Project "AZM" :Building Knowledge Base & Road Map

[Goenitz]

Both India and Saudi Arabia are servile, mentally subjugated nations. Then we have the examples of South Korea, China, and Germany. These are all nations that have a strong educational setup within their own country along with indigenous R&D. None of them have relied on sending students at 12 euros a year to learn advanced technology (note the reference to the post which I replied to, and which you quoted). And especially with China, we have all seen the increased hostility and allegations of stealing technologies.

He didn't get it that the post is about me who is trying to enslave Pakistanis.
Anyway, SK got too much intellectual and financial funding from US same as Japan, though Japan was industrial power house like Germany even in 1900. The reason is their education system and scientists. US got ahead bcz of its spending in R&D, unis and also influx of scientists throughout 1900s due to wars in Europe.

China is an example of self reliance but again there were many US Chinese. Idk much about it, but cheap labour and energy sources built their economy and then they started advancement in technology. Even today if you see SK, Japan professors history, many of them have studied and worked in US. Another good example is Israel. Similarly, we got training and funding during Ayub era, but later not, and now Chinese help. Do you think on our own we can supersede, decades of hard work and research Chinese did, and built JF 17?

My point is same. Just let your students do BSc, MSc, PhDs, post doc, job in west. When we have eco, they can return and help us building. No one will give you their research free (Europeans will not give to Europeans, prof will not give it to students). But can teach you degree courses.

It is same like they can teach you literature/linguistic but you have to create your own poetry. No body is going to give you his own work/collection.

 

[AbsoluteEngineer]

Hello PDFers,

I have been (passively) reading Project Azm threads for quite a while now and this will by my first ever post on this forum as I have been an on and off reader of this forum since 2010.

PART A of the post would be to further discuss what @JamD touched upon regarding flight controls and what others already mentioned on topics of skill-set.

Part B of this post will focus on physical supporting facilities / eco-system aspect in context of Flight Dynamics & Vehicle Control.

PART A:

The part will focus would be organizational aspect and skillset needed per team in what I call here “Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Control” and it’s supporting eco-system/resources/facilities as a starting point, but plan on providing similar proposed structure to:

- Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Control + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities (This post)
- Directorate of Aerodynamics and Airframe Design + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Aircraft Structure & Sub-System Design + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Aircraft Avionics & Tactical Mission Development + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Radar, Low Observability Aspects, and Electronic Development + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Armament & Weapons Integration + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Systems Engineering, Model Based Development & AGILE Methodology (Itself would be supporting facility for all of the above)

Not all teams/group are expected to grow/conceive locally, but ALL teams shall be represented by combination of local and JV partner talent at PAC/AvRID. There may be challenges in the initial phase of the program, but end goal should be local nature of these teams with JV talent on-site (assuming JV structure is utilized). This can open another discussion (which some have already alluded to regarding rotations of engineers with partner country/countries) in some another thread, but will be subject of detailed post at some point later.

Now back to this post’s topic.

Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Control (like other Directorates) shall be four-layered organization Lead with following structure:

- Director

o Technical Project Manager

§ Team Lead
§ Subject Matter Experts​

These technical teams may consist of 3-6 subject matter experts (including but not limited to engineers, applied physicists, scientists, hands-on technical support staff, and test pilots). The educational background of these subject matter experts in this Directorate can range from 2-years Associate/Diploma and up to PhD. The key is NOT to dwell on to find a person with only Masters/PhD or finding the BEST person.

The key is to find the RIGHT person, and make him/her right person by rapid training through combination of targeted theoretical studies in short courses and hands on experiential training (in rotations with JV partners).

However, most of the high level technical staff (specifically in Vehicle FCS, Propulsion Controls team) will likely have advanced degrees and must have specific training/experience in their respective areas.

The Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Controls shall have following structure:

- Vehicle FCS, Propulsion Controls Development & Integration

o Aircraft Dynamic Behavior Modeling & Simulation Team
o Flight Control Law Development Team
o FADEC Control Law Team (e.g. Xian WS-15 FADEC Local Team )
o Aero-elasticity / Structure Static-Dynamic Limits Team​

- Applied Controls & SW Development

o Embedded Controls Implementation SW Team
o Flight Controls / Engine Controls Computer HW Team
o FCS SW/HW Verification & Validation Team​

- Fly-By-X & Actuators Integration

o Fly-by-X HMI Input Team
o Fly-by-X Network Architecture / Wiring Team
o On-Board FCS Sensor Team
o On-Board FCS Actuator HW Team
o FCS Actuators Modeling, Simulation & Testing Team​

- Flight Test Support

o Flight Test Instrumentation
o Flight Vehicle Data Acquisition/Recording and Telemetry Team​

Another support role to this Directorate would be coming from Vehicle Handling Qualities Evaluation Team (should be conceived/raised if not available) from Flight Test & Evaluation Squadron (Or whatever it’s called) from Pakistan Air Force. Vehicle Handling Qualities team should contain several highly qualified and certified test pilots with advanced degrees in engineering and flight control law, aero-elasticity, aircraft stability concepts. They should work in close collaboration with Vehicle FCS, Propulsion Controls Development & Integration Team. Furthermore, VHQE Team should be adept to latest developments flight Handling qualities criteria and recommendations, literatures across the world (as published by FAA, NASA, US DoD for example).

Here below is the proposed structure of this Directorate.

Part B to follow later...

@Armchair @JamD @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @CriticalThought .

 

[JamD]

Hello PDFers,

I have been (passively) reading Project Azm threads for quite a while now and this will by my first ever post on this forum as I have been an on and off reader of this forum since 2010.

PART A of the post would be to further discuss what @JamD touched upon regarding flight controls and what others already mentioned on topics of skill-set.

Part B of this post will focus on physical supporting facilities / eco-system aspect in context of Flight Dynamics & Vehicle Control.

PART A:

The part will focus would be organizational aspect and skillset needed per team in what I call here “Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Control” and it’s supporting eco-system/resources/facilities as a starting point, but plan on providing similar proposed structure to:

- Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Control + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities (This post)
- Directorate of Aerodynamics and Airframe Design + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Aircraft Structure & Sub-System Design + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Aircraft Avionics & Tactical Mission Development + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Radar, Low Observability Aspects, and Electronic Development + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Armament & Weapons Integration + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Systems Engineering, Model Based Development & AGILE Methodology (Itself would be supporting facility for all of the above)

Not all teams/group are expected to grow/conceive locally, but ALL teams shall be represented by combination of local and JV partner talent at PAC/AvRID. There may be challenges in the initial phase of the program, but end goal should be local nature of these teams with JV talent on-site (assuming JV structure is utilized). This can open another discussion (which some have already alluded to regarding rotations of engineers with partner country/countries) in some another thread, but will be subject of detailed post at some point later.

Now back to this post’s topic.

Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Control (like other Directorates) shall be four-layered organization Lead with following structure:

- Director

o Technical Project Manager

§ Team Lead
§ Subject Matter Experts​

These technical teams may consist of 3-6 subject matter experts (including but not limited to engineers, applied physicists, scientists, hands-on technical support staff, and test pilots). The educational background of these subject matter experts in this Directorate can range from 2-years Associate/Diploma and up to PhD. The key is NOT to dwell on to find a person with only Masters/PhD or finding the BEST person.

The key is to find the RIGHT person, and make him/her right person by rapid training through combination of targeted theoretical studies in short courses and hands on experiential training (in rotations with JV partners).

However, most of the high level technical staff (specifically in Vehicle FCS, Propulsion Controls team) will likely have advanced degrees and must have specific training/experience in their respective areas.

The Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Controls shall have following structure:

- Vehicle FCS, Propulsion Controls Development & Integration

o Aircraft Dynamic Behavior Modeling & Simulation Team
o Flight Control Law Development Team
o FADEC Control Law Team (e.g. Xian WS-15 FADEC Local Team )
o Aero-elasticity / Structure Static-Dynamic Limits Team​

- Applied Controls & SW Development

o Embedded Controls Implementation SW Team
o Flight Controls / Engine Controls Computer HW Team
o FCS SW/HW Verification & Validation Team​

- Fly-By-X & Actuators Integration

o Fly-by-X HMI Input Team
o Fly-by-X Network Architecture / Wiring Team
o On-Board FCS Sensor Team
o On-Board FCS Actuator HW Team
o FCS Actuators Modeling, Simulation & Testing Team​

- Flight Test Support

o Flight Test Instrumentation
o Flight Vehicle Data Acquisition/Recording and Telemetry Team​

Another support role to this Directorate would be coming from Vehicle Handling Qualities Evaluation Team (should be conceived/raised if not available) from Flight Test & Evaluation Squadron (Or whatever it’s called) from Pakistan Air Force. Vehicle Handling Qualities team should contain several highly qualified and certified test pilots with advanced degrees in engineering and flight control law, aero-elasticity, aircraft stability concepts. They should work in close collaboration with Vehicle FCS, Propulsion Controls Development & Integration Team. Furthermore, VHQE Team should be adept to latest developments flight Handling qualities criteria and recommendations, literatures across the world (as published by FAA, NASA, US DoD for example).

Here below is the proposed structure of this Directorate.

View attachment 637146

Part B to follow later...

@Armchair @JamD @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @CriticalThought .

Thank you for an excellent post. Post certainly deserves a positive rating. I suggest you start a new thread with this as the original post. I have been sufficiently shamed into putting in more effort and will contribute to this thread.

EDIT: actually not sure if new thread is needed. Mods can decide.

Hello PDFers,

I have been (passively) reading Project Azm threads for quite a while now and this will by my first ever post on this forum as I have been an on and off reader of this forum since 2010.

PART A of the post would be to further discuss what @JamD touched upon regarding flight controls and what others already mentioned on topics of skill-set.

Part B of this post will focus on physical supporting facilities / eco-system aspect in context of Flight Dynamics & Vehicle Control.

PART A:

The part will focus would be organizational aspect and skillset needed per team in what I call here “Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Control” and it’s supporting eco-system/resources/facilities as a starting point, but plan on providing similar proposed structure to:

- Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Control + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities (This post)
- Directorate of Aerodynamics and Airframe Design + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Aircraft Structure & Sub-System Design + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Aircraft Avionics & Tactical Mission Development + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Radar, Low Observability Aspects, and Electronic Development + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Armament & Weapons Integration + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Systems Engineering, Model Based Development & AGILE Methodology (Itself would be supporting facility for all of the above)

Not all teams/group are expected to grow/conceive locally, but ALL teams shall be represented by combination of local and JV partner talent at PAC/AvRID. There may be challenges in the initial phase of the program, but end goal should be local nature of these teams with JV talent on-site (assuming JV structure is utilized). This can open another discussion (which some have already alluded to regarding rotations of engineers with partner country/countries) in some another thread, but will be subject of detailed post at some point later.

Now back to this post’s topic.

Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Control (like other Directorates) shall be four-layered organization Lead with following structure:

- Director

o Technical Project Manager

§ Team Lead
§ Subject Matter Experts​

These technical teams may consist of 3-6 subject matter experts (including but not limited to engineers, applied physicists, scientists, hands-on technical support staff, and test pilots). The educational background of these subject matter experts in this Directorate can range from 2-years Associate/Diploma and up to PhD. The key is NOT to dwell on to find a person with only Masters/PhD or finding the BEST person.

The key is to find the RIGHT person, and make him/her right person by rapid training through combination of targeted theoretical studies in short courses and hands on experiential training (in rotations with JV partners).

However, most of the high level technical staff (specifically in Vehicle FCS, Propulsion Controls team) will likely have advanced degrees and must have specific training/experience in their respective areas.

The Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Controls shall have following structure:

- Vehicle FCS, Propulsion Controls Development & Integration

o Aircraft Dynamic Behavior Modeling & Simulation Team
o Flight Control Law Development Team
o FADEC Control Law Team (e.g. Xian WS-15 FADEC Local Team )
o Aero-elasticity / Structure Static-Dynamic Limits Team​

- Applied Controls & SW Development

o Embedded Controls Implementation SW Team
o Flight Controls / Engine Controls Computer HW Team
o FCS SW/HW Verification & Validation Team​

- Fly-By-X & Actuators Integration

o Fly-by-X HMI Input Team
o Fly-by-X Network Architecture / Wiring Team
o On-Board FCS Sensor Team
o On-Board FCS Actuator HW Team
o FCS Actuators Modeling, Simulation & Testing Team​

- Flight Test Support

o Flight Test Instrumentation
o Flight Vehicle Data Acquisition/Recording and Telemetry Team​

Another support role to this Directorate would be coming from Vehicle Handling Qualities Evaluation Team (should be conceived/raised if not available) from Flight Test & Evaluation Squadron (Or whatever it’s called) from Pakistan Air Force. Vehicle Handling Qualities team should contain several highly qualified and certified test pilots with advanced degrees in engineering and flight control law, aero-elasticity, aircraft stability concepts. They should work in close collaboration with Vehicle FCS, Propulsion Controls Development & Integration Team. Furthermore, VHQE Team should be adept to latest developments flight Handling qualities criteria and recommendations, literatures across the world (as published by FAA, NASA, US DoD for example).

Here below is the proposed structure of this Directorate.

View attachment 637146

Part B to follow later...

@Armchair @JamD @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @CriticalThought .

Also glad to see a fellow controls enthusiast on this forum.

 

[AbsoluteEngineer]

PART B

This won't be detailed as PART A, but I am willing to discuss each components in more detail if needed/requested.

Again I can go on and on for each of these "ovals", but would like to keep the discussion high level.

Thank you for an excellent post. Post certainly deserves a positive rating. I suggest you start a new thread with this as the original post. I have been sufficiently shamed into putting in more effort and will contribute to this thread.

EDIT: actually not sure if new thread is needed. Mods can decide.


Also glad to see a fellow controls enthusiast on this forum.

Thank you for an excellent post. Post certainly deserves a positive rating. I suggest you start a new thread with this as the original post. I have been sufficiently shamed into putting in more effort and will contribute to this thread.

EDIT: actually not sure if new thread is needed. Mods can decide.


Also glad to see a fellow controls enthusiast on this forum.

Same here, I am excited by the passion in this thread.

Thank you for an excellent post. Post certainly deserves a positive rating. I suggest you start a new thread with this as the original post. I have been sufficiently shamed into putting in more effort and will contribute to this thread.

EDIT: actually not sure if new thread is needed. Mods can decide.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to keep the technical discussion on this thread, however, non-technical / programmatic related posts will be done on this thread. However, open to any suggestions.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/project-azm-stealth-ambition-project.522011/

Also glad to see a fellow controls enthusiast on this forum.

 

[Armchair]

This is a good blueprint for how to get work started. I'd suggest that project teams should be talking to each other as much as possible and each team should be sitting and working in the same space with minimal walls. This works really well for the US black project "Skunk works" type organizations and also gave good results with Ford. There is a nice case study of this about the Ford Mustang that was built in the 2000s.

They had everyone associated with that program sit in the same workshop turned office from the finance person to the technical guys to the end user rep. I think that would be a good solution for the work teams outlined by @AbsoluteEngineer

 

[Syed1.]

This is a good blueprint for how to get work started. I'd suggest that project teams should be talking to each other as much as possible and each team should be sitting and working in the same space with minimal walls. This works really well for the US black project "Skunk works" type organizations and also gave good results with Ford. There is a nice case study of this about the Ford Mustang that was built in the 2000s.

They had everyone associated with that program sit in the same workshop turned office from the finance person to the technical guys to the end user rep. I think that would be a good solution for the work teams outlined by @AbsoluteEngineer

Sorry sir in a couple of posts I called your opinion as "armchair opinion" based on your display name just to pull your leg. I usually post from my phone so couldn't see your flags. Logging in from my computer after quite a while and realized you are Bangladeshi. A welcome guest here, I was just playing around.

 

[Armchair]

Sorry sir in a couple of posts I called your opinion as "armchair opinion" based on your display name just to pull your leg. I usually post from my phone so couldn't see your flags. Logging in from my computer after quite a while and realized you are Bangladeshi. A welcome guest here, I was just playing around.

cheers my friend, no problem. Looking to see interesting future conversations.

 

[Armchair]

If the base engine for project Azm is the RD-93, it will be relatively hard to build a reasonably effective product. The AL-31 is too big, too complex and maintenance intensive. Chinese engines right now are not mature enough for Pakistan and not better than the Russian products.

Is it possible to develop a marginally more powerful engine than the RD-93?

Now an engine has dry thrust and afterburner. Dry thrust is critical for most applications and is often called "military power" as it is at this thrust that combat aircraft mostly operate. RD-93 has very poor dry thrust rating. There is no solution to this other than fundamental redesign.

China is already trying to build such an alternative by using the F-404 as a base idea. If Pakistan can contribute to this, they can get a useful powerplant for the Azm program. So, how can Pakistan contribute?

China has massive funds and giant numbers of engineers. But Chinese programs are like NASA programs. Full of bureaucracy and red tape. If Pakistan use a SpaceX type approach, they would be able to get a leg up.

Now, here the brigade that says that Pak doesn't have the engineering prowess or the metallurgy will cry fowl. However, what Pak can do is do rapid prototyping and constant evolution of design based on an iterative testing process. Take the basic design of the engine and, instead of using advanced materials, use steel / aluminum and build working engines.

Yes, these engines won't win any awards for weight, but it will allow Pak to thoroughly test the design. Fixing things and constantly building better ones, Pak would be able to, at low cost, develop maturity of design and mature its own engineering team in the procss.

Such a simply engineered engine can then also be used for making cheap, low cost copies of the JF-17 either as decoys or even as a loyal wingman / flying magazine.

As the engine matures, parts can be replaced. You can bring in complex carbon and single crystal and advanced alloy components. This would be an out-of-the-box and unorthodox approach to developing engines in Pakistan.

 

[S.Y.A]

Hello PDFers,

I have been (passively) reading Project Azm threads for quite a while now and this will by my first ever post on this forum as I have been an on and off reader of this forum since 2010.

PART A of the post would be to further discuss what @JamD touched upon regarding flight controls and what others already mentioned on topics of skill-set.

Part B of this post will focus on physical supporting facilities / eco-system aspect in context of Flight Dynamics & Vehicle Control.

PART A:

The part will focus would be organizational aspect and skillset needed per team in what I call here “Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Control” and it’s supporting eco-system/resources/facilities as a starting point, but plan on providing similar proposed structure to:

- Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Control + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities (This post)
- Directorate of Aerodynamics and Airframe Design + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Aircraft Structure & Sub-System Design + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Aircraft Avionics & Tactical Mission Development + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Radar, Low Observability Aspects, and Electronic Development + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Armament & Weapons Integration + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Systems Engineering, Model Based Development & AGILE Methodology (Itself would be supporting facility for all of the above)

Not all teams/group are expected to grow/conceive locally, but ALL teams shall be represented by combination of local and JV partner talent at PAC/AvRID. There may be challenges in the initial phase of the program, but end goal should be local nature of these teams with JV talent on-site (assuming JV structure is utilized). This can open another discussion (which some have already alluded to regarding rotations of engineers with partner country/countries) in some another thread, but will be subject of detailed post at some point later.

Now back to this post’s topic.

Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Control (like other Directorates) shall be four-layered organization Lead with following structure:

- Director

o Technical Project Manager

§ Team Lead
§ Subject Matter Experts​

These technical teams may consist of 3-6 subject matter experts (including but not limited to engineers, applied physicists, scientists, hands-on technical support staff, and test pilots). The educational background of these subject matter experts in this Directorate can range from 2-years Associate/Diploma and up to PhD. The key is NOT to dwell on to find a person with only Masters/PhD or finding the BEST person.

The key is to find the RIGHT person, and make him/her right person by rapid training through combination of targeted theoretical studies in short courses and hands on experiential training (in rotations with JV partners).

However, most of the high level technical staff (specifically in Vehicle FCS, Propulsion Controls team) will likely have advanced degrees and must have specific training/experience in their respective areas.

The Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Controls shall have following structure:

- Vehicle FCS, Propulsion Controls Development & Integration

o Aircraft Dynamic Behavior Modeling & Simulation Team
o Flight Control Law Development Team
o FADEC Control Law Team (e.g. Xian WS-15 FADEC Local Team )
o Aero-elasticity / Structure Static-Dynamic Limits Team​

- Applied Controls & SW Development

o Embedded Controls Implementation SW Team
o Flight Controls / Engine Controls Computer HW Team
o FCS SW/HW Verification & Validation Team​

- Fly-By-X & Actuators Integration

o Fly-by-X HMI Input Team
o Fly-by-X Network Architecture / Wiring Team
o On-Board FCS Sensor Team
o On-Board FCS Actuator HW Team
o FCS Actuators Modeling, Simulation & Testing Team​

- Flight Test Support

o Flight Test Instrumentation
o Flight Vehicle Data Acquisition/Recording and Telemetry Team​

Another support role to this Directorate would be coming from Vehicle Handling Qualities Evaluation Team (should be conceived/raised if not available) from Flight Test & Evaluation Squadron (Or whatever it’s called) from Pakistan Air Force. Vehicle Handling Qualities team should contain several highly qualified and certified test pilots with advanced degrees in engineering and flight control law, aero-elasticity, aircraft stability concepts. They should work in close collaboration with Vehicle FCS, Propulsion Controls Development & Integration Team. Furthermore, VHQE Team should be adept to latest developments flight Handling qualities criteria and recommendations, literatures across the world (as published by FAA, NASA, US DoD for example).

Here below is the proposed structure of this Directorate.

View attachment 637146

Part B to follow later...

@Armchair @JamD @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @CriticalThought .

hope people in decision making positions listen to people like you. but from what little i have seen of the forces, an air marshal or a general will always think that he is above all, and will have many khushamdis around him. all of them think that what they have set their mind to, or the plans department of the military has set is mind to is the best thing. innovation isnt really encouraged, neither is a different approach.
civil govt orgs arent even worth mentioning.

 

[CriticalThought]

Hello PDFers,

I have been (passively) reading Project Azm threads for quite a while now and this will by my first ever post on this forum as I have been an on and off reader of this forum since 2010.

PART A of the post would be to further discuss what @JamD touched upon regarding flight controls and what others already mentioned on topics of skill-set.

Part B of this post will focus on physical supporting facilities / eco-system aspect in context of Flight Dynamics & Vehicle Control.

PART A:

The part will focus would be organizational aspect and skillset needed per team in what I call here “Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Control” and it’s supporting eco-system/resources/facilities as a starting point, but plan on providing similar proposed structure to:

- Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Control + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities (This post)
- Directorate of Aerodynamics and Airframe Design + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Aircraft Structure & Sub-System Design + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Aircraft Avionics & Tactical Mission Development + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Radar, Low Observability Aspects, and Electronic Development + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Armament & Weapons Integration + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Systems Engineering, Model Based Development & AGILE Methodology (Itself would be supporting facility for all of the above)

Not all teams/group are expected to grow/conceive locally, but ALL teams shall be represented by combination of local and JV partner talent at PAC/AvRID. There may be challenges in the initial phase of the program, but end goal should be local nature of these teams with JV talent on-site (assuming JV structure is utilized). This can open another discussion (which some have already alluded to regarding rotations of engineers with partner country/countries) in some another thread, but will be subject of detailed post at some point later.

Now back to this post’s topic.

Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Control (like other Directorates) shall be four-layered organization Lead with following structure:

- Director

o Technical Project Manager

§ Team Lead
§ Subject Matter Experts​

These technical teams may consist of 3-6 subject matter experts (including but not limited to engineers, applied physicists, scientists, hands-on technical support staff, and test pilots). The educational background of these subject matter experts in this Directorate can range from 2-years Associate/Diploma and up to PhD. The key is NOT to dwell on to find a person with only Masters/PhD or finding the BEST person.

The key is to find the RIGHT person, and make him/her right person by rapid training through combination of targeted theoretical studies in short courses and hands on experiential training (in rotations with JV partners).

However, most of the high level technical staff (specifically in Vehicle FCS, Propulsion Controls team) will likely have advanced degrees and must have specific training/experience in their respective areas.

The Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Controls shall have following structure:

- Vehicle FCS, Propulsion Controls Development & Integration

o Aircraft Dynamic Behavior Modeling & Simulation Team
o Flight Control Law Development Team
o FADEC Control Law Team (e.g. Xian WS-15 FADEC Local Team )
o Aero-elasticity / Structure Static-Dynamic Limits Team​

- Applied Controls & SW Development

o Embedded Controls Implementation SW Team
o Flight Controls / Engine Controls Computer HW Team
o FCS SW/HW Verification & Validation Team​

- Fly-By-X & Actuators Integration

o Fly-by-X HMI Input Team
o Fly-by-X Network Architecture / Wiring Team
o On-Board FCS Sensor Team
o On-Board FCS Actuator HW Team
o FCS Actuators Modeling, Simulation & Testing Team​

- Flight Test Support

o Flight Test Instrumentation
o Flight Vehicle Data Acquisition/Recording and Telemetry Team​

Another support role to this Directorate would be coming from Vehicle Handling Qualities Evaluation Team (should be conceived/raised if not available) from Flight Test & Evaluation Squadron (Or whatever it’s called) from Pakistan Air Force. Vehicle Handling Qualities team should contain several highly qualified and certified test pilots with advanced degrees in engineering and flight control law, aero-elasticity, aircraft stability concepts. They should work in close collaboration with Vehicle FCS, Propulsion Controls Development & Integration Team. Furthermore, VHQE Team should be adept to latest developments flight Handling qualities criteria and recommendations, literatures across the world (as published by FAA, NASA, US DoD for example).

Here below is the proposed structure of this Directorate.

View attachment 637146

Part B to follow later...

@Armchair @JamD @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @CriticalThought .

@JamD @Armchair @Bilal Khan (Quwa) these are all very good thoughts, but they are lacking a grounding in the problem domain. People talking about Azm on defence.pk have not given any deep thought to what problem Azm is actually trying to solve. It is my sincerest advise, that you let me start a thread, where I will start posing questions to you, and ask you to answer them. Let me take you through a thought process, and show you how everything flows logically. As we progress through the thread, there will come a time when we will discuss 'directorates' and 'labs'. But just at this point, this discussion is premature. If you guys agree, I'll start the thread before or during the weekend.

 

[Bilal.]

Hello PDFers,

I have been (passively) reading Project Azm threads for quite a while now and this will by my first ever post on this forum as I have been an on and off reader of this forum since 2010.

PART A of the post would be to further discuss what @JamD touched upon regarding flight controls and what others already mentioned on topics of skill-set.

Part B of this post will focus on physical supporting facilities / eco-system aspect in context of Flight Dynamics & Vehicle Control.

PART A:

The part will focus would be organizational aspect and skillset needed per team in what I call here “Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Control” and it’s supporting eco-system/resources/facilities as a starting point, but plan on providing similar proposed structure to:

- Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Control + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities (This post)
- Directorate of Aerodynamics and Airframe Design + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Aircraft Structure & Sub-System Design + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Aircraft Avionics & Tactical Mission Development + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Radar, Low Observability Aspects, and Electronic Development + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Armament & Weapons Integration + Supporting Eco-System/Facilities
- Directorate of Systems Engineering, Model Based Development & AGILE Methodology (Itself would be supporting facility for all of the above)

Not all teams/group are expected to grow/conceive locally, but ALL teams shall be represented by combination of local and JV partner talent at PAC/AvRID. There may be challenges in the initial phase of the program, but end goal should be local nature of these teams with JV talent on-site (assuming JV structure is utilized). This can open another discussion (which some have already alluded to regarding rotations of engineers with partner country/countries) in some another thread, but will be subject of detailed post at some point later.

Now back to this post’s topic.

Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Control (like other Directorates) shall be four-layered organization Lead with following structure:

- Director

o Technical Project Manager

§ Team Lead
§ Subject Matter Experts​

These technical teams may consist of 3-6 subject matter experts (including but not limited to engineers, applied physicists, scientists, hands-on technical support staff, and test pilots). The educational background of these subject matter experts in this Directorate can range from 2-years Associate/Diploma and up to PhD. The key is NOT to dwell on to find a person with only Masters/PhD or finding the BEST person.

The key is to find the RIGHT person, and make him/her right person by rapid training through combination of targeted theoretical studies in short courses and hands on experiential training (in rotations with JV partners).

However, most of the high level technical staff (specifically in Vehicle FCS, Propulsion Controls team) will likely have advanced degrees and must have specific training/experience in their respective areas.

The Directorate of Flight Dynamics and Vehicle Controls shall have following structure:

- Vehicle FCS, Propulsion Controls Development & Integration

o Aircraft Dynamic Behavior Modeling & Simulation Team
o Flight Control Law Development Team
o FADEC Control Law Team (e.g. Xian WS-15 FADEC Local Team )
o Aero-elasticity / Structure Static-Dynamic Limits Team​

- Applied Controls & SW Development

o Embedded Controls Implementation SW Team
o Flight Controls / Engine Controls Computer HW Team
o FCS SW/HW Verification & Validation Team​

- Fly-By-X & Actuators Integration

o Fly-by-X HMI Input Team
o Fly-by-X Network Architecture / Wiring Team
o On-Board FCS Sensor Team
o On-Board FCS Actuator HW Team
o FCS Actuators Modeling, Simulation & Testing Team​

- Flight Test Support

o Flight Test Instrumentation
o Flight Vehicle Data Acquisition/Recording and Telemetry Team​

Another support role to this Directorate would be coming from Vehicle Handling Qualities Evaluation Team (should be conceived/raised if not available) from Flight Test & Evaluation Squadron (Or whatever it’s called) from Pakistan Air Force. Vehicle Handling Qualities team should contain several highly qualified and certified test pilots with advanced degrees in engineering and flight control law, aero-elasticity, aircraft stability concepts. They should work in close collaboration with Vehicle FCS, Propulsion Controls Development & Integration Team. Furthermore, VHQE Team should be adept to latest developments flight Handling qualities criteria and recommendations, literatures across the world (as published by FAA, NASA, US DoD for example).

Here below is the proposed structure of this Directorate.

View attachment 637146

Part B to follow later...

@Armchair @JamD @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @CriticalThought .

Thank you. @JamD something we discussed a few days ago.

 

[CriticalThought]

If the base engine for project Azm is the RD-93, it will be relatively hard to build a reasonably effective product. The AL-31 is too big, too complex and maintenance intensive. Chinese engines right now are not mature enough for Pakistan and not better than the Russian products.

Is it possible to develop a marginally more powerful engine than the RD-93?

Now an engine has dry thrust and afterburner. Dry thrust is critical for most applications and is often called "military power" as it is at this thrust that combat aircraft mostly operate. RD-93 has very poor dry thrust rating. There is no solution to this other than fundamental redesign.

China is already trying to build such an alternative by using the F-404 as a base idea. If Pakistan can contribute to this, they can get a useful powerplant for the Azm program. So, how can Pakistan contribute?

China has massive funds and giant numbers of engineers. But Chinese programs are like NASA programs. Full of bureaucracy and red tape. If Pakistan use a SpaceX type approach, they would be able to get a leg up.

Now, here the brigade that says that Pak doesn't have the engineering prowess or the metallurgy will cry fowl. However, what Pak can do is do rapid prototyping and constant evolution of design based on an iterative testing process. Take the basic design of the engine and, instead of using advanced materials, use steel / aluminum and build working engines.

Yes, these engines won't win any awards for weight, but it will allow Pak to thoroughly test the design. Fixing things and constantly building better ones, Pak would be able to, at low cost, develop maturity of design and mature its own engineering team in the procss.

Such a simply engineered engine can then also be used for making cheap, low cost copies of the JF-17 either as decoys or even as a loyal wingman / flying magazine.

As the engine matures, parts can be replaced. You can bring in complex carbon and single crystal and advanced alloy components. This would be an out-of-the-box and unorthodox approach to developing engines in Pakistan.

If a single engine doesn't suffice, the alternative isn't always a more powerful engine. Twin engines are also a possibility. By de-linking metallurgy and materials, you have already limited the usefulness of engine research. At this day and age, we know the answer to 'Do aircraft engines require advance materials?' The answer is 'Yes'. Can there be meaningful engine research without this? Yes, if you are starting from the absolute scratch. Will this approach bear fruits? The answer is a resounding no! And that is because no matter how hard you try, if you are starting from scratch, you will end up with one of the engine designs that is already patented. This is the incorrect use of time and money. In this day and age, you have no option but to acquire IP rights from an existing manufacturer. And PAF's best bet today is the RD-93, given what we know publicly. Acquire total MRO, right down to the production of single crystal engine blades, and the actual IP of the physical design. Then start making it better and obtain patents for the improvements you make. Without this, even when you make your own engine after 30 years, you will find yourself unable to sell it to other nations, and the project will die its own natural death because of being financially non-viable.

 

[JamD]

@JamD @Armchair @Bilal Khan (Quwa) these are all very good thoughts, but they are lacking a grounding in the problem domain. People talking about Azm on defence.pk have not given any deep thoughts on what problem Azm is actually trying to solve. It is my sincerest advise, that you let me start a thread, where I will start posing questions to you, and ask you to answer them. Let me take you through a thought process, and show you how everything flows logically. As we progress through the thread, there will come a time when we will discuss 'directorates' and 'labs'. But just at this point, this discussion is premature. If you guys agree, I'll start the thread before or during the weekend.

I have some guesses as to what you are hinting at but I am not entirely sure so you should give a summary of what you mean.

Furthermore, I agree that it's premature to talk about directorates and such as what will actually happen, but I feel it's a good place to show a lot of people the level of technical detail one might need for a program like Azm. Most non-technical people might not appreciate the complexity of the endeavor.

I personally didn't do such a specific breakdown because:

1. I'm lazy
2. I'm very lazy
3. It's kind of like trying to predict the future state of a chaotic system---you will almost always be wrong because of the number of moving parts.
4. It's easy to miss things when you're going down to detail so broad "areas" are safer bets to what might actually happen.
5. Actual organizations should evolve organically, otherwise there is a risk of large inefficiencies (that we actually see in a lot of SPD organizations).

As @AbsoluteEngineer has written everywhere in their posts "not exhaustive", we know the realization is there that this is just an example of what things might look like and not gospel.

 

[CriticalThought]

I have some guesses as to what you are hinting at but I am not entirely sure so you should give a summary of what you mean.

Furthermore, I agree that it's premature to talk about directorates and such as what will actually happen, but I feel it's a good place to show a lot of people the level of technical detail one might need for a program like Azm. Most non-technical people might not appreciate the complexity of the endeavor.

I personally didn't do such a specific breakdown because:

1. I'm lazy
2. I'm very lazy
3. It's kind of like trying to predict the future state of a chaotic system---you will almost always be wrong because of the number of moving parts.
4. It's easy to miss things when you're going down to detail so broad "areas" are safer bets to what might actually happen.
5. Actual organizations should evolve organically, otherwise there is a risk of large inefficiencies (that we actually see in a lot of SPD organizations).

As @AbsoluteEngineer has written everywhere in their posts "not exhaustive", we know the realization is there that this is just an example of what things might look like and not gospel.

Before putting thoughts into these details, people need to come to grasp with the actual problem that Azm is trying to solve. For that, I will lead you through a series of questions to help you define the problem yourself, find the solution yourself, and then we can drill into the nitty-gritty details.

 

[Armchair]

If a single engine doesn't suffice, the alternative isn't always a more powerful engine. Twin engines are also a possibility. By de-linking metallurgy and materials, you have already limited the usefulness of engine research. At this day and age, we know the answer to 'Do aircraft engines require advance materials?' The answer is 'Yes'. Can there be meaningful engine research without this? Yes, if you are starting from the absolute scratch. Will this approach bear fruits? The answer is a resounding no! And that is because no matter how hard you try, if you are starting from scratch, you will end up with one of the engine designs that is already patented. This is the incorrect use of time and money. In this day and age, you have no option but to acquire IP rights from an existing manufacturer. And PAF's best bet today is the RD-93, given what we know publicly. Acquire total MRO, right down to the production of single crystal engine blades, and the actual IP of the physical design. Then start making it better and obtain patents for the improvements you make. Without this, even when you make your own engine after 30 years, you will find yourself unable to sell it to other nations, and the project will die its own natural death because of being financially non-viable.

I apologize, perhaps I should have clarified. the engines (2 of them) won't allow for a true air superiority 5 gen fighter. Or so I would estimate.

i.e. with RD-33 / RD-93 series