result. This trend is more obvious in US systems. Other western systems and Russians are not that thorough.

Service life recommended by manufacturer was around 4000 hrs for RD-93, but our engineers at overhauling facility can give life extension to the engine modules, after replacing the damaged critical parts, for another 500 or 1000 hrs. And this process may continue depending on the overall condition of that particular module. After all PAF have so many highly qualified engineers and highly skilled technicians.