JamD
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,238
- Reaction score
- 94
- Country
- Location
Unfortunately, I really don't know myself but if I had to guess, I would guess the same as you. The expenses right now are mostly just paying salaries. Theres some construction of drones and stuff but this cost is small compared to the billions needed for construction of prototypes.IIRC ... the very first steps of a fighter project don't require much money, at least for the preliminary design work (which is where PAC is at right now).
However, once you start the process of freezing it (i.e., lots of testing, finding compatible inputs such as engine, etc) the cost starts climbing sharply.
Once you start the process of building a prototype, you're basically asking for around $1 billion US (to build the first one or two prototypes plus set-up jigs for producing them, etc).
I'm probably wrong... @JamD
I suspect the project will continue until we see a frozen design. The PAF will then decide if it wants to continue with a prototype (i.e., the big investment), roll into the FC-31 or TF-X (the two consortium options), or -- if we're lucky -- move to a R&D-only demonstrator project.
I think joining a consortium/partnership with China and, separately, working on a longer-term experimental platform is the ideal route. We secure our near-term needs with a solution that'll work (FC-31/J-35), but at the same time, develop critical technologies at home for use later.
The experimental/demonstrator project can be a fail-safe/free-to-fail opportunity to learn all about flight control tech, aerodynamics, integration, testing, etc. If the resulting expertise is good enough, the PAF can move ahead with an original fighter design later. If not, it can still use that expertise to develop other aircraft, like UCAVs.
I mean, ultimately, I see the initial FGFA (i.e., the consortium fighter be it China or Turkey) as the F-16 replacement. We go into it with the main aim to procure and manufacture parts and sub-assemblies as an offset. Nothing above our reach.
On the other hand, a second NGFA can come through (based on the experimental program) to ultimately replace the JF-17 and/or develop UCAVs or other applications.
Overall, it's a huge shame we never dabbled in an experimental/demonstrator as early as the 1950s or 1960s. Egypt did it with Messerschmitt's help, though it canned it later. In fact, had we embarked on a 'strategic triad' of nuclear + aerospace + electronics in the 1970s, imagine we'd be by now...
This kind of highlights an important point. Who do you ask to lay the roadmap for Project Azm? There are very few countries that can claim to successfully run a program like Azm. Did we have active participation from these countries while the plan was being made? Or are we going to wing it?