It is powered by a Russian Klimov RD-93 turbofan engine (derived from the RD-33 engine) and rated at 81.4kN (18,300 lb st) with reheat.

Non of the articles i have read about Fc-1 make any clarification about the arrangements for the supply of RD93 engine. Will RD93 be manufactured in China? Who will supply the spares? will Russia be able to stop the supply of spares under Indian pressure during any conflict?

I would imagine the PAF is satisfied with the arragements otherwise it would not have gone ahead with the project.

Setting up a repair and overhaul infrastructure for RD93 should be a top priority for PAC.

report Daily News (jang group) 17 apr 2004
Induction of JF-17 in PAF by mid-2006

By Muhammad Anis

ISLAMABAD: The first batch of eight JF-17 (Thunder) aircraft jointly manufactured by Pakistan and China will be inducted into the Pakistan Air Force by mid-2006.

“The JF-17 aircraft is superior to the existing fleet of F-16 aircraft now with the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) as far its overall potential and capability is concerned,” Project Director of JF-17 Air Vice-Marshal Shahid Lateef said while briefing newsmen here on Friday.

He said that the JF-17 would be equipped with state-of-the-art avionics and modern weapon like BVR missile system making it better than those possessed by Pakistan’s adversary.

“We are in dire need of enhancing combat capability of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF),” he said. AVM Shahid said that Pakistan would not only manufacture the aircraft locally but also export it. “We will gradually acquire self-sufficiency in manufacturing JF-17 aircraft in Pakistan,” he said.

He said that by mid-2006 Pakistan would manufacture 16 aircraft, out of which eight would be for China Air Force. He said the second prototype of JF-17 Thunder aircraft flew its successful maiden flight at Chengdu, in China on April 9. “This is the third prototype JF-17 aircraft to be manufactured as the second aircraft was manufactured only for ground tests, therefore, presently only two aircraft are flying,” he said.

He informed newsmen about the significance of April 9 when Pakistani pilots handled the flight and entered the supersonic regime.

The first prototype JF-17 aircraft, which had flown its maiden flight in September last year, is already passing through an extensive flight-testing phase. The PAF official informed that flight of the second prototype was a milestone in the progress of the project as it was manufactured and flown right on time. He said Pakistan has requested China to prepare an avionics package for Pakistan according to its requirements. “The avionics package which also includes radar system would be state-of-the-art and meet our requirements,” he added. Shahid Lateef said the next prototype to be flown coming year would also consist of avionics and weapons system and it would be tested as a full combat aircraft.

He said the flight-test programme of JF-17 aircraft is moving ahead smoothly. “Following fifty percent production of the aircraft in Pakistan, we will gradually move towards 100 percent self-reliance through transfer of technology from China” he said.

Originally posted by PhantomII
Being based on the original MiG-21F-13 limits the F-7PG’s capabilities in the radar arena because the nose cone centerbody is simply too small. The MiG-21UPG’s, MiG-21MF style centerbody is much larger, and therefore can accomodate a decent BVR setup, though nothing like what a larger fighter such as the F-4 or F-15 would have.

This goes to show that these days radar and missile technology has reached a state whereby close in dog fights r very not likely to occur in future.

Instead of building and acquiring highly manoeverable and expensive fighters it would ibe better for country like Pakistan to concentrate on simple and pure air defence aircraft having a powerful engine and long range radar with bvr missile. A few simple close air defence fighters like F-7mg could be kept just in case. Does it really matter if a BVR missile is fired from a boeing 747 or F22? As long as the target is destroyed it shouldn’t. These days its the radars and bvr missiles that ensure victory not any air show routines.

Originally posted by sharmaji
You are talking about such marginal differences btw the Bison and the MG in close range combat, pilot skill and numerical superiority, helmet mounted sight, etc, those will matter more than the small differences in performance we are talking about.

sharmaji, F-7mg has completly new wing and automatic leading edge flap and i quote from the report:

The sight of the auto-manoeuvring flaps at work reminded the pilots of the F-16’s computer-controlled leading edge devices. Packaging the servo motors and actuators within the thin leading edge without the tell-tale bulges has certainly been a marvel of engineering at Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC).

A good measure of a wing’s lifting efficiency is at high alpha, a regime that the PAF pilots have learnt to perform in almost as an art form. What better than to pace the MG through a slow speed loop? Normally, a safe entry speed for a loop would be between 800-900 kph (at 15,000 AMSL) on the F-7P. In the absence of any guidelines on a slower version of the manoeuvre, it was decided to try 700 kph at first. The MG went through smoothly without any hint of judder or slip at the top. With full faith in the leading edge flaps, the next loop was performed at 600 kph. Again, the same results were achieved and the aircraft went through a perfect loop without any jitter or judder. At lower altitudes it might do even slower and better, but airspace limitations at Chengdu did not permit low level aerobatics.

It was a most pleasant surprise to note that the turn rates were nearer to the F-16 at medium to high altitudes and, were exactly as advertised. A 33% improvement over the F-7P at 5,000’ AMSL, 50% at 10,000’ and 66% at 20,000 would certainly call for an end to the “supersonic sports plane” sobriquet that dogged its forerunners.

The thrust increase was evidenced by a 25% improvement in acceleration time from 500 kph to 1100 kph and an equally impressive time-to-climb to 36,000’ AMSL. All improvements were verified and were found to be as advertised or even better. Even more remarkable was the fact that these trials took place in hot and humid weather, well outside the 15°C, 1013 hP environments in which the specifications are usually engineered.

As far as i know Bison does not have a new improved wing with automatic edge flaps. F-7MG is a generation ahead in terms of manoeverability with respect to other variants of Mig21. The improvements are not marginal otherwise it would not have been worth the effort put into its development. Bison relies on better avionics and BVR capability whereas F-7MG has been considerably improved in terms of aerodynamic performance. In a close turning fight agains a good pilot bison would have little chance (that is assuming that F-7mg does not fall victim to Bisons superior BVR capability).

Originally posted by sharmaji
Guys please stop acting like PLA, so PAC is ready to produce the FC-1 by next year, how far along has the testing gone, how many Gs can the FC-1 now pull, have avionics tests been conducted, contracts been signed? Weapons testing been conducted, has the SD-10 been tested with it?
So many questions!
Also wonder on the production run, how many acs per year will PAC produce?

I would like to know about the RD93 engine. The minimum requirement for PAF is 150 ACs. That is a considerable number. PAC is going to assemble FC-1 and there should be no problem in maintaining the airframes, but what are the future arrangements for the maintainence and overhaul of RD93 engine? TBO for RD93 will probably be better than the original RD33 on which it is based, but it is not likely to match the TBO for the latest western engines. This means that PAF will either have to depend on Russia or China to supply the spare parts or there will have to be some technology transfer so that PAC is able to fully support and maintain the RD93. Will Russia allow tech transfer to Pakistan?

Maintainence problems with RD33 meant that a lot of the air forces (including IAF) suffered from low availability rates for mig29. Therefore it is vital that the issue of engine maintenace and support is sorted.

Does anybody know which parts of RD33 engine have low life compared to their western counterparts?

Originally posted by Distiller
Ja, kind of. That is the reason why “hot and high” conditions are difficult for jets, because the temperature difference gets so small. A civil airliner’s thrust requirements for example are designed for the worst case scenario “hot summer day in La Paz, Bolivia” (El Alto happens to be the highest international airport, as you might know). On the other hand record attemps like “High Jump” or “Streak Eagle” were staged on the coldest day they could possibly find.

A lift that a pair of wings can produce is also proportional to the density of air. In “hot and high” conditions this can cause problems like at Johannesburg airport (South Africa) which is at over 5500ft above sea level. On a hot day the temperature could be as high as 35 degrees centigrades. Under such conditions the air density would be less than 80% of the density at sea level on a standard 15 degrees centigrade day. Under such conditions the engines have to be operated at maximum allowable thrust.

If i was buying used aircraft i would make sure that the aircraft was not operated under such conditions for greater parts of it service life becuz operating under these conditons means that the engine life is shorter. Also tyre life is shorter becuz the aircraft has to be accelerated to greater speed (thus heating the tyres) before it can lift off.

This journalist is obviously very ignarant when it comes to military equipment. The Janes report above is much more informative. The journalist obviously does not appreciate the difference between the words “stand off weapon” and “invisible weapon”.

It is obvious that Pakistan is manufacturing missiles of south African origin.