What's new

Featured Project Azm: Pakistan's Ambitious Quest to Develop 5th Generation Military Technologies.

Hassan Guy

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 23, 2016
4,835
-3
5,434
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
I get there's reason to be skeptical, but I don't see simply rolling the program into the TFX or J-31 making much sense.

Push the plane back to 2040, keep the focus on strike. 2 H-4 sized bombs in the internal bay. A lot of fighters were designed for a specific role and evolved into doing the other stuff later. We'll see then.

50-70 frames, unless we see an economic miracle in between maybe we can get more.

For the jack of all trades F-16 replacement, get the J-31 or TFX. Ideally a PAF specific variant that would see licence production + some local subsystems integrated at PAC.
 
Last edited:

ProudPak

FULL MEMBER
Feb 26, 2019
636
0
704
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Not negative at all my firned, realistic, but it would still be a great acheivement, if Pak even contributes 25% of a pure 5th/6th Gen fighter, that is 25% more 5th/6th Gen tech then countries like Malaysia, India or Russia....
We all want the same thing...the best Pakistan I guess and we do get frustrated at why we are behind the world. One thing PAF doesn't say anything and that makes people even more frustrated. However, that's the best policy
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
5,959
74
23,409
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
I get there's reason to be skeptical, but I don't see simply rolling the program into the TFX or J-31 making much sense.

Push the plane back to 2040, keep the focus on strike. 2 H-4 sized bombs in the internal bay. A lot of fighters were designed for a specific role and evolved into doing the other stuff later. We'll see then.

50-70 frames, unless we see an economic miracle in between maybe we can get more.

For the jack of all trades F-16 replacement, get the J-31 or TFX. Ideally a PAF specific variant that would see licence production + some local subsystems integrated at PAC.
Yep. Ultimately, there needs to be an in-house fighter. The reason isn't so much for the fighter in itself, but the fact that (1) a lot of our spending goes to defence and (2) aerospace R&D is a good way to channel that spending so as to grow the economy in some high-tech sectors. If our aerospace R&D develops, so can our economy. For example, if we see a growth of mid-market SMEs which can manufacture various aircraft components, they can compete for overseas contracts (i.e., get USD).

That said, the PAF should revise AZM so that it's friendlier towards economies of scale. Otherwise, a 50-70-unit production run won't be sustainable. I would actually focus on designing a successor to the JF-17. As @CriticalThought said, the design itself doesn't need to be incredibly complex or high-spec, just built on modern technologies of today and (where possible) tomorrow. Basically, I think a single-engine, medium-weight (17-ton to 19-ton MTOW) fighter re-using ITAR-free inputs (e.g., engine, radar, etc) is a good start. It's lighter than the original spec, but still capable of deploying two H-4-sized bombs (as well as other heavy loads, e.g., ALCM, ASCMs, REKs, etc). It may not be a strike-focused fighter, but at least a strike-capable multirole fighter.

We can co-invest in those core ITAR-free inputs by joining the TFX or FC-31, and of course, acquire a few of those aircraft to replace the older F-16s. Ideally, the TR Motor engine and Aselsan's (or even our own) GaN AESA radar technologies would develop by the 2040s. We can start the design process today and gradually work on it for 6-7 years, before kicking it to full-out development through the 2030s. From the 2040s, the PAF could start replacing the JF-17s with the NGFA.
 

Rana4pak

FULL MEMBER
Jul 16, 2010
950
-2
1,348
Engine
Yep. Ultimately, there needs to be an in-house fighter. The reason isn't so much for the fighter in itself, but the fact that (1) a lot of our spending goes to defence and (2) aerospace R&D is a good way to channel that spending so as to grow the economy in some high-tech sectors. If our aerospace R&D develops, so can our economy. For example, if we see a growth of mid-market SMEs which can manufacture various aircraft components, they can compete for overseas contracts (i.e., get USD).

That said, the PAF should revise AZM so that it's friendlier towards economies of scale. Otherwise, a 50-70-unit production run won't be sustainable. I would actually focus on designing a successor to the JF-17. As @CriticalThought said, the design itself doesn't need to be incredibly complex or high-spec, just built on modern technologies of today and (where possible) tomorrow. Basically, I think a single-engine, medium-weight (17-ton to 19-ton MTOW) fighter re-using ITAR-free inputs (e.g., engine, radar, etc) is a good start. It's lighter than the original spec, but still capable of deploying two H-4-sized bombs (as well as other heavy loads, e.g., ALCM, ASCMs, REKs, etc). It may not be a strike-focused fighter, but at least a strike-capable multirole fighter.

We can co-invest in those core ITAR-free inputs by joining the TFX or FC-31, and of course, acquire a few of those aircraft to replace the older F-16s. Ideally, the TR Motor engine and Aselsan's (or even our own) GaN AESA radar technologies would develop by the 2040s. We can start the design process today and gradually work on it for 6-7 years, before kicking it to full-out development through the 2030s. From the 2040s, the PAF could start replacing the JF-17s with the NGFA.
along with further development of jf17 ,PAC should have domestic engine.
 

DJ_Viper

FULL MEMBER
Mar 17, 2008
1,666
2
2,005
Country
United States
Location
United States
I get there's reason to be skeptical, but I don't see simply rolling the program into the TFX or J-31 making much sense.

Push the plane back to 2040, keep the focus on strike. 2 H-4 sized bombs in the internal bay. A lot of fighters were designed for a specific role and evolved into doing the other stuff later. We'll see then.

50-70 frames, unless we see an economic miracle in between maybe we can get more.

For the jack of all trades F-16 replacement, get the J-31 or TFX. Ideally a PAF specific variant that would see licence production + some local subsystems integrated at PAC.
To be frank here, TFX and J-31 make sense but as future secondary aircraft. If I was in Pakistan's shoes, I'd have gotten one of the first block II JFT's for R&D into a stealth aircraft, testing advance composites, RAM, advance weapons integration and test bed for advance avionics and EW suites. This would've at the least, created a knowledge warehouse about 5th gen tech. This "test" block II JFT would then be upgraded to block III and due to R&D, it's airframe would've become stealthy overtime. I don't understand why Pakistan's core focus has always been weapons and pilots training (which is great) but little to no R&D.
 

Hassan Guy

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 23, 2016
4,835
-3
5,434
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Yep. Ultimately, there needs to be an in-house fighter. The reason isn't so much for the fighter in itself, but the fact that (1) a lot of our spending goes to defence and (2) aerospace R&D is a good way to channel that spending so as to grow the economy in some high-tech sectors. If our aerospace R&D develops, so can our economy. For example, if we see a growth of mid-market SMEs which can manufacture various aircraft components, they can compete for overseas contracts (i.e., get USD).

That said, the PAF should revise AZM so that it's friendlier towards economies of scale. Otherwise, a 50-70-unit production run won't be sustainable. I would actually focus on designing a successor to the JF-17. As @CriticalThought said, the design itself doesn't need to be incredibly complex or high-spec, just built on modern technologies of today and (where possible) tomorrow. Basically, I think a single-engine, medium-weight (17-ton to 19-ton MTOW) fighter re-using ITAR-free inputs (e.g., engine, radar, etc) is a good start. It's lighter than the original spec, but still capable of deploying two H-4-sized bombs (as well as other heavy loads, e.g., ALCM, ASCMs, REKs, etc). It may not be a strike-focused fighter, but at least a strike-capable multirole fighter.

We can co-invest in those core ITAR-free inputs by joining the TFX or FC-31, and of course, acquire a few of those aircraft to replace the older F-16s. Ideally, the TR Motor engine and Aselsan's (or even our own) GaN AESA radar technologies would develop by the 2040s. We can start the design process today and gradually work on it for 6-7 years, before kicking it to full-out development through the 2030s. From the 2040s, the PAF could start replacing the JF-17s with the NGFA.
Believe it or not, I actually disagree. I don't think rolling out a fighter similar to Checkmate as the be all end all for the air force is a good idea.
I would say that the long range, supercruise with 2 H-4's locked internally in the stealth configuration is critical. For that you gotta go heavyweight, pretty much the concept design we've seen so far.

50-70 Airframes is not ideal, but if we can get 4 heavy night capable strike squadrons, i'd say its good enough. We only have 4 combat F-16 squads and one of them is ADF.

Streamline development by keeping the focus on strike. Once this plane is built, a much stronger aerospace industry should be developed as a result. Only then should a successor for the JF-17 be built.
Go full 6th gen, comparable to the Tempest - capable of all the EW and laser combat of the future. Ideally project starts in the 2040's. Twin engine actually, but eurofighter/rafale size.
 
Mar 8, 2021
451
0
380
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Some members shared good news about design and other things.Like @JamD said that YF 23 DSI inlet design is under development and will be passed through wind tunnel very soon.after that, foreign help will be sought in some critical technologies development.
After that good news they again started that AZM will be J31 ,TFX.I don't know what's happening.
 

JamD

FULL MEMBER
Mar 26, 2015
1,683
71
5,650
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Some members shared good news about design and other things.Like @JamD said that YF 23 DSI inlet design is under development and will be passed through wind tunnel very soon.after that, foreign help will be sought in some critical technologies development.
After that good news they again started that AZM will be J31 ,TFX.I don't know what's happening.
Very little to no Chinese connection to Azm (as it stands right now). PAF is weary about working with the Chinese for Azm for reasons that I would rather not go into here.
 
Mar 8, 2021
451
0
380
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Very little to no Chinese connection to Azm (as it stands right now). PAF is weary about working with the Chinese for Azm for reasons that I would rather not go into here.
I think now responsibilities for PAF are increasing.They are working on space command,other homegrown projects also.But how can they accomplish such huge projects with present type problems like PDF members are discussing here?
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
5,959
74
23,409
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Believe it or not, I actually disagree. I don't think rolling out a fighter similar to Checkmate as the be all end all for the air force is a good idea.
I would say that the long range, supercruise with 2 H-4's locked internally in the stealth configuration is critical. For that you gotta go heavyweight, pretty much the concept design we've seen so far.

50-70 Airframes is not ideal, but if we can get 4 heavy night capable strike squadrons, i'd say its good enough. We only have 4 combat F-16 squads and one of them is ADF.

Streamline development by keeping the focus on strike. Once this plane is built, a much stronger aerospace industry should be developed as a result. Only then should a successor for the JF-17 be built.
Go full 6th gen, comparable to the Tempest - capable of all the EW and laser combat of the future. Ideally project starts in the 2040's. Twin engine actually, but eurofighter/rafale size.
In that case, I'd still stretch the production run of the strike aircraft to 100+.

Even in a good scenario, I don't think we'd be producing core inputs that can scale across multiple aircraft (like engines), so the bulk of our R&D would go into the aircraft design and its design-specific inputs. Be it PAC or a potential private sector, that's a lot of investment going into certain types of materials, jigs, and other big overhead.

IMO the industry as a whole will want 100+ aircraft (possibly 150) to justify the overhead spending. However, that doesn't mean cramming all 100-150 into the same timeframe as 50-70; rather, you would extend the production period by another 10-15 years. So, instead of 50-70 over 10 years, you'd go for 100-150 over 20 years -- i.e., the same annual output. The more enticing the program is for the private sector to invest in, the less the PAF will have to directly spend on infrastructure and more on the actual R&D itself.

Granted, this would add to the operating cost for the PAF. However, bear in mind, a decent portion of those aircraft could be kept in storage as either attrition reserves, war-time reserves, or (once the industry moves to a 6GFA) spare parts to support the 5GFA fleet.
 

JamD

FULL MEMBER
Mar 26, 2015
1,683
71
5,650
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
I think now responsibilities for PAF are increasing.They are working on space command,other homegrown projects also.But how can they accomplish such huge projects with present type problems like PDF members are discussing here?
Great question. They need to delegate these tasks to the private sector. They should stop trying to do everything themselves. They should manage and direct the R&D and let the private sector worry about details so that they can focus on operational matters. Of course, this is what ideally should happen and not what necessarily will happen.
 

Goku-kun

FULL MEMBER
Jun 13, 2018
516
0
340
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I think/hope your being sarcastic, or I’m misunderstanding your suggestion that canards could be retracted and used when needed for “extra maneuverability”. There are probably ways smaller surfaces can be used along the plane to get the same results along with thrust vectoring. The canards add to the RCS and a standard exhaust can still put up a significant IR signature; which sensors like the F-35’s EOTS can pick up. A design like the YF-23 may have the lowest signature (RCS and IR) of a stealth aircraft, just behind the B-2.
just look at f-14..doesn't it has this retracting wings and expand on purpose..
 

Akh1112

FULL MEMBER
Nov 21, 2019
1,236
4
1,971
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
just look at f-14..doesn't it has this retracting wings and expand on purpose..
These are called glove vanes. Their purpose was to prevent the nose from pitching down, which it would during/after its transonic stage of flight. They also helped with additional manoeuvrability when the wings were swept back at high speeds, however, they were delete on the newer models due to them not being too useful, instead, they were either welded shut or replaced with avionics.
I think/hope your being sarcastic, or I’m misunderstanding your suggestion that canards could be retracted and used when needed for “extra maneuverability”. There are probably ways smaller surfaces can be used along the plane to get the same results along with thrust vectoring. The canards add to the RCS and a standard exhaust can still put up a significant IR signature; which sensors like the F-35’s EOTS can pick up. A design like the YF-23 may have the lowest signature (RCS and IR) of a stealth aircraft, just behind the B-2.
There’s no need for this, explain to him why it’s not accurate instead of parading him, not everyone is as informed.
why don't we copy the f-14 'tom cat' in this regard?
just like f-14 which can fold and expand its wings on purpose so we can add canards to the jet but we know that it increases radar cross section but when you need it you open canards and when you dont need just close them..
retractable control surfaces aren’t new, the french modified a mirage 3 with these ‘sort of’ canards, they improved its flight characteristics in many ways, though if I’m honest, I can’t particularly remember why It went nowhere, but if I were to guess it would be that it eats into avionics payloads, which are far more important than airshow kinematics, yes they were useful for low altitude handling during bombing runs, but the bone just uses fixed vanes for this
 

Cookie Monster

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 31, 2016
3,787
6
5,852
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Very little to no Chinese connection to Azm (as it stands right now). PAF is weary about working with the Chinese for Azm for reasons that I would rather not go into here.
IMO there isn't anyone other than China..that can provide the help Pak would need on Azm NGF. US and western European countries wouldn't help...Russia would either be looking to sell its own solutions(either PakFa or Checkmate)...and if Russia even agreed to provide assistance it would be a costly affair. Costs and risks would also be high in case of countries like South Africa(or Turkey and other such countries).

This means either Pak keeps chugging along little by little on Azm NGF...while buying stop gap measures like FC31/J35(Chinese 5th gen option for export) or TFX(Turkey's 5th gen if export is an option). This would effectively make Azm NGF like what Tejas was... technology will keep on moving forward...and the goal post will have to be moved forward...causing cost overruns.

Or(the better option IMO) would be to involve private sector...where possible(my guess is mostly avionics)...in addition to what PAF is already doing. Get the rest of the help(and engines) from China...
...yes yes...I get it...not ideal...but it's the lesser of the two evils(that can actually deliver a product and keep risks of cost overruns lower).

Pak gained numerous capabilities with JF17 program...this share can be increased with AZM NGF...keep going like this...until one day Pak can make a fighter jet 100% by itself...
...as opposed to trying to run(indigenous Azm NGF) shortly after having taken the first step(JF17).
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom