Responder al tema

Mensaje: <blockquote data-quote="bandua" data-source="post: 1896744" data-attributes="member: 16013">pongo una entrevista sobre este avión es un copy paste de lo que colgo el usuario alejandro_ en el foro de portierramaryaire (<a href="http://portierramaryaire.com/foro/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=633&start=2490">http://portierramaryaire.com/foro/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=633&start=2490</a>):Some interesting highlights from an interview conducted by Defence Industry Bulletin and PAC Vice-Director and JF-17 sales and marketing manager ACR Mahmood Khalid, during the Paris Airshow.DIB: Since we last spoke, the first Block of JF-17 – that unique ‘role model’ where an air force is not buying from the industry but producing its own fighter jets – is in operational service. The second Block is in assembly. What is your interim ‘resumé’ on this type? Are you happy with the performance, the avionics, the engine, and so on?ACRK: Yes, the 50 Block-Is are out there. The Block-II’s design is frozen and the first one flew on February 9. But I have to correct you because already four Block-II aircraft have been delivered to the PAF...There will in fact be a new unit, a fourth squadron of Block IIs. It will be raised within this year, but not with these four airplanes yet. No number or name has yet been decided...All together around 60 airframes have been built, 50 are in operation and the rest are undertaking tests in Pakistan and China. As far as the operational aircraft goes and the whole ‘role-model’ concept, as you called it, we’re really happy with it. Happy with the avionics, including the radar. I can also reveal that this type can be called combat proven as it has been used over the FATA-areas in western Pakistan, where it has employed both guided and unguided munitions. Also ‘jointness’ on a national level is working okay – the datalink is effective for what you can call a ‘national solution’ and allows an integrated picture from onboard and off-board sensors. Most importantly for Pakistan, ‘Thunder’ provides an F-16- or Gripen C/D like capability at an affordable cost, which can be locally upgraded or have weapons added, as the PAF decides. Of course, this combination is attractive for many countries all around the world.DIB: But for exports, you will need to be able to increase production, right?ACRK: We’re able to do that. We’re going to produce about 20 ‘Thunders’ per year for our PAF, like we did with Block-I. This means that from today on, we will build Block-IIs for about two and half years. But we can then increase production to maybe 25 aircraft per year. As you rightly say, this aircraft is globally marketed – and it is getting serious attention from multiples parties. Therefore it’s also my responsibility to fulfil sudden demand. We can never be ‘surprised’ by an order. So as I said, the infrastructure and the manpower is there for 25 per year. Our air force has certain requirements and other clients have – or will have – those too. Based on them, we are organising production with the suppliers, ordering long-lead items, some parts and the sub- and main assemblies necessary to be delivered ahead of final assembly. DIB: Those suppliers are also fully under the control of Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) Kamra?ACRK: Those that are in Pakistan, yes. But as 42% of the JF-17’s structure is built at and brought in from China, and 58% in Pakistan, this production organisation involves our Chinese partners as well. All avionics integration, final-assembly, all flight-testing is done in Pakistan. Where it concerns suppliers, everything is controlled by or assembled in Kamra.DIB: We’ve heard rumour that the first 50 Block-I airframes will get some retrofitted features from the Block-II?ACRK: That’s true. They’ll get improved avionics, better software and the air-to-air refuelling-probe. There’ll be no other external differences between I and II, except that we’re considering chin stations under the intakes.DIB: I’m glad you mentioned the refuelling-probe. Why is this only being added to Block-II later rather than from the beginning?ACRK: JF-17 will have a South African-sourced in-flight refuelling system, which is being implemented by integration of a fixed air-refuelling probe on the starboard of the fuselage, slightly behind the cockpit. The airplane is small, so there’s no possibility to house it inside. Two aircraft from Block-I are upgraded for flight-testing of the system. The installation on the Block-II aircraft will be conducted from 2016 onwards, with about the 24th or 26th aircraft. Block-II aircraft 09-109 will be used to test it. I expect that earlier aircraft will be subsequently retrofitted with it – even Block-I is a possibility, if so decided. Because the fuel system was designed from the very beginning for air-to-air refuelling, it was a design requirement. Maybe a few components need to be strengthened in order to take the loads, but that’s all. It will be detachable too. If we don’t need it, we can remove it and seal the position. That job can be done in 45 minutes.DIB: Earlier you said the current Block-II’s design has been frozen, which means it retains the same engine – the RD-93. That further means any discussions on another engine, such as the EJ-200, or of conformal fuel tanks or an AESA radar will have to wait until the Block-III, which already on the horizon. What’s currently under consideration?ACRK: There is a team at Kamra looking at what’s happening in our world and what might be necessary. This includes the likes of HMD, AESA, IRST and the additional chin hardpoints for targeting pods. The currently completed Block-II aircraft has an improved version of the avionics and EW package, as well as the improved KLJ-7 V2 radar. This mechanical radar for the moment remains the same, but it will be replaced by an AESA radar in Block-III. Concerning the engine, right now we’re very happy with the RD-93. But if a future customer indicates that they prefer another, more powerful engine, there are provisions from the hardpoints in the engine tunnel to accommodate that. DIB: Is it true that among the few JF-17s and FC-1s undertaking testing at China’s CATIC or CAC, there’s one which already flight tests with a Chinese-made engine? Which one would that be? A WS-17, I assume, because of the complement name? Or WS-13?ACRK: Yes, there are tests ongoing in China concerning a future engine-option*. We always keep the options open. The best equipment will find its way into the aircraft. The type of engine involved in that JF-17 cockpit detail will be revealed very soon.DIB: Concerning the radar – for an AESA you are depending on foreign suppliers? Chinese, I guess...ACRK: Yes, the AESA radar will not be produced indigenously. There is one under development at NRIST [Nanjing Research of Electronic Technology], I think. But the Chinese are just one option we have for this. That’s not been decided yet.DIB: A question on weapons integration…I suppose the heavy anti-ship missile C802AK is integrated, while the later CM-400AKG not quite yet. If the aircraft carries it, you need range to go out at sea and therefore you need at least one additional fuel tank. And if it’s suspended, you’d need to rebalance the weight...ACRK: Yes and no. The C802 is in PAF-squadron-use in the Block-I at No.2 Squadron. Live-firing was done together with CATIC in China. The CM-400 is however integrated, but not contracted. And if we carry a large anti-ship missile, we will carry one or preferably two fuel tanks, with the other one at the centre station. After it’s been spent, the automatic flight control/management system will compensate the changes in loads.DIB: Let’s talk about the upcoming two-seater. AVIC boss Mr Li has said progress on it is being made. How essential is it?ACRK: For us in the PAF, it’s not that essential. We’ve done fine in the operational conversion to the ‘Thunder’ with the high-fidelity, full-mission simulator at Kamra. It has everything – artificial targets from East and West, et cetera. Our pilots all come to Kamra to train and to keep an 80:20 hour-rate – that’s 80 in the air, 20 in the dome. But several potential customers – I cannot tell you who – have asked for it. So the ‘JF-17B’ will definitely come. In fact, first metal has already been cut for it and it will fly next year.Notes by the author: *Since 2013 there have been indications that a future JF-17/FC-1 engine might well be the medium thrust WS-13. Last year, a source at Guizhou Aviation Industry Corporation (the facility most frequently associated with work on WS-13) wrote in a report that: “The modified design-tool method was developed for a general blading design system and its application for the axial/ centrifugal compressor of FC-1s Block-III powerplant. According to the similitude theory, at the precondition of the equivalence of converse mass flow and converse revolution speed at the second stage inlet, the increase of the mass flow was growing with the pressure ratio. By CFD computation and analysis, all the performances met the requirement and the design result was perfect. The results show that as the speed of the fan increases 1.1%, the mass flow increases 7.1%, the pressure ratio increases 7.4%, the efficiency increases 2.9% and the stall marge increases 0.8%. Analysis and valuation of the performance and matching characteristic indicate that this design can satisfy the more thrust requirement of the new turbofan engine.” This information describes the medium thrust engine in question as having a 4 stage LP compressor. This matches well with the RD-33 configuration of 4/9/1/1 (4 stage LP-compressor/9 stage HP compressor/1 stage HP-turbine and 1 stage LP-turbine), on which WS-13 is reportedly based. Further the actual increase in mass flow achieved with a new fan closely matches Russian modifications of RD-33** (the ‘ancestor of RD-93), using similar methods.**The Russian RD-33MK (for MiG-35) used a new wide chord fan of identical diameter (similar to the Chinese efforts described above) to achieve a 6% increase in mass flow, along with a new FADEC and improved combustor liner resulting in an engine with 9070kg thrust and 1000 hour TBO. Of the improvements listed here, only an increased mass flow has a significant effect on thrust, FADEC and combustion liner changes improve TBO, reducing smoke and weight (via a lighter control system). Given the Chinese fan design has a higher mass flow increase (7.1% vs. 6%) and the specific reference of increase in T4 (turbine-inlet) temperature to increase thrust (as oppose to the mere consequence of increased mass flow via air compression), it appears likely that the WS-13 variant aims to have higher thrust increase compared with the RD-33MK, or alternatively greater TBO. A useful reference perhaps is the 9.300kp thrust target of RD-93MA, under development currently for future JF-17 blocks. At Paris (June 15), the author attended a press conference with AVIC vice- president Li Yuhai and with PAC’s ACR Khalid. Li confirmed that “a new Chinese turbofan for the J-17 has completed lab tests and is in flight testing progress”. He stated that the new engine would have a thrust slightly larger than the 8.7-ton thrust of the JF-17’s current Klimov RD-93 turbofan. It was also confirmed that in 2010 China obtained a Russian commitment to meet a potential requirement of up to 500 RD-93 engines to support the JF-17 programme. This figure would support Pakistan’s requirements for up to 275 JF-17s – plus all international exports .</blockquote>

Verificación: Libertador de Argentina