What's new

SAC - FC-31 Grey Falcon Stealth aircraft for PAF : Updates & Debate.

LeGenD

MODERATOR
Aug 28, 2006
11,129
49
12,538
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
The key to defeating the western stealth threat, lay in revolutionary electronic warfare from the ground, sea and air. A country that doesn't have the necessary resources to develop their own stealth fighter program, or have a comprehensively impenetrable Air Defense Network, ought to invest in development of advance electronic warfare systems.
Russia adopted this strategy in Ukraine and Syria respectively. Russian EW capabilities achieved wonders in Ukraine but failed to counter both US and Israel in Syria.

FYI: https://www.militaryaerospace.com/rf-analog/article/14173343/electronic-warfare-ew-avionics-f35

A country with struggling economy and other shortcomings cannot achieve supremacy in this game.

My take? Continue to invest in defensive applications but strive for lasting peace in the region.
 

MastanKhan

PDF VETERAN
Dec 26, 2005
19,232
160
52,835
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Yep...and I doubt the US will go through as many issues with its future next-gen fighters. It is now focusing on simplifying R&D management and design/development (via digital twins etc). The US will hammer us with F-35s plus new (and many) UCAV designs, 5+ and 6-gen fighters, etc.

The world was foolish to think all that $$$ spent on R&D over the decades wasn't going to surface. China just showed that it's a big enough threat for the US to flex again, but that flex is a collective dressing down of UK, France, Germany, and everyone else who thought the US was losing it. Thanks China >_>
Hi,

Pres Trump made some claims just recently about stuff that no one know---.

A future next Gen fighter has already been developed by the US and in flight---.

The manufacturer claims that it was developed in one year---. Is it a shocking news---the time factor---NO---but another next gen fighter---that is.

Search for it on the web---the news just came out on yahoo a couple of days ago---and it disappeared.
 

MastanKhan

PDF VETERAN
Dec 26, 2005
19,232
160
52,835
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
If USA hasn't started its next Gen fighter project yet, that would be really a big news.
Sir,

Developing it in 1 year is a big news.

" Even though the US Air Force’s flight of a demonstrator was not expected for years, the service took its ‘next generation air dominance’, or NGAD fighter from selection process to a virtual version to reportedly flying at least one prototype in just one year ".

 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
4,791
51
16,875
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Sir,

Developing it in 1 year is a big news.

" Even though the US Air Force’s flight of a demonstrator was not expected for years, the service took its ‘next generation air dominance’, or NGAD fighter from selection process to a virtual version to reportedly flying at least one prototype in just one year ".

...and this is just one project. We haven't gotten into the chance of them applying the Digital Century concept on loyal wingman drones, UCAVs, and other manned fighters. The US is aiming to return to the 1950s type of rapid development, many different platforms, etc.

This is a good example of KISS. The US is sticking to existing inputs/subsystems, but is developing different platforms on those inputs. It's looking at short production runs and re-instituting the culture of replacing old with new (instead of upgrading the old by prolonging lifecycles). Basically, keep the most difficult stuff (e.g., engines) for as long as possible, but change the solution or application using those inputs to keep up with the times. It also opens the industry up to experiment with new ideas, so we may see the return of lightweight fighters, or a true successor the C-130 Herc, for example.

The PAF will really need to think about this trend. Do we want to saddle ourselves with one platform for a long time? Or do we want to incentivize the private sector to constantly reinvest in new capacity to pump out new platforms every 7-10 years? What do we do to develop the latter scenario?
 
Last edited:

PakFactor

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 30, 2019
3,279
2
5,543
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
...and this is just one project. We haven't gotten into the chance of them applying the Digital Century concept on loyal wingman drones, UCAVs, and other manned fighters. The US is aiming to return to the 1950s type of rapid development, many different platforms, etc.

This is a good example of KISS. The US is sticking to existing inputs/subsystems, but is developing different platforms on those inputs. It's looking at short production runs and re-instituting the culture of replacing old with new (instead of upgrading the old by prolonging lifecycles). Basically, keep the most difficult stuff (e.g., engines) for as long as possible, but change the solution or application using those inputs to keep up with the times. It also opens the industry up to experiment with new ideas, so we may see the return of lightweight fighters, or a true successor the C-130 Herc, for example.

The PAF will really need to think about this trend. Do we want to saddle ourselves with one platform for a long time? Or do we want to incentivize the private sector to constantly reinvest in new jigs and stuff to pump out new platforms every 10-15 years?
We need a similar program and encourage private sector to design.
I feel the US knows sooner or later it’ll be facing bigger powers and attrition will wear it down. Also, they’ve wasted time and money playing with small countries to no benefit in the long term.
 

Ghessan

FULL MEMBER
Feb 28, 2018
581
0
540
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
a competitor strong enough to induct bags full of dollars into R&D and excel into new advancements, may have forced them to keep things secret like their competitor.

so is it justified to say F-35 even F-16 blk 70/72 is going to sell like hotcakes with whoever pays for it by lowering the US's own selection criteria of buying countries?
 

Yasser76

FULL MEMBER
Mar 28, 2017
818
1
1,349
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
...and this is just one project. We haven't gotten into the chance of them applying the Digital Century concept on loyal wingman drones, UCAVs, and other manned fighters. The US is aiming to return to the 1950s type of rapid development, many different platforms, etc.

This is a good example of KISS. The US is sticking to existing inputs/subsystems, but is developing different platforms on those inputs. It's looking at short production runs and re-instituting the culture of replacing old with new (instead of upgrading the old by prolonging lifecycles). Basically, keep the most difficult stuff (e.g., engines) for as long as possible, but change the solution or application using those inputs to keep up with the times. It also opens the industry up to experiment with new ideas, so we may see the return of lightweight fighters, or a true successor the C-130 Herc, for example.

The PAF will really need to think about this trend. Do we want to saddle ourselves with one platform for a long time? Or do we want to incentivize the private sector to constantly reinvest in new capacity to pump out new platforms every 7-10 years? What do we do to develop the latter scenario?

Well I would argue that the PAF did indeed anticipate this. US is just realising it also needs affordable and effective platforms in numbers. Whilst the rest of the world was focusing on twin engine heavy fighters or super expensive stealth, essentially just Sweden and Pakistan went down a route of cheap and lightweight fighters Something that had gone out of fashion since the F-5/MIG-21

We know have a fighter that whilst not as capable as say a SU-30 or Rafale, gives us much of the capability for much much lower cost. USAF now find themselves in a situation where they have to upgrade more F-16s and F-15s and even order new F-15s. This is simply due to not having numbers and going for very high end.

Likewise with AZM, it seems that this is just not one project but several using elements of the same tech.
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
4,791
51
16,875
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Well I would argue that the PAF did indeed anticipate this. US is just realising it also needs affordable and effective platforms in numbers. Whilst the rest of the world was focusing on twin engine heavy fighters or super expensive stealth, essentially just Sweden and Pakistan went down a route of cheap and lightweight fighters Something that had gone out of fashion since the F-5/MIG-21

We know have a fighter that whilst not as capable as say a SU-30 or Rafale, gives us much of the capability for much much lower cost. USAF now find themselves in a situation where they have to upgrade more F-16s and F-15s and even order new F-15s. This is simply due to not having numbers and going for very high end.

Likewise with AZM, it seems that this is just not one project but several using elements of the same tech.
Yep. The key is making AZM's critical inputs -- i.e., engine, radar (or TRM tech), etc -- available to as many design institutes (including in the private sector) to come up with applications.

So, while the PAF may want a twin-engine fighter, perhaps someone else (be AvRID or private sector) can come up with a single-engine lightweight as a complementary solution or trainer or something.
 

Yasser76

FULL MEMBER
Mar 28, 2017
818
1
1,349
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Yep. The key is making AZM's critical inputs -- i.e., engine, radar (or TRM tech), etc -- available to as many design institutes (including in the private sector) to come up with applications.

So, while the PAF may want a twin-engine fighter, perhaps someone else (be AvRID or private sector) can come up with a single-engine lightweight as a complementary solution or trainer or something.
Yes, as you say, it is the critical elements. Engine and radar. With JF-17 experience we can now handle airframes and systems integration (we can even build our own Eriyes once we buy just the radar!).

Engine and AESA will require foreign component. China can still not rival the very best that P&W or GE can build. This is basically due to mastering fan blade metallurgy. Not easy at all but they are getting there. This is why Chinese can make low powered engines or ones that need overhaul often. Once they master this we can see extremely powerful and sophisticated engines on class of F119 and Eurojet EJ2000

AESA wise in 5-10 years I really suspect China will surpass or at least match Europe/US.
 

Figaro

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 17, 2017
5,432
8
9,885
Country
United States
Location
United States
Yes, as you say, it is the critical elements. Engine and radar. With JF-17 experience we can now handle airframes and systems integration (we can even build our own Eriyes once we buy just the radar!).

Engine and AESA will require foreign component. China can still not rival the very best that P&W or GE can build. This is basically due to mastering fan blade metallurgy. Not easy at all but they are getting there. This is why Chinese can make low powered engines or ones that need overhaul often. Once they master this we can see extremely powerful and sophisticated engines on class of F119 and Eurojet EJ2000
Actually this is not true. The Chinese are best in high thrust turbofans and the weakest in low thrust turbofans due to a lack of investment in the area. That is why they still rely on Motor Sich for the AL-222 for the L-15 trainer aircraft. The main issue historically with the Chinese gas turbine industry is the manufacturing quality of the single crystal superalloy and P/M disks. But ever since 2017, they are able to produce superalloy with a 90% yield rate (the best indicator of material quality), which is pretty comparable to Western engine makers. That is why the J-20, J-10C, and all major aircrafts of the PLAAF has switched to Chinese engines now. Regarding the lifespan issue, the WS-10 was reported to have a 1500 hour service life with 300 hours "regular maintenance" back in 2014, which was the original design specs. I have no doubt the latest WS-10s have exceeded this but they still have considerably lower lifespans than the F110GE-132 or F119, which is something that can only be solved by the next generation of engines.
Once they master this we can see extremely powerful and sophisticated engines on class of F119 and Eurojet EJ2000
The Chinese have two engine programs directed to this. The WS-15 is expected to be incorporated into the J-20 between 2021 and 2023 while the WS-19 will take a little longer, although progress is very fast. Both are T/W > 10 engines.

WS-15 : 180 kN engine (analogous to the F119 or F135) ---> J-20, H-20, future single engine fighter
WS-19 : 110 kN engine (analogous to a heavily uprated EJ200) ---> J-35, FC-31, AZM
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
4,791
51
16,875
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Actually this is not true. The Chinese are best in high thrust turbofans and the weakest in low thrust turbofans due to a lack of investment in the area. That is why they still rely on Motor Sich for the AL-222 for the L-15 trainer aircraft. The main issue historically with the Chinese gas turbine industry is the manufacturing quality of the single crystal superalloy and P/M disks. But ever since 2017, they are able to produce superalloy with a 90% yield rate (the best indicator of material quality), which is pretty comparable to Western engine makers. That is why the J-20, J-10C, and all major aircrafts of the PLAAF has switched to Chinese engines now. Regarding the lifespan issue, the WS-10 was reported to have a 1500 hour service life with 300 hours "regular maintenance" back in 2014, which was the original design specs. I have no doubt the latest WS-10s have exceeded this but they still have considerably lower lifespans than the F110GE-132 or F119, which is something that can only be solved by the next generation of engines.

The Chinese have two engine programs directed to this. The WS-15 is expected to be incorporated into the J-20 between 2021 and 2023 while the WS-19 will take a little longer, although progress is very fast. Both are T/W > 10 engines.

WS-15 : 180 kN engine (analogous to the F119 or F135) ---> J-20, H-20, future single engine fighter
WS-19 : 110 kN engine (analogous to a heavily uprated EJ200) ---> J-35, FC-31, AZM
The PAF also said it wants super-cruising with AZM/FGFA, so, unless it's somehow got-in on the F414/EJ200/M88, it's probably looking at the WS-19/WS-15.

But if AVIC makes it easy for our private industry to buy these engines, our companies could start designing their own equipment. So, for example, access to a 10 kN Chinese engine can help some Pakistani companies develop a loyal wingman UAV. The key is cutting the red-tape and simplifying collaboration between Chinese and Pakistani companies.
 

Figaro

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 17, 2017
5,432
8
9,885
Country
United States
Location
United States
The PAF also said it wants super-cruising with AZM/FGFA, so, unless it's somehow got-in on the F414/EJ200/M88, it's probably looking at the WS-19/WS-15.
If the AZM is aiming for a J-20/Su-57/F-22 weight class, then it will be the WS-15. If it is aiming for a medium weight class like the FC-31, then the WS-19 will do. I'm sure either engine could be upscaled or downscaled in thrust if the AZM wants something in the middle, to an extent.
 

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

Top