Pakistan F-16 Discussions 2

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

If that’s the case, then Azm represents the eventual supplement and then replacement for the JF-17?

What about the top end; replacement of the F-16s?

Re: Azm, basically ... PAC switches over to the Azm by 2030, then Azm takes over the fleet by 2040/2045 (let's say production is a lot slower than the JF-17 due to higher complexity, higher cost, etc).

As for the F-16 ... TF-X?

“Importantly, joint collaboration on 5th generation fighter aircraft, commonly known as Turkish Fighter Development [TF-X] Program, will be a true flagship project between Pakistan and Turkey.

Currently, the details and scope of collaboration and participation is being worked between the two governments for jointly undertaking this strategic project, which would further open new vistas of mutual cooperation of defence industries of the two countries.” Secretary of the MoDP, Lt. General (retired) Syed Muhammad Owais to MSI Turkish Defence Review during IDEAS in November 2016.

“We are integrating our technology with friendly countries, including Turkey. We are thinking of producing the next-generation aircraft by pooling resources with them. For this, the basic framework and agreements have been made…” Air Chief Marshal Sohail Aman to Bol Narratives in April 2017 (link)

“No [Pakistan] agreement with [Turkish Aerospace Industries] on TF-X, but sometime in near future it’s likely to figure in PAF’s new generation fighter aircraft requirement.” Alan Warnes in May 2017 (link)​

Given that we Pakistanis aren't allowed to have nice things, I'd say the TF-X stuff is all tentative. However, given that we've had officials (and a connected journalist) say it, it's not a cold wet dream

 

[Avicenna]

Re: Azm, basically ... PAC switches over to the Azm by 2030, then Azm takes over the fleet by 2040/2045 (let's say production is a lot slower than the JF-17 due to higher complexity, higher cost, etc).

As for the F-16 ... TF-X?

“Importantly, joint collaboration on 5th generation fighter aircraft, commonly known as Turkish Fighter Development [TF-X] Program, will be a true flagship project between Pakistan and Turkey.

Currently, the details and scope of collaboration and participation is being worked between the two governments for jointly undertaking this strategic project, which would further open new vistas of mutual cooperation of defence industries of the two countries.” Secretary of the MoDP, Lt. General (retired) Syed Muhammad Owais to MSI Turkish Defence Review during IDEAS in November 2016.

“We are integrating our technology with friendly countries, including Turkey. We are thinking of producing the next-generation aircraft by pooling resources with them. For this, the basic framework and agreements have been made…” Air Chief Marshal Sohail Aman to Bol Narratives in April 2017 (link)

“No [Pakistan] agreement with [Turkish Aerospace Industries] on TF-X, but sometime in near future it’s likely to figure in PAF’s new generation fighter aircraft requirement.” Alan Warnes in May 2017 (link)​

Given that we Pakistanis aren't allowed to have nice things, I'd say the TF-X stuff is all tentative. However, given that we've had officials (and a connected journalist) say it, it's not a cold wet dream

Yea inshAllah that’s the case.

BAE involvement in the TFX and the unveiling of the Tempest makes it a lot more interesting in the sense that the TFX may be the beneficiary of technology and subsystems that will make it on to the Tempest.

Ideally, the TFX could make a very nice F-16 replacement.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Yea inshAllah that’s the case.

BAE involvement in the TFX and the unveiling of the Tempest makes it a lot more interesting in the sense that the TFX may be the beneficiary of technology and subsystems that will make it on to the Tempest.

Ideally, the TFX could make a very nice F-16 replacement.

Yep if it means a 1:2 or 1:3 ratio between TFX and Azm by 2040, I'd take that any day over all 4+/4.5 gen fighter options today.

 

[randomradio]

The only question is the engine. Naturally, the RD-93MA would have made sense initially as it's a relative of the RD-93 (much like the Gripen E/F's F414 is a relative of the C/D's F404), but a rumoured ~90kN afterburn thrust wouldn't cut it for a next-gen fighter with clear range and payload improvements. Rather, you'd need to reach the 98~100 kN thrust of the F414, which also respects @messiach's point that the engine for Azm will be new.

The RD-33 series can be uprated to 100KN.

There was a 91KN version being made called the RD-93MA and a 93KN RD-33MKM. You can push it to 98KN.

But it's not really something you can put on a next gen aircraft.

 

[MastanKhan]

Saab itself is saying the Gripen E/F is basically a different fighter to the Gripen C/D, and we can see it both in terms of the specifications and the time it took to develop, test and certify this aircraft (almost 10 years, end-to-end).

The Block-III's design was frozen in 2015 and is to enter production in 2019-2020, so there's no way we're talking about a significant re-design or re-engine. Such changes require a lot more time (just see the Gripen E/F).

That said, the Gripen E/F does provide a good template of what can be done for Project Azm. In this case, you have an engine which is an upgraded derivative of the GE F404, but is capable of lifting 1.5x more payload and providing more range than the current C/D. It also provides supercruise.

In other words (@MastanKhan @CriticalThought) the PAF can approach Project Azm in a similar way, i.e. achieve it a 1.5x range and payload increase over the Block-III, but with a low radar RCS airframe, all the while still benefiting from a relatively low-cost turbofan platform. This also fits with @messiach's statements about Project Azm 'not being a significant departure from the JF-17' while still respecting the idea of a next-generation fighter.

The only question is the engine. Naturally, the RD-93MA would have made sense initially as it's a relative of the RD-93 (much like the Gripen E/F's F414 is a relative of the C/D's F404), but a rumoured ~90kN afterburn thrust wouldn't cut it for a next-gen fighter with clear range and payload improvements. Rather, you'd need to reach the 98~100 kN thrust of the F414, which also respects @messiach's point that the engine for Azm will be new.

Hi,

As some of you might remember---a couple of three years ago I had stated over here---Paf will have to make the same changes in body in the BLK 3 as the ones Grippen is doing to the NG---a 50 million to a 100 million dollar project---.

And this comes back to the age old criticism of the Paf---the JF17 was 2 sizes too small an aircraft from the begining---and as @war&peace had mentioned as well---the original design was a bot larger---.

The problem with the Paf is that it has amongst other things---a very poor futuristic analytical capability---.

They failed to recognize 16 years ago that the futuristic aircraft would be carrying all packages pretty much on every aircraft---and every aircraft would be as capable in all aspects of battle as the other aircraft---even though they had the examples of the aircraft in front of them---.

Anyway---if they had any sense left---they would be using the design change in the Grippen as the benchmark for the BLK3---.

 

[Avicenna]

Hi,

As some of you might remember---a couple of three years ago I had stated over here---Paf will have to make the same changes in body in the BLK 3 as the ones Grippen is doing to the NG---a 50 million to a 100 million dollar project---.

And this comes back to the age old criticism of the Paf---the JF17 was 2 sizes too small an aircraft from the begining---and as @war&peace had mentioned as well---the original design was a bot larger---.

The problem with the Paf is that it has amongst other things---a very poor futuristic analytical capability---.

They failed to recognize 16 years ago that the futuristic aircraft would be carrying all packages pretty much on every aircraft---and every aircraft would be as capable in all aspects of battle as the other aircraft---even though they had the examples of the aircraft in front of them---.

Anyway---if they had any sense left---they would be using the design change in the Grippen as the benchmark for the BLK3---.

If you look back at the time period of the development of the JF-17, its very fortunate that the program did as well as it did.

The plane was being designed but access to an engine, any engine, was a major problem.

The fact that the Russians allowed the RD-93 is something to be thankful for.

I doubt the AL-31 was ever in the conversation.

So how could the Thunder have been any larger?

What manifested in the present plane was probably as much driven by political limitations as lack of foresight.

What I will give you is I don't understand how there isn't a J-10 variant in PAF service today.

 

[randomradio]

Hi,

As some of you might remember---a couple of three years ago I had stated over here---Paf will have to make the same changes in body in the BLK 3 as the ones Grippen is doing to the NG---a 50 million to a 100 million dollar project---.

And this comes back to the age old criticism of the Paf---the JF17 was 2 sizes too small an aircraft from the begining---and as @war&peace had mentioned as well---the original design was a bot larger---.

The problem with the Paf is that it has amongst other things---a very poor futuristic analytical capability---.

They failed to recognize 16 years ago that the futuristic aircraft would be carrying all packages pretty much on every aircraft---and every aircraft would be as capable in all aspects of battle as the other aircraft---even though they had the examples of the aircraft in front of them---.

Anyway---if they had any sense left---they would be using the design change in the Grippen as the benchmark for the BLK3---.

Neither the Chinese nor the Russians currently have the engine to power what you speak of.

 

[AbdulRehman Qureshi]

Isnt goodrich indian brand sir

No Sir it’s not.

 

[MastanKhan]

If you look back at the time period of the development of the JF-17, its very fortunate that the program did as well as it did.

The plane was being designed but access to an engine, any engine, was a major problem.

The fact that the Russians allowed the RD-93 is something to be thankful for.

I doubt the AL-31 was ever in the conversation.

So how could the Thunder have been any larger?

What manifested in the present plane was probably as much driven by political limitations as lack of foresight.

What I will give you is I don't understand how there isn't a J-10 variant in PAF service today.

Hi,

The F16 Mafia in the Paf was against it---.

Actually the programe has not done as well as it should have---. The French screwed up the Paf in retaliation---and that put the aircraft back by 10 years.

 

[Raider 21]

Hi,

The F16 Mafia in the Paf was against it---.

The decision was done by Mirage Mafia instead.....

 

[MastanKhan]

Neither the Chinese nor the Russians currently have the engine to power what you speak of.

Hi,

That was the least of the problems---the J20 does not have the right engine either---but that has not stopped the progress of that aircraft---.

In modern warfare---engine is an important factor---but not THE FACTOR as it used to be in the past---.

Neither would the Rafle lose its edge and nor would thew Grippen lose its edge over the adversary if they have a weaker engine---.

Both these aircraft would engage and disengage from a distance where the importance and significance of an outrageously powerful engine come into force---.

And please don't be arguing anymore on the engine aspect---.

The power of the engine that is mentioned is a diversion from the real actual lethal equipment the aircraft carries---. The power of the engine MAY PLAY a secondary role---of little significance---.

The decision was done by Mirage Mafia instead.....

Hi,

Okay---that is one way to get an answer---please expand on that---.

 

[randomradio]

Hi,

That was the least of the problems---the J20 does not have the right engine either---but that has not stopped the progress of that aircraft---.

In modern warfare---engine is an important factor---but not THE FACTOR as it used to be in the past---.

Neither would the Rafle lose its edge and nor would thew Grippen lose its edge over the adversary if they have a weaker engine---.

Both these aircraft would engage and disengage from a distance where the importance and significance of an outrageously powerful engine come into force---.

And please don't be arguing anymore on the engine aspect---.

The power of the engine that is mentioned is a diversion from the real actual lethal equipment the aircraft carries---. The power of the engine MAY PLAY a secondary role---of little significance---.

The point of the JF-17 is to create an evolutionary design, not a revolutionary design. Revolutionary takes time and money, neither of which is a luxury for the JF-17.

Both Rafale and Gripen would lose their edge with weaker engines. Even BVR requires high end engine performance.

And even when it comes to avionics, most of it is engine driven. So you need a good engine if you want your radar and other sensors working efficiently.

 

[CriticalThought]

Saab itself is saying the Gripen E/F is basically a different fighter to the Gripen C/D, and we can see it both in terms of the specifications and the time it took to develop, test and certify this aircraft (almost 10 years, end-to-end).

The Block-III's design was frozen in 2015 and is to enter production in 2019-2020, so there's no way we're talking about a significant re-design or re-engine. Such changes require a lot more time (just see the Gripen E/F).

That said, the Gripen E/F does provide a good template of what can be done for Project Azm. In this case, you have an engine which is an upgraded derivative of the GE F404, but is capable of lifting 1.5x more payload and providing more range than the current C/D. It also provides supercruise.

In other words (@MastanKhan @CriticalThought) the PAF can approach Project Azm in a similar way, i.e. achieve it a 1.5x range and payload increase over the Block-III, but with a low radar RCS airframe, all the while still benefiting from a relatively low-cost turbofan platform. This also fits with @messiach's statements about Project Azm 'not being a significant departure from the JF-17' while still respecting the idea of a next-generation fighter.

The only question is the engine. Naturally, the RD-93MA would have made sense initially as it's a relative of the RD-93 (much like the Gripen E/F's F414 is a relative of the C/D's F404), but a rumoured ~90kN afterburn thrust wouldn't cut it for a next-gen fighter with clear range and payload improvements. Rather, you'd need to reach the 98~100 kN thrust of the F414, which also respects @messiach's point that the engine for Azm will be new.

Sir, a few more facts. We know for sure that the larger AESA radar has required changes to the nose area for Block 3. This re-distribution of weight will require a retesting process. And since this is a fixed cost, it is likely that multiple changes may be lumped together.

The Block 3 doesn't have to start in 2019. If PAF needs a larger number of B version, then production may very well get pushed to 2020 (of course I am only hypothesizing here).

We know for a fact that negotiations for a better engine have been going on for a while. Your own articles noted the prospect some years ago.

Then there is the export market as well. We cannot say that customer demands and concerns will not determine Block 3 specs at all. Today, Gripen E is definitely a competitor and specs on Block 3 will have to match it.

Finally, I remember a statement (possibly by ACM Sohail Aman but not sure) that we cannot afford to make any mistakes with Block 3. So what are things we consider 'mistakes' in Block 1 and 2?

 

[war&peace]

Hi,

As some of you might remember---a couple of three years ago I had stated over here---Paf will have to make the same changes in body in the BLK 3 as the ones Grippen is doing to the NG---a 50 million to a 100 million dollar project---.

And this comes back to the age old criticism of the Paf---the JF17 was 2 sizes too small an aircraft from the begining---and as @war&peace had mentioned as well---the original design was a bot larger---.

The problem with the Paf is that it has amongst other things---a very poor futuristic analytical capability---.

They failed to recognize 16 years ago that the futuristic aircraft would be carrying all packages pretty much on every aircraft---and every aircraft would be as capable in all aspects of battle as the other aircraft---even though they had the examples of the aircraft in front of them---.

Anyway---if they had any sense left---they would be using the design change in the Grippen as the benchmark for the BLK3---.

Sir, as per my understanding, PAF did not plan JF17 to be main stay or the leading A/C rather they were hopeful to combine with it F-16s or some other A/C. It was only meant to replace the Mirages. I think that was short-sightedness which still continues as now we know PAF is unable to get F-16s.. so it should have designed a platform of the F-16 i.e. medium weight. They didn't even work on its successor with larger size, they are not willing to get J10 or J11 and any other A/C is out of their hand..Project Azm is just on paper or in very very preliminary stage. So what are they doing...is beyond me...
PAF is just sitting on yesteryears laurels...in recent years, its performance has nothing to be proud of...most of the successes are by PA and air defences instead of our airforce. Where were they in Kargil conflict? they could defend their own airbases...As citizens of Pakistan we have the right to ask these questions and they have the responsibility to answer.

 

[ziaulislam]

Sir, a few more facts. We know for sure that the larger AESA radar has required changes to the nose area for Block 3. This re-distribution of weight will require a retesting process. And since this is a fixed cost, it is likely that multiple changes may be lumped together.

The Block 3 doesn't have to start in 2019. If PAF needs a larger number of B version, then production may very well get pushed to 2020 (of course I am only hypothesizing here).

We know for a fact that negotiations for a better engine have been going on for a while. Your own articles noted the prospect some years ago.

Then there is the export market as well. We cannot say that customer demands and concerns will not determine Block 3 specs at all. Today, Gripen E is definitely a competitor and specs on Block 3 will have to match it.

Finally, I remember a statement (possibly by ACM Sohail Aman but not sure) that we cannot afford to make any mistakes with Block 3. So what are things we consider 'mistakes' in Block 1 and 2?

I am also surprised that bilal is sating design was freezed in 2015. We just had a speech recently saying design was just recently finalized..if block 3 is non structural upgrade than it seems pretty long time (2014-15 to 2020)
Engine rd93ma gives a 15% boast on rd93 base model
Honestly we just have to wait..nobody thought jf17 b model will come up untill it showed up pretty quickly