VR,

You dishonestly use quotes from Ivanov. The Russian def min said that in the context of India signing an IPR agreement with Russia. The Indian Defence Secretary is in Moscow today to finalize that same agreement. So does that mean that RD-93 for Pak is dead? 😉

You also ignore that India has a lot of pending buys from Russia – Amur class subs, Smerch, T-90s, 155mm arty guns – every one of which has a value that pales into comparison with a couple of hundred RD-93 engines. That is a lot of buying power.

By your argument it is up to Russia to please or displease its top customer – China while its other top customer India has to please Russia – How very convenient 🙂

There’s nothing today that stops France from selling to Pakistan. It is Pakistan which has chosen not to buy the Mirage because it cannot pay for them with American aid and cannot afford them otherwise.

Like I said, if it is cozy under the sand, who am I to ask you to see the truth 🙂

I believe the engine intake got enlarged because the prototype aircraft were using the RD-33 and as the RD-93 has a slightly greater thrust, for optimal configeration, the intake has been proportionately increased.

That could explain it, but do you have a source that the RD-33 was ever used for any prototype?

CAT1,

I saw it on GeoTV. The inlet was visibly large. Besides, someone at Pakdef posted it as well.

Hi,
Bhai Log, why it isn`t possible that FC-1(Chinese Version) be equipped with RD-93/WS-13 and PAF Version(JF-17 Thunder) equipped with western engine? just need a reason? any one seen any photo of 4th prototype?

Or all this engine issue is not the engine it self that is RD-93s..could it be that advertised performance parameters are not achieved! is it the problem??

it certainly wont make sense to start a factory where its main product has engine supply problem!!!

too confusing!

I agree. RD-93s for PLAAF makes sense while the PAF version may have a different engine.

A mature engine like an RD-93 does not need to or probably cannot accept different volumes of air intake than what it was designed for.

Sure MA,

I guess it is cozy with the head in the sand. That’s the way you guys like it don’t you? 🙂 Your own minister said that for the FC-1, China cannot supply an engine until Europe lifts its sanctions. I don’t want any explanation for why he said it but the fact is that he said it and guys like you cannot come to grips with it. BTW look at the title of this thread – “speculation” 🙂

VR,

I too think there will be another engine. That’s my point as well. Only an idiot would base his airforce’s future on the supply of engine from a country upon which his enemy has enormous leverage. I’d say that it is unlikely that more than the first few prototypes of the FC-1 will have RD-93s. Look for a European engine if PAF is smart or a Chinese one if they are a little less smart. But then again, they can be totally stupid and rely on the RD-93 😉

GA

However, in the meantime, please do tell us more about ur hypothetical link between structural changes and engine change, and answer the simple question i asked above.

After you tell me explain why your info min says the FC-1 needs European engine for which sanctions need to be lifted soon. The full audio file is nearly 1GB, unfortunately. But it is from Voice of America Urdu broadcast, March 25 12:00 PM GMT.

The engine on JF-17 will be comfirm be RD-93,no doubt but it will be a RE of it,call WS-13 and China will be supplying Pakistan with it! As for the 100 RD-93 bought by China,I believe it is part of the deal in order to secure transfer of technology of RD-93.

Any links to back this? :rolleyes:

To that previously banned clown posting on this thread – You have been on my ignore list for months now and I don’t read anything you post. So if you are posting replies to my posts – don’t bother. Save forum bandwidth.