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

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

What are some of the main issues those individuals pointed out working on the Azm Project? If this project is ground up and running into hurdles can't they just take the FC-31 V2 and improve upon it?

To even 'take' and 'improve' upon a NGFA, you still need experts and capacity to take on that work. This lack of capacity is a huge reason why we don't see Pakistan simply pick-up projects from abroad (e.g., South Africa, Ukraine, etc) and improve them, and why we always end up with off-the-shelf solutions.

Basically, we're now feeling the burn up our rears for not investing enough in R&D for the past 30-40 years. We've been too poor to negotiate for offsets, and too corrupt (leadership wise) to work on the economy. It's all coming back full circle.

@JamD though the IAF has given shade to HAL, we have to credit India's decision makers for at least putting up with HAL and DRDO for so long. If not for that tolerance (read: vision), then HAL wouldn't have developed all that R&D capacity it has today.

The teething problems were going to come, no way would PAC avoid it. But as long as AHQ maintains seriousness, and gives PAC both the time and 'reasonable discipline' (not gutting them, but not being oblivious either), PAC can get there.

It can go either way. It looks like the PA gave up on HIT and POF, but the PN didn't give up on MTC and NRDI. So, let's hope that something at AHQ and PAC turns around, though let's keep our expectations low and not hold our breath.

 

[JamD]

To even 'take' and 'improve' upon a NGFA, you still need experts and capacity to take on that work. This lack of capacity is a huge reason why we don't see Pakistan simply pick-up projects from abroad (e.g., South Africa, Ukraine, etc) and improve them, and why we always end up with off-the-shelf solutions.

A funny story I've heard (not sure how accurate) is that when the JF-17 program was started and PAF and CAC were deciding the workshare, it was decided to be a 50-50 split in all dimensions: funding, expertise, design. CAC said we will contribute a workforce of 4000 engineers, you should match this. PAF's response was that they didn't have enough qualified engineers in the entire air force let alone enough to dedicate to the JF-17. This is why PAF sent a dozen or so people to CAC on rotations throughout the development of the JF-17. PAF inputs were mostly broad based aerodynamic choices and design specification considerations. PAF had no role in the development of the detailed design, flight dynamics simulations, flight control systems. This severely limits what PAC can or cannot do even with the JF-17 (our supposedly home-grown fighter) because of the lack of knowledge base. This gaping hole in our knowledge base is coming back to bite us in the behind now. Hopefully, things will get better with time.

 

[PakFactor]

@JamD @Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Although this wasn't the news I wanted to hear, but if that's the reality we have to take it head on. Thanks for the info.

 

[Safriz]

Briefly:
We have little or no human resource and infrastructure to absorb (let alone design) flight control systems at PAC. PAC is lagging behind places even like AWC right now . This has some dangerous consequences:
1. Development of "new" systems (including FGFA, high-speed target drones, MALE UAV) will be "safe" and old school (70s era designs) that didn't need flight control systems.
2. Slow, failure prone development cycles that will run into cost overruns.
3. PAF will lose faith in PAC and just buy off the shelf solutions (kind of like what happened with LCA in India).
4. Some dangerous consequences for the JF-17 program in terms of freedom to integrate (the less said the better).

But PAF has plenty of PHD doctors who have doctorates sponsored by PAF and from foreign universities.
How they don't have "Human resources"?

 

[JamD]

@JamD though the IAF has given shade to HAL, we have to credit India's decision makers for at least putting up with HAL and DRDO for so long. If not for that tolerance (read: vision), then HAL wouldn't have developed all that R&D capacity it has today.

The teething problems were going to come, no way would PAC avoid it. But as long as AHQ maintains seriousness, and gives PAC both the time and 'reasonable discipline' (not gutting them, but not being oblivious either), PAC can get there.

It can go either way. It looks like the PA gave up on HIT and POF, but the PN didn't give up on MTC and NRDI. So, let's hope that something at AHQ and PAC turns around, though let's keep our expectations low and not hold our breath.

Excellent point. I've always admired the commitment India has shown to their aerospace industry (which I know is an unpopular opinion on this forum). Yes, they've had more funding to sink in it but it's not like our mil/industrial setups are run on chanda either. Research and development needs very long term planning. The kind you have mentioned. Let's hope PAF has the vision to keep faith in our people for long enough.

 

[PakFactor]

But PAF has plenty of PHD doctors who have doctorates sponsored by PAF and from foreign universities.
How they don't have "Human resources"?

It's on thing having a PhD another to have a PhD and a R&D base and experience.

 

[Safriz]

A funny story I've heard (not sure how accurate) is that when the JF-17 program was started and PAF and CAC were deciding the workshare, it was decided to be a 50-50 split in all dimensions: funding, expertise, design. CAC said we will contribute a workforce of 4000 engineers, you should match this. PAF's response was that they didn't have enough qualified engineers in the entire air force let alone enough to dedicate to the JF-17. This is why PAF sent a dozen or so people to CAC on rotations throughout the development of the JF-17. PAF inputs were mostly broad based aerodynamic choices and design specification considerations. PAF had no role in the development of the detailed design, flight dynamics simulations, flight control systems. This severely limits what PAC can or cannot do even with the JF-17 (our supposedly home-grown fighter) because of the lack of knowledge base. This gaping hole in our knowledge base is coming back to bite us in the behind now. Hopefully, things will get better with time.

The entire SAAB establishment in Sweden don't have 4000 engineers, but they are doing well

 

[PakFactor]

Excellent point. I've always admired the commitment India has shown to their aerospace industry (which I know is an unpopular opinion on this forum). Yes, they've had more funding to sink in it but it's not like our mil/industrial setups are run on chanda either. Research and development needs very long term planning. The kind you have mentioned. Let's hope PAF has the vision to keep faith in our people for long enough.

If I remember correctly Pak Navy made a similar fatal mistake building a sub in Pakistan, but after that their was no progression or development using the experience gained which went down the drain.

 

[JamD]

But PAF has plenty of PHD doctors who have doctorates sponsored by PAF and from foreign universities.
How they don't have "Human resources"?

80% of these people have degrees in structures, 15% in aerodynamics. The hole in knowledge base is in flight dynamics and control. Some of my colleagues interviewed for flight dynamics positions at AvRID and these are people junior than me (so not well experienced professionals). They eventually went to other places like abroad and other SPD places.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Excellent point. I've always admired the commitment India has shown to their aerospace industry (which I know is an unpopular opinion on this forum). Yes, they've had more funding to sink in it but it's not like our mil/industrial setups are run on chanda either. Research and development needs very long term planning. The kind you have mentioned. Let's hope PAF has the vision to keep faith in our people for long enough.

Yep. The reality is that if the PAF tells PAC to work on a modern design, then it'll for sure push AZM up a by 15-20 years. So, the PAF will need an off-the-shelf fighter to hold the fort. Best to accept reality early on and, in turn, give the PAC the space it needs to focus on R&D, but without pressure and deflation.

 

[JamD]

The entire SAAB establishment in Sweden don't have 4000 engineers, but they are doing well

That was just an anecdotal story don't take the 4000 number literally. But do research (if its even possible) on the number of people SAAB has in flight dynamics, guidance/navigation, control. I will guarantee it is muuuuuuuch more than what AvRID has right now.

 

[Safriz]

If I remember correctly Pak Navy made a similar fatal mistake building a sub in Pakistan, but after that their was no progression or development using the experience gained which went down the drain.

Such projects also need massive investment. Just knowledge is not enough.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

The entire SAAB establishment in Sweden don't have 4000 engineers, but they are doing well

Yep, but that's why Saab leverages critical inputs from GE, BAE, etc. IIRC the Gripen's flight control system is from BAE. So, it goes to show Saab's limitations, and why the IAF probably won't take their Gripen offer seriously.

 

[LKJ86]

The entire SAAB establishment in Sweden don't have 4000 engineers, but they are doing well

 

[Safriz]

That was just an anecdotal story don't take the 4000 number literally. But do research (if its even possible) on the number of people SAAB has in flight dynamics, guidance/navigation, control. I will guarantee it is muuuuuuuch more than what AvRID has right now.

I used to live in Sweden and drove past SAAB factory many times but obviously it's a secure facility and I had no reason to go in.
But I know people from BAE in UK who say that most of their best staff don't even have university degrees, they learnt the job by doing it.
My son went for apprenticeship at Air Bus , another big name in aviation, and same story there, the staff who actually makes planes is specialised in their specific jobs. So specialized that they can't take a university graduate for that specific job and some 50 year old fitter will be far better at that specific job because he done it for 30 years. They start as apprentices after 10 or 12 years of schooling and learn specialist skills at work.
About R&D they fund university PHD students and most of their innovations come from PHD thesis.
The other source is "Mergers". A small company does some research and stumble upon a new technique or technology and the big company just buys them off.
All the big players in aviation are a hybrid of multiple mergers and with merger comes patent rights, copyright and intellectual property rights.
So not everything made by them.

My son says that even in Airbus floating a new idea isn't easy for the little guy or the fresh minds from university . It's the same old red tapes and bearocracy as anywhere else.