Armchair
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2014
- Messages
- 3,234
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
No but the consensus seems to be its twin-engined.
Featured Project Azm: Pakistan's Ambitious Quest to Develop 5th Generation Military Technologies.
- Thread starter AZADPAKISTAN2009
- Start date
No but the consensus seems to be its twin-engined.
Armchair
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2014
- Messages
- 3,234
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
A very interesting analysis of the F-35 and F-16 shortcomings by the famous GLAAAR
Let me add here that the F-16 has the same low AOA limiter problem and /had/ much the same TRO and buffet problem when the AMRAAM and LEF interaction was causing excessive fatigue and the rate and excursion limits had to be limitered as we went to the tip-rail installation that used the AIM-120 as a giant endplate and bobweight which kept the wings from fluttering. The missile cast vortices which interacted with the flap and nearly ended the tip-120 effort (which would have been a laugh and a half as the 350lb AIM-120 is in fact a terrible MRM _ecause_ it was designed for specific compatibility with the F-16).
The AOA transitional effect on the F-16 is indeed about 23–25 units depending on dynamic entry mode and what you have under the chin and belly. But where it’s absolute limit of about 27.5 units is pretty severe compared to other jets, it still has one of if not THE fastest turn rates on the planet, simply because the jet can trim into the turn with slight LEF upwards deflection (2`) which allows the stabs to go to neutral and turn a 300 square foot wing area into a 370 square foot area which is how that fantastic 9G bat turn is born.
The F-35, in order to get the Gs it was able to command was at 60% of internal fuel and had a decidedly aft CG due to the empty forwards weapons bay yet despite this as well as powerful vortice generators inherent to the LEX horns, it has exactly the same transitional AOA limit of 23–25` and ‘high’ AOA onset (reduced control authority in roll as the stabs struggle to keep the nose up) around 27`. In most other Gen-4 aircraft this is just the beginning of transitional AOA with high alpha starting at 30+.
Why?
Well, how about the F-35 being the Beech Staggerwing of jet fighters with a high mounted shoulder airfoil, well back on the jet’s fuselage and a secondary lifting pancake inherent to the slab surface of the weapons bay.
Due to their relative longitudinal and sectional height variables, the two have different AOA/lift variables with one airfoil effectively running out of contributable lift at much lower AOAs while the other struggles to continue at lower pitch rates due to absent TVC which is critical because thrust vectoring allows you to establish nose rate while remissioning the stabs and verticals to provide roll and yaw in chasing the nose around after the threat.
You should never allow someone to convince you that a missile doesn’t need to be within a 40–45` cone of the target before launch because anything else creates a weathervane effect which is highly deleterious to the performance of a small motor impulse weapon like the AIM-9X.
And the carriage of (rail forward only = external required) AIM-9X would effectively negate the ‘skins’ LO advantage.
While the F-35 may have the high AOA capabilities of the F-18, it does so with ZERO tactical application because, while the Bug can fly around cranked all day (going downhill) and the Super Bug can do chained maneuvers like the Pirouette, the F-35 simply doesn’t have the sustained Ps to make more than a last-best-move that ends at zero airspeed, nose down, gutless.
In this, we need to consider the effects of a jet which is designed to ingress and release glide weapons at very high altitudes around FL300 and yet likely also has the Hornet’s weakness for any combat over 19K and .9 Mach.
If you have to fight downhill from an initial perch to get into your EM ‘dogfight’ curve of sustained smash, you are an energy cripple, not least because the drag difference (BVR sprints to pole) from 20-40K is the same as that from 0–20K and thus any shortcoming in acceleration to 1.2 breakout of transonics for a missile boosting is also going to be magnified compared to what an Su-35, T-50 or Raptor can achieve.
I _seriously_ doubt that an AAQ-37 DAS which is capable of functioning as an SAIRST, going so far as to track artillery against ground clutter from 15nm and rockets rising from a ramp at 80nm, is going to ‘miss’ a jet at 1–5nm. What the writer fails to note here is that visionics enablers are an acknowledgement that the days of ‘white scarf’ flyers seeing their targets are done. First, because the F-35 will do most of it’s high threat flying at night. Second because high energy, diode pumped, lasers are now basicaly unavoidable eyehazards at 2–3 times the distance that say a missile is and 10 times the range of a gun. The AvLeak PIREP on the F-14 Strike Cat, testign the AAQ-25 Naval LANTIRN, specifically mentions the improvements made to high altitude lasing capabiity to bring SALH illumination into line with the SFPA increases in range of modern targeting pods. ‘See at 40, Sparkle at 20’ comes to mind.
That kind of power, at 6–8nm will go right through any canopy or helmet coating and so the ability to see through 360` is going to be highly relative to the ability of a hard-dazzled pilot to continue to fight his aircraft at all. You’re a fool if you think countries like China which produce dazzler weapons as truck mounted GBAD are going to obey something like the Hague conventions on crippling eye-hazard weapons if not doing so lets them make up the difference between U.S. and PRC air warfighter experience levels.
Finally, there is some real truth to the notion that the F-35 doesn’t need to have the kinematic performance of the Gen-4 to survive. Principally, this is because, at 900nm radius with an expected 1–2 hours on station, and at least 300nm from a protected tanker orbit, you _really_ don’t want to be throwing G-cons, aspect flash or burner wake around a 360` horizon. You will be detected, visually, by radar, and by IRST. You will also run yourself out of gas in a helluva hurry.
If you have 2 missiles, you adopt a modified stinger or chainsaw formation with two jets slinging their ‘both AMRAAM today, I tell’ya!’ weapons at max pole and then using the _digital_ (not tuned analogue) radar sideband datalink to do shooter/illuminator from the trailer as the leads pump off.
Especially with short ranged weapons like the AIM-120, fired from distances/altitudes/TOD _certain_ to trigger the MAKS launch warning, you want to have maximum first shot playout followed by _trailing_ second shot clean up to make best use of your missile loadouts.
Such are the consequences when it takes 4 F-35 to equal the internal carry of a single F-22. You’re not going to win most fights so you need to adopt tactics which minimize the risk of ‘three point line’ shots going awry with a neutral-extension outcome.
Since the F-35 lacks the F-22’s supercruise alternative to ‘just go around’ to begin with (a fact further compromised by the need to approach specific, high value, targets to within a 12nm JDAM release point as essentialy overflight mandated condition…).
Let me add here that the F-16 has the same low AOA limiter problem and /had/ much the same TRO and buffet problem when the AMRAAM and LEF interaction was causing excessive fatigue and the rate and excursion limits had to be limitered as we went to the tip-rail installation that used the AIM-120 as a giant endplate and bobweight which kept the wings from fluttering. The missile cast vortices which interacted with the flap and nearly ended the tip-120 effort (which would have been a laugh and a half as the 350lb AIM-120 is in fact a terrible MRM _ecause_ it was designed for specific compatibility with the F-16).
The AOA transitional effect on the F-16 is indeed about 23–25 units depending on dynamic entry mode and what you have under the chin and belly. But where it’s absolute limit of about 27.5 units is pretty severe compared to other jets, it still has one of if not THE fastest turn rates on the planet, simply because the jet can trim into the turn with slight LEF upwards deflection (2`) which allows the stabs to go to neutral and turn a 300 square foot wing area into a 370 square foot area which is how that fantastic 9G bat turn is born.
The F-35, in order to get the Gs it was able to command was at 60% of internal fuel and had a decidedly aft CG due to the empty forwards weapons bay yet despite this as well as powerful vortice generators inherent to the LEX horns, it has exactly the same transitional AOA limit of 23–25` and ‘high’ AOA onset (reduced control authority in roll as the stabs struggle to keep the nose up) around 27`. In most other Gen-4 aircraft this is just the beginning of transitional AOA with high alpha starting at 30+.
Why?
Well, how about the F-35 being the Beech Staggerwing of jet fighters with a high mounted shoulder airfoil, well back on the jet’s fuselage and a secondary lifting pancake inherent to the slab surface of the weapons bay.
Due to their relative longitudinal and sectional height variables, the two have different AOA/lift variables with one airfoil effectively running out of contributable lift at much lower AOAs while the other struggles to continue at lower pitch rates due to absent TVC which is critical because thrust vectoring allows you to establish nose rate while remissioning the stabs and verticals to provide roll and yaw in chasing the nose around after the threat.
You should never allow someone to convince you that a missile doesn’t need to be within a 40–45` cone of the target before launch because anything else creates a weathervane effect which is highly deleterious to the performance of a small motor impulse weapon like the AIM-9X.
And the carriage of (rail forward only = external required) AIM-9X would effectively negate the ‘skins’ LO advantage.
While the F-35 may have the high AOA capabilities of the F-18, it does so with ZERO tactical application because, while the Bug can fly around cranked all day (going downhill) and the Super Bug can do chained maneuvers like the Pirouette, the F-35 simply doesn’t have the sustained Ps to make more than a last-best-move that ends at zero airspeed, nose down, gutless.
In this, we need to consider the effects of a jet which is designed to ingress and release glide weapons at very high altitudes around FL300 and yet likely also has the Hornet’s weakness for any combat over 19K and .9 Mach.
If you have to fight downhill from an initial perch to get into your EM ‘dogfight’ curve of sustained smash, you are an energy cripple, not least because the drag difference (BVR sprints to pole) from 20-40K is the same as that from 0–20K and thus any shortcoming in acceleration to 1.2 breakout of transonics for a missile boosting is also going to be magnified compared to what an Su-35, T-50 or Raptor can achieve.
I _seriously_ doubt that an AAQ-37 DAS which is capable of functioning as an SAIRST, going so far as to track artillery against ground clutter from 15nm and rockets rising from a ramp at 80nm, is going to ‘miss’ a jet at 1–5nm. What the writer fails to note here is that visionics enablers are an acknowledgement that the days of ‘white scarf’ flyers seeing their targets are done. First, because the F-35 will do most of it’s high threat flying at night. Second because high energy, diode pumped, lasers are now basicaly unavoidable eyehazards at 2–3 times the distance that say a missile is and 10 times the range of a gun. The AvLeak PIREP on the F-14 Strike Cat, testign the AAQ-25 Naval LANTIRN, specifically mentions the improvements made to high altitude lasing capabiity to bring SALH illumination into line with the SFPA increases in range of modern targeting pods. ‘See at 40, Sparkle at 20’ comes to mind.
That kind of power, at 6–8nm will go right through any canopy or helmet coating and so the ability to see through 360` is going to be highly relative to the ability of a hard-dazzled pilot to continue to fight his aircraft at all. You’re a fool if you think countries like China which produce dazzler weapons as truck mounted GBAD are going to obey something like the Hague conventions on crippling eye-hazard weapons if not doing so lets them make up the difference between U.S. and PRC air warfighter experience levels.
Finally, there is some real truth to the notion that the F-35 doesn’t need to have the kinematic performance of the Gen-4 to survive. Principally, this is because, at 900nm radius with an expected 1–2 hours on station, and at least 300nm from a protected tanker orbit, you _really_ don’t want to be throwing G-cons, aspect flash or burner wake around a 360` horizon. You will be detected, visually, by radar, and by IRST. You will also run yourself out of gas in a helluva hurry.
If you have 2 missiles, you adopt a modified stinger or chainsaw formation with two jets slinging their ‘both AMRAAM today, I tell’ya!’ weapons at max pole and then using the _digital_ (not tuned analogue) radar sideband datalink to do shooter/illuminator from the trailer as the leads pump off.
Especially with short ranged weapons like the AIM-120, fired from distances/altitudes/TOD _certain_ to trigger the MAKS launch warning, you want to have maximum first shot playout followed by _trailing_ second shot clean up to make best use of your missile loadouts.
Such are the consequences when it takes 4 F-35 to equal the internal carry of a single F-22. You’re not going to win most fights so you need to adopt tactics which minimize the risk of ‘three point line’ shots going awry with a neutral-extension outcome.
Since the F-35 lacks the F-22’s supercruise alternative to ‘just go around’ to begin with (a fact further compromised by the need to approach specific, high value, targets to within a 12nm JDAM release point as essentialy overflight mandated condition…).
Armchair
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2014
- Messages
- 3,234
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
Here is an analysis of the capabilities of the FC-31 and it gives insight as to where the Chinese industry is lacking:
https://manglermuldoon.blogspot.com/2014/11/threat-analysis-of-foreign-stealth.html
Continuing:
Key conclusions from Threat Analysis of Foreign Stealth Fighters: Shenyang J-31 Part I
https://manglermuldoon.blogspot.com/2015/04/threat-analysis-of-foreign-stealth.html
https://manglermuldoon.blogspot.com/2014/11/threat-analysis-of-foreign-stealth.html
Continuing:
Key conclusions from Threat Analysis of Foreign Stealth Fighters: Shenyang J-31 Part I
- Current J-31 demonstrator is unlikely to enter either PLAAF or PLANAF service in the short term, Shenyang has been described the FC-31 as an export only aircraft
- Possible reasons include: insufficient performance, increasingly capable 4.5 generation fighter fleet serving as the low end in the high low mix with the J-20, and risk management in the case of the PLANAF given the development of the J-15
- Relatively stealthy airframe, use of planform alignment and DSI but notably lacks rear stealth
- degree of stealth likely to be inferior to both the F-22 and F-35 given ongoing quality control issues within the Chinese aerospace industry but still sufficient enough to cause serious concern for American 4th generation aircraft and equivalent aircraft
https://manglermuldoon.blogspot.com/2015/04/threat-analysis-of-foreign-stealth.html
CriticalThought
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2016
- Messages
- 7,094
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
@Gallium Nitride could you please enlighten us about the design requirements and design philosophy behind Azm? I want to know if PAF has done a threat assessment, and if so, what design parameters they are targeting in terms of max speed, turn rate, stealth, payload capacity etc?
BTW, apologies for tagging you on different threads, but it's essential for forum quality to maintain the topic on threads.
BTW, apologies for tagging you on different threads, but it's essential for forum quality to maintain the topic on threads.
Trango Towers
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2016
- Messages
- 21,951
- Reaction score
- -18
- Country
- Location
ACM told us 5 years
帅的一匹
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 12,820
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
wont be that long brother
BHarwana
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2016
- Messages
- 24,825
- Reaction score
- 20
- Country
- Location
In the 49th meeting of Standing Committee on Defence Production, it was told that it will take 11 years.
Project AZM is not about designing a fighter jet. This projects is much more than just a Jet it has many other major thing to cover. Designing a fighter jet is one of the tasks of Project AZM. People have wrong perception about AZM.
Brother there are many things this project has to do. It has to pave the path for an entire industry. Fighter jet is one thing and yes they will give the jet much earlier but the name Project AZM is not a name of a fighter jet. If you want I can provide you all info I have on accepts this project will cover.
BHarwana
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2016
- Messages
- 24,825
- Reaction score
- 20
- Country
- Location
When they announced the Project AZM if you remember they said Pakistan will develop 5th gen and MALE UAV under project AZM so this clearly says it is not just a one fighter jet but the project is about developing some thing else. If they wanted to develop a single 5th gen fighter jet they did not needed AZM, PAC can do it for them. AZM is not a name for fighter jet yes FGFA is part of AZM but so is MALE UAV and that UAV is also stealth. The project is much bigger in scope.
The 11 year time frame was mentioned here:
Read the news link below it has 11 years time frame
https://www.brecorder.com/2018/03/28/407691/na-body-briefed-about-commercial-products-made-by-pac/
@wanglaokan Under project AZM Pakistan is going to develop it's capacity to produce Advance aerial attack and defense platforms. AZM has the duty to develop a whole new industry setup production lines. It is going to recruit people with knowledge with composite materials. It will recruit chemical engineers. It will recruit Hackers, software developers, electric engineers, mechanical engineers, Administrators and much more. This is a capacity building and technology building project.
Asian.Century
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,754
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Time to release some mockups, prototypes and some details of the 5th Gen fighter aircraft.
GriffinsRule
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 3,394
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
For the mockups or even models, wait for another 2 years or so at a min. In the meantime, we can look at the 3 possible version proposed for the TuAF and we can bet AZM will be one of them.
Hassan Guy
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2016
- Messages
- 4,892
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
probably something like the single engine one (without canards) powered by a WS-15 or AL-41
GriffinsRule
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 3,394
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
Or a European engine if its a joint-production with Turkey
Similar threads
