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

[Akh1112]

One of those mentions pofacets. Right out of undergrad I had josh and delusion of knowing better than everyone and wrote up an extensive document for AWC that argued that they should pursue a flying-wing UAV instead of the shahpar lol. I called my design "Surkhab kay par" as a joke lol. Here's an RCS comparison for both (don't remember for what frequency):
View attachment 658337

Still better than UAS-G's UCAV lol:
View attachment 658340

A bad model of Shahpar:
View attachment 658341

What did you use to model RCS?

 

[JamD]

What did you use to model RCS?

https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/35861-pofacets4-1

 

[Akh1112]

https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/35861-pofacets4-1

Thank you

 

[JamD]

There shouldn't be much of an issue getting an AESA radar, EO/IR sensors, sensor fusion work, etc off-the-shelf (as they're all available for sale if you buy it as a package). The biggest hurdle is the FCS, which you just can't buy off-the-shelf, at least with the expectation of getting control over it. If India can't do it, neither we can we...so it's likely the main constraint to any NGFA development, simple or otherwise.

Yes, we can get all of those things off-the-shelf but:
1. If everything is from one supplier, they'll probably do the integration work for us - again we are just paying someone to develop things for us.
2. If systems are from different sources, they may not want to work with each other and we may have to play the role of system integrator. This might be a nice half-way between manufacturer and buyer. Of course the suppliers need to be willing to this. However, being a system integrator means you have a lot of technical prowess (like FCS for example), so this option is much closer to being a manufacturer than a buyer - so still pretty expensive (and worth it).

 

[Akh1112]

Yes, we can get all of those things off-the-shelf but:
1. If everything is from one supplier, they'll probably do the integration work for us - again we are just paying someone to develop things for us.
2. If systems are from different sources, they may not want to work with each other and we may have to play the role of system integrator. This might be a nice half-way between manufacturer and buyer. Of course the suppliers need to be willing to this. However, being a system integrator means you have a lot of technical prowess (like FCS for example), so this option is much closer to being a manufacturer than a buyer - so still pretty expensive (and worth it).

I think for the first one, we have some very clear options, like working with Selex or something, they were offering us the whole Raven+Skyward-G+IFF suite. For option 2, we could have PAC do the integration work, evidently PAC has been learning and doing some lower end small scale integration stuff like weapons, TPOD, other systems etc, we could have them work as a bridge between east and west, being a neutral and trusted partner for both to prevent leakage of sensitive tech etc

 

[JamD]

I think for the first one, we have some very clear options, like working with Selex or something, they were offering us the whole Raven+Skyward-G+IFF suite. For option 2, we could have PAC do the integration work, evidently PAC has been learning and doing some lower end small scale integration stuff like weapons, TPOD, other systems etc, we could have them work as a bridge between east and west, being a neutral and trusted partner for both to prevent leakage of sensitive tech etc

Agreed. That is something PAC can definitely do.

I just hate speculating so much since our programs are not openly described beyond "FGFA". "Musalmanon, tukka lagao" is what we on PDF are forced to do way too often.

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

... Pakistan should have taken the FC-31 body and partnered with Turkey to develop common avionics, missiles, radar and other critical subsystems. This would have provided Pakistan the requisite technological base of developing core next generation technologies at reasonable and cost effective manner. ...

Why? Can Turkey build or provide better avionic tech needed for a 5th Gen aircraft than China?

 

[Akh1112]

Why? Can Turkey build or provide better avionic tech needed for a 5th Gen aircraft than China?

We dont really know what the Chinese can do TBH, they are very secretive about their stuff. We do know the Turks are good with things such as avionics and electronics. The main reason id be pro Turkey would be their willingness to sell things such as IP to their products, in turn, this would help us develop our own industry, China did a similar thing, just, uh, without permission of the IP holders lol. If Pakistan could get the IP to critical inputs such as seeker design for missiles or something, it could greatly help and speed up development of our own industry.

 

[Syed1.]

This thread is feeling like 101 reasons why Pakistan can't make a fighter jet.


About time PAC releases some info regarding it. A massive project like this cannot be undertaken in secrecy. Unless of course the project is only on paper and nothing is being done, then you can keep it secret for decades.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

This thread is feeling like 101 reasons why Pakistan can't make a fighter jet.


About time PAC releases some info regarding it. A massive project like this cannot be undertaken in secrecy. Unless of course the project is only on paper and nothing is being done, then you can keep it secret for decades.

There are 101 reasons for sure, but there's fundamentally only 1 actual bottleneck preventing us from starting a real project: FCS. If we're unable to master FCS, we can't even do a proper system design and integration job using off-the-shelf solutions, much less design our own airframe. This is also the one thing PAC doesn't have a clear focus on due to various issues (attracting the right talent, for one).

That said, for everything else -- e.g., seeker technology, gas turbines, composites, etc -- we can start collaborating with other countries on 'high-level' R&D. Basically, we can't tie the R&D to a specific project like the NGFA, rather, we work with others on the tech for the tech's sake.

To the fauji-type, it'll sound like a huge red flag in terms of resource use, but this is actually the right way to do R&D. First, by keeping it abstract, you can pull in more willing partners (as there's no direct risk of military use). Second, we will build the capacity necessary to actually develop military tech indigenously. Third, we don't tie up scarce resources in solely defence, we can benefit economically from bottom-up IP generation.

 

[JamD]

About time PAC releases some info regarding it. A massive project like this cannot be undertaken in secrecy. Unless of course the project is only on paper and nothing is being done, then you can keep it secret for decades.

In PAC's defence they are way more open about Azm (all projects not just FGFA) than SPD organizations are. Of course this is wahhhy less than how open they really should be. PAC regularly interacts with other SPD organizations and most importantly with universities that have expertise. There are problems with what they think industry-academia linkages mean but that's beside the point.

 

[Kabotar]

This thread is feeling like 101 reasons why Pakistan can't make a fighter jet.


About time PAC releases some info regarding it. A massive project like this cannot be undertaken in secrecy. Unless of course the project is only on paper and nothing is being done, then you can keep it secret for decades.

Thats because this thread is missing who have actual knowledge about project. People like @airomerix @Ark_Angel @messiach.

Everybody is making best educated guesses.

 

[Ark_Angel]

There are 101 reasons for sure, but there's fundamentally only 1 actual bottleneck preventing us from starting a real project: FCS. If we're unable to master FCS, we can't even do a proper system design and integration job using off-the-shelf solutions, much less design our own airframe. This is also the one thing PAC doesn't have a clear focus on due to various issues (attracting the right talent, for one).

That said, for everything else -- e.g., seeker technology, gas turbines, composites, etc -- we can start collaborating with other countries on 'high-level' R&D. Basically, we can't tie the R&D to a specific project like the NGFA, rather, we work with others on the tech for the tech's sake.

To the fauji-type, it'll sound like a huge red flag in terms of resource use, but this is actually the right way to do R&D. First, by keeping it abstract, you can pull in more willing partners (as there's no direct risk of military use). Second, we will build the capacity necessary to actually develop military tech indigenously. Third, we don't tie up scarce resources in solely defence, we can benefit economically from bottom-up IP generation.

If you ask me, Let a Turkish Defence conglomerate buy up 49% stake in PAC Which they wanted to do way back in 14-15. That was the best way Forward for us. But The mentality of MODP,DGDP, Secy DP, Ministers, Senate Committee is stuck in the primitive times. Moreover The Gajjar of Arabs (which always pops up at the last minute when such a negotiation happens with a foreign read Turkish player) and then Yallahs walk out when they know they have scuttled the deal. The way ahead is Corporatization of Defence Industry. Let private players move in. But then again The Malik’s and the Manshas aren’t as enterprising as the Ambanis and Mittals.

 

[Ark_Angel]

Thats because this thread is missing who have actual knowledge about project. People like @airomerix @Ark_Angel @messiach.

Everybody is making best educated guesses.

I am personally not a big fan of Project Azm. It was the brainchild of the previous Cheif, And Like him the project is Ambitious. Doable but not impossible. But It will eat a lot of scare resources. JV should have been the best way forward IMO, we still have 2-3 options. But now since the project has commenced the boat has sailed, I am hopeful it will reach its destination if it encounters fair winds and following seas.

 

[Bilal.]

If you ask me, Let a Turkish Defence conglomerate buy up 49% stake in PAC Which they wanted to do way back in 14-15. That was the best way Forward for us. But The mentality of MODP,DGDP, Secy DP, Ministers, Senate Committee is stuck in the primitive times. Moreover The Gajjar of Arabs (which always pops up at the last minute when such a negotiation happens with a foreign read Turkish player) and then Yallahs walk out when they know they have scuttled the deal. The way ahead is Corporatization of Defence Industry. Let private players move in. But then again The Malik’s and the Manshas aren’t as enterprising as the Ambanis and Mittals.

We killed the enterprising types in nationalization. Now most that are left are rent seeking cronies.