28,000 lbf of thrust is much closer to 32,000 lbf. The max that RD-93 produces is 19,000 lbf. Thats a big difference. I would be happy with even 28,000 lbf. We are building a 3.5 Gen plane that would operate in an enviornment of 4.5 to 5 generation aircrafts. We are not building and buying this plane for a temporary 10-15 years, but rather plan on having this form the backbone of our Air Force for the next 30-40 years! Why not plan it right upfront?
The JF-17 was designed right from the beginning with an engine in mind. So its fuselage was designed to accomodate RD-93. Why did the designers not think of AL-31 series of engines when they have been around for much longer than the design process of JF-17? And that engine is not that much larger than RD-93. J-10 also uses it and that plane is not much larger than JF-17.
And the argument about RD-93 being a temporary solution also does not hold anything against chosing AL-31. Same restrictions... russia involved... why PLAN on going for lower thrust engine when we could have opted for a better engine? This would have improved the performance as well as payload of the aircraft.
Why couldnt we plan this into our NEXT redesign of the JF-17? Block 2 or 3?