Know Your 'Rafale'

[asianobserve]

You should get over it. The premise was a blog stating India won’t use Russian products then the blog goes on to mention the Polish Air Force which use RD-33s circa 1980s. FYI hundreds of F-16 have crashed so mentioning a few MiGs Polish Migs doesn’t prove anything especially when their spares are probably from the 1980s or worse from some bootlegged shop in Eastern Europe.

Western fanboys can’t help but citing and comparing old Soviet technology trying to desperately make correlations to new Russian technology. There are over 100 JF-17 in service for over a decade, the aircraft has a solid safety record with just two crashes. The difference is Pakistan gets full aftermarket support while Poland doesn’t.

The core of a fighter jet engine is where Western fighter jet engine manufacturers excel over Soviet/Russian fighter jet engines. The Soviets could not match its Western counterparts in manufacturing tech for making cores. And Russia, with its much smaller economy and budget, could not in turn outmatch its predecessor. Thus while Western fighter jet engines last for thousand of hours Soviet/Russian engines last for hundreds of hours only.

So your Pakistani friends are just more miticulous in changing their JF-17's Russian engines more often.

 

[Armand2REP]

Are all the JF17 crashs known ? I don't know, but I've a doubt due to the near conflict situation between India and Pak, so hiding your weakness may be the rule.

It is hard to crash something that is rarely flown. Due to the budget cuts most of the flight hours are reserved for F-16s.

 

[BON PLAN]

It is hard to crash something that is rarely flown. Due to the budget cuts most of the flight hours are reserved for F-16s.

Strange. Don't they want to preserve their F16 and using JF17 instead during that cold war ?

 

[Bhurki]

The Soviets could not match its Western counterparts in manufacturing tech for making cores. A

And yet somehow, the most powerful afterburning jet engine and the most powerful rocket engine are both soviet..

 

[asianobserve]

And yet somehow, the most powerful afterburning jet engine and the most powerful rocket engine are both soviet..

You mean the R-15 turbojet engine? It was essentially a disposable engine. You push it to Mach 3 and it's over. It was essentially a 1950s low bypass turbojet engine that has been supersized, not so high tech.

The most powerful rocket engine ever used for space was the Space Shuttle SRB engine.

 

[asianobserve]

BTW, the 1950's P&W J58 turbo jet engine used in LM's A-12 and SR-71 is the most powerful jet engine ever produced:

Maximum thrust: installed 25,500 pounds-force (113.43 kN) wet, uninstalled 34,000 pounds-force (151.24 kN) wet 25,000 pounds-force (111.21 kN) dry

And the J58 routinely cruises past Mach3 without burning itself up.

Tumanski's R-15 on the other hand has lower thrust:

• Maximum thrust:
• 73.5 kN (16,523 lbf) military power
• 100.1 kN (22,503 lbf) with afterburner

And as I said above, an R-15 goes kaput if used to Mach 3.

 

[Armand2REP]

Strange. Don't they want to preserve their F16 and using JF17 instead during that cold war ?

They want their F-16 pilots the most experienced as that is the only real combat ability they have. Their first female fighter pilot died in the JF-17. That is where the weaker less trained pilots go. They don't have any problem maintaining the F-16 as the US is fully supporting them against India.

 

[Armand2REP]

BTW, the 1950's P&W J58 turbo jet engine is the most powerful jet engine ever produced:

Actually the Concord's Snecma/BSEL Olympus 593 holds that record with 169.2 kN.

 

[Neptune]

The core of a fighter jet engine is where Western fighter jet engine manufacturers excel over Soviet/Russian fighter jet engines. The Soviets could not match its Western counterparts in manufacturing tech for making cores. And Russia, with its much smaller economy and budget, could not in turn outmatch its predecessor. Thus while Western fighter jet engines last for thousand of hours Soviet/Russian engines last for hundreds of hours only.

So your Pakistani friends are just more miticulous in changing their JF-17's Russian engines more often.

There is a big difference between Soviet engines and modern Russian ones. Some people still can’t comprehend that and even compare Soviet engines that are no longer in production to newer western engines. It’s a well know fact that Soviet engines were notorious for short service life and other problems, no one is arguing that. Much of the problem was from FOD being sucked into the engines from dirty runways.


Time between overhauls and service life in newer Russian engine is far better then the Soviet stock and no one replaces engines after a couple hundred hours, the basic upgraded AL-31 variants and RD-33 variants last 4,000 hours, they can probably last much longer if they derated the engine like the East Germans did to get significantly more time between overhauls and service life.

As for the Pakistanis changing their engine “meticulously”. You have a source to prove that? The Pakistani Air Commodore Mehmood has praised the engine as “reliable” and “solid”.

 

[Neptune]

Are all the JF17 crashs known ? I don't know, but I've a doubt due to the near conflict situation between India and Pak, so hiding your weakness may be the rule.

Why would Pakistan hide piece time crashes? There are plenty of crashes they admitted too, just very few JF-17 are on the list. Like I said Westerners love to compare the very oldest technology of their adversaries, often used by less then professional militaries and then boast how great their modern hardware is while ignoring the technological advancement of their adversaries.

 

[Steven Rogers]

Why would Pakistan hide piece time crashes? There are plenty of crashes they admitted too, just very few JF-17 are on the list. Like I said Westerners love to compare the very oldest technology of their adversaries, often used by less then professional militaries and then boast how great their modern hardware is while ignoring the technological advancement of their adversaries.

They mostly hide their crash,the one which comes to public are the ones which get attention by the locals ...

 

[Neptune]

BTW, the 1950's P&W J58 turbo jet engine used in LM's A-12 and SR-71 is the most powerful jet engine ever produced:

Maximum thrust: installed 25,500 pounds-force (113.43 kN) wet, uninstalled 34,000 pounds-force (151.24 kN) wet 25,000 pounds-force (111.21 kN) dry

And the J58 routinely cruises past Mach3 without burning itself up.

Tumanski's R-15 on the other hand has lower thrust:

• Maximum thrust:
• 73.5 kN (16,523 lbf) military power
• 100.1 kN (22,503 lbf) with afterburner

And as I said above, an R-15 goes kaput if used to Mach 3.

A turbojet with 34,000 lbs...that’s cute. Let’s try turbofan like normal people.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznetsov_NK-32

The Kuznetsov NK-32 is an afterburning three-spool low bypass turbofanjet enginewhich powers the Tupolev Tu-160 supersonic bomber, and was fitted to the later model Tupolev Tu-144LL supersonic transport. It is the largest and most powerful engine ever fitted on a combat aircraft. It produces 245 kN (55,000 lbf) of thrust in maximum afterburner.

You mean the R-15 turbojet engine? It was essentially a disposable engine. You push it to Mach 3 and it's over. It was essentially a 1950s low bypass turbojet engine that has been supersized, not so high tech.

The most powerful rocket engine ever used for space was the Space Shuttle SRB engine.

The shuttles main engine RS-25 only produces 418,000lbs thrust SL, it’s direct competitor would be the RD-170 which is the worlds most powerful multi combustion chamber engine which produces 1,631,000 lbs.

SRB is just a solid rocket booster. Same concept as fireworks just much larger. The Energia, although it never went to space, puts the shuttle to shame if we are talking thrust.

 

[Bhurki]

You mean the R-15 turbojet engine? It was essentially a disposable engine. You push it to Mach 3 and it's over. It was essentially a 1950s low bypass turbojet engine that has been supersized, not so high tech.

The most powerful rocket engine ever used for space was the Space Shuttle SRB engine.

No,Turbofans are jets too.
Definitely no on the rocket engine....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznetsov_NK-32

The Kuznetsov NK-32 is an afterburning three-spool low bypass turbofanjet enginewhich powers the Tupolev Tu-160 supersonic bomber, and was fitted to the later model Tupolev Tu-144LL supersonic transport. It is the largest and most powerful engine ever fitted on a combat aircraft. It produces 245 kN (55,000 lbf) of thrust in maximum afterburner.





The shuttles main engine RS-25 only produces 418,000lbs thrust SL, it’s direct competitor would be the RD-170 which is the worlds most powerful multi combustion chamber engine which produces 1,631,000 lbs.

SRB is just a solid rocket booster. Same concept as fireworks just much larger. The Energia, although it never went to space, puts the shuttle to shame if we are talking thrust.

Yeah, thats what i meant...
Thanks for saving me the hustle.

 

[Armand2REP]

A turbojet with 34,000 lbs...that’s cute. Let’s try turbofan like normal people.

The record for turbofans is the GE90-115B at 569kN.

 

[Bhurki]

The record for turbofans is the GE90-115B at 569kN.

Yeah, try putting that on a combat plane..
I'd literally stated 'afterburning jet engine'.
I haven't yet know about a GE90 on fire unless the plane is crashing down.

 

[Neptune]

The record for turbofans is the GE90-115B at 569kN.

I’m aware of that. My link stated that the NK-32 is the largest and most powerful engine ever fitted on a combat aircraft.

Size matters with engines when it comes to making more thrust, take a look at the gargantuan size of the GE engine. The west has always had to make moronically large engines, turbofan, rocket, whatever..... to come anywhere close to or exceed the thrust of most Russian engines.

And now the much older and smaller NK-32:

 

[BON PLAN]

And yet somehow, the most powerful afterburning jet engine and the most powerful rocket engine are both soviet..

power and durability are two completely separate things.

 

[BON PLAN]

Why would Pakistan hide piece time crashes? There are plenty of crashes they admitted too, just very few JF-17 are on the list. Like I said Westerners love to compare the very oldest technology of their adversaries, often used by less then professional militaries and then boast how great their modern hardware is while ignoring the technological advancement of their adversaries.

I agree for the technological level of russian products : it was often a bad surprise when western counterparts meet them.

 

[Bhurki]

power and durability are two completely separate things.

Soviets have got both..
RD180( revised 170) to this day powers the atlas V( 80 launches, 79 success, 1 partial).
Tu 160 powered by NK32 is still the fastest strategic bomber on earth.

 

[asianobserve]

A turbojet with 34,000 lbs...that’s cute. Let’s try turbofan like normal people.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznetsov_NK-32

The Kuznetsov NK-32 is an afterburning three-spool low bypass turbofanjet enginewhich powers the Tupolev Tu-160 supersonic bomber, and was fitted to the later model Tupolev Tu-144LL supersonic transport. It is the largest and most powerful engine ever fitted on a combat aircraft. It produces 245 kN (55,000 lbf) of thrust in maximum afterburner.





The shuttles main engine RS-25 only produces 418,000lbs thrust SL, it’s direct competitor would be the RD-170 which is the worlds most powerful multi combustion chamber engine which produces 1,631,000 lbs.

SRB is just a solid rocket booster. Same concept as fireworks just much larger. The Energia, although it never went to space, puts the shuttle to shame if we are talking thrust.

You're right about NK-32 being the highest thrust combat jet engine. But it got into that thrust level the crude way - by building a humongous engine! That's what I jave been saying all along, Soviets and Russia cannot match the manufacturing tech of Western companies especially on jet engine cores. So what they do is build them so big so that they get the thrust level they want. But the engine is gas guzzling and have short life.

Just look at how the IAF lost interest in PAKFA, a big factor is Russia's inability to deliver the promised engine.