What's new

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

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...
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.

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?
 
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.

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?

Messiach noted participation from getgo of ONE foreign company. Im guessing Chengdu CAC.
 
I don't know if it's in our genetic make-up, but I can boil it all down to this one little reaction I saw.

So I was with a friend, and I told him a fact which was 100% true, but it was so out of belief for him that he refused to believe it. Even if I offered context on why, he said, "no way, no way, this is nonsense" basically.

This guy didn't even ask for proof, but he totally refused to understand what the issue was and stuck with a preconceived notion. It isn't as if the guy was unreasonable in general, he's great a lot of the time, but in one-off, crunch moments like that one, even he can eff-it-up bad.

My fear is that someone with the "no way, no way" mentality is going to take AZM to the shed on Eid al-Adha.

This is the difference between "belief" and factual knowledge based on the scientific approach and rational thought processes. People will ultimately believe whatever they want to believe, whether it be religion, a "flat earth", conspiracy theories, or whatever else makes them feel good. There's many examples in the context of this forum as well.
 
I don't know if it's in our genetic make-up, but I can boil it all down to this one little reaction I saw.

So I was with a friend, and I told him a fact which was 100% true, but it was so out of belief for him that he refused to believe it. Even if I offered context on why, he said, "no way, no way, this is nonsense" basically.

This guy didn't even ask for proof, but he totally refused to understand what the issue was and stuck with a preconceived notion. It isn't as if the guy was unreasonable in general, he's great a lot of the time, but in one-off, crunch moments like that one, even he can eff-it-up bad.

My fear is that someone with the "no way, no way" mentality is going to take AZM to the shed on Eid al-Adha.
The last line gave me shivers...

Any context ?

I hope nothing we get offered should compromise AZM.

AZM is the future, all immediate is nothing but for a mere decade until it gets outdated.
 
Good suggestions. I would like to add a few thoughts.
1. The vision has to be set meaningfully.
2. Pak does not have the capacity to build a true F-22 rival. Neither can it afford a true 5th gen to even operate let alone fund.
3. A twin engined delta canard with the tech level of the Block 3 is achievable. One can aim for marginally better, but if you become too ambitious, u will turn it into a paper plane and all will be lost
4. JFT has shown success has been achieved by decoupling engine and avionics. Keep that formula cause it worked
5. Dont forget ur talent abroad. I was sad when I told @messiach that someone out of love from one of the top aerospace companies wants to come and volunteer to work for a Pak program, and she just brushed it off by saying Pak already has talent in her universities. Every major country is spending to attract talent but Pak is shooing those away that dont even need money to attract. I'm a nobody and i came across 2 such ppl from the top 3 aerospace companies. What Could u achieve if instead of telling them to get lost u made a global call to Pakistanis to come contribute?
This is a self defeating and negative article...
We didnt have the capability of making jf17. Missile of nukes.
After losing no 2 I stopped reading
 
Pakistan AZM program seems to be going the same root as Pakistan's nuclear weapons program of the 1980s and 1990s. Not much is known about it or publicly disclosed. But when it is revealed, it shocked the ENTIRE world with it's power and capabilities.
 
Good suggestions. I would like to add a few thoughts.
1. The vision has to be set meaningfully.
2. Pak does not have the capacity to build a true F-22 rival. Neither can it afford a true 5th gen to even operate let alone fund.
3. A twin engined delta canard with the tech level of the Block 3 is achievable. One can aim for marginally better, but if you become too ambitious, u will turn it into a paper plane and all will be lost
4. JFT has shown success has been achieved by decoupling engine and avionics. Keep that formula cause it worked
5. Dont forget ur talent abroad. I was sad when I told @messiach that someone out of love from one of the top aerospace companies wants to come and volunteer to work for a Pak program, and she just brushed it off by saying Pak already has talent in her universities. Every major country is spending to attract talent but Pak is shooing those away that dont even need money to attract. I'm a nobody and i came across 2 such ppl from the top 3 aerospace companies. What Could u achieve if instead of telling them to get lost u made a global call to Pakistanis to come contribute?





In the 1980s, EVERYONE said that Pakistan does not have the capacity to build nuclear weapons and that it is impossible for Pakistan to EVER become a nuclear weapons state with or without Chinese assistance. We all know what happened after May 1998.........:azn: Just as then so is now..........:azn:

a big surprise awaits, i am sure no one will be disappointed..


I believe that to be true. Just like May 1998 when Pakistan become a nuclear weapons state. After being told for 20 years that it is impossible for Pakistan to EVER become a nuclear weapons state with or without Chinese assistance.
 
With all due respect, but using the argument "We developed nuclear weapons, therefore we can pretty much do anything", is simplistic at best, and inane at worst. Sure, we developed nuclear weapons...does that mean we can put a man on the moon as well? Yes, we have nuclear weapons...but take a look at the rest of the country. I have no doubt about the capabilities of the PAF and PAC, and as they have stated, whatever comes from project Azm will still require a foreign technology partner, maybe multiple partners. But until there are further details, it might be worth laying off the prepubescent expectations.
 
A post with random thoughts to keep the thread alive.

Some uncomfortable truths:
We here at defence.pk have made LCA the butt of many jokes and continue to do so. Of course the LCA program has had many many teething problems and a lot of the criticism is justified, albeit misdirected at the engineering prowess of the Indians. What we must understand now is that with Project Azm we are now embarking on a program that will have the same kind of hiccups and delays that India faced with LCA. It's not about who is better or "God-gifted" at aerospace engineering. It's just the learning curve that everyone must navigate. India has navigated that curve the past 3 decades. We have done some parts of it but most of it lies in front of us in the shape of Project Azm. We must ask ourselves: do we have the stomach to soldier on with Azm in the face of delays, cost overruns, and failures? Has the PAF accounted for these things in their planning or are they going to make the same mistake as the Indians by overestimating their own capabilities? Perhaps it is best to learn from the Indian experience than to repeat it.

Also, no matter what the patriotic bone in your body says, the Indian aerospace industry is technically more advanced than ours. I actually feel that it is my patriotic duty to point this out so we can do something about it. The Indians have been let down by poor project management (to put it succinctly). This means that we should not be surprised if we take more time to develop Azm than even the LCA. The Indian planners have made the strategic decision to not cancel LCA even though it looked like a failure at many instances. They could stomach this "loss" due to their large economy. I wonder if we have the stomach to make such a strategic decision for Azm. Make no mistake: Azm will require the same unwavering, decades-long "commitment to the cause" that the nuclear program required. That program had a national buy-in. Everyone was on board. I wonder if there is a similar national buy-in into Azm, or is it just PAF's pet-project that will be axed if/when the times get tough.

Silver linings:
I hate cliches but a journey of a thousand steps begin with the first. The mere fact that something like Azm is being pursed with such seriousness is revolutionary for Pakistan. As an aerospace engineer this gives me great hope. At least we are trying. Azm may have long-lasting effects on the economy and defense industry of Pakistan.

Some unsolicited advice:
These are just some things that should be done:
  1. Fund research in universities and hire from universities. I've heard of "industry-academia linkages" dramaybazi for a decade now but it needs to be turned into a reality for Azm. Firstly, AvRID needs some mechanism where it funds 3-5 years projects that can support 4-5 graduate students in universities. These projects should be things AvRID does not have expertise for, does not need expertise in immediately, and needs expertise in eventually. This might look like high-risk investment but it pays great dividends in the long-run. A lot of the experts you will train in universities will come and work for you. This may even give a much-needed boost in research in universities that is badly needed. Our universities are a great, untapped asset that most planners don't seem to appreciate. It will be unfortunate if Turkey and China appreciate our universities more than our own organizations and benefit from our tax-payer money used to run these universities.
  2. Have faith in civilian experts. There is a tendency to only trust armed-forces personnel. This has worked great for SPD organizations but this won't work for something like Azm. Our air-force has very limited and very lop-sided expertise that are a function of what they have been asked to do over the years. They've never designed an FGFA and they don't have the expertise for it. Nobody should be shocked by this. PAF is an air force, it is not Boeing or Lockheed Martin. They need to get the expertise in the shape of civilians that will know better. I know a lot of PAF babas personally that will get sick if they have to admit that a civilian expert is better than them or agree/listen to them. Pride is good. Arrogance is toxic.
  3. Once FGFA goes into production, establish a separate factory (AMF-2?) for it and don't just expand AMF at PAC. This is for two reasons: 1-Allows us to make JF-17 unhindered. 2- Distributes the risk of loss of production in case of attacks. The Azm factory could be nearby Attock for logistical reasons but keep it separate.

This is absolute hogwash because you are trying to conflate two separate problems that have the same final outcome. The Indian failure is a result of researchers trying to tell the air force what kind of fighter jet they need. Alhamdullillah, there is very little chance of this happening with Azm. Second, the only 'indigenous' thing in Tejas is the aerodynamic design and flight control software. The radar, the weapons, the engine, the avionics, the communications, the cockpit systems, life support systems, everything is foreign. The Tejas, and the entire effort that has gone into it, is an extremely poor basis to declare India ahead of us in aerospace.

Alhamdullillah, PAC has proven structural engineering capabilities, and per various official videos, they have developed an indigenous design capability through CAD and CFD simulation software. Their stated aim is to utilize the wind tunnel infrastructure in China, but this aim is superficial. Testing an aircraft requires much more than a wind tunnel. You need customized electromechanical rigs and the associated expertise in instrumentation, mechatronics, and electrical/electronics engineering. For a fifth gen airframe, you need not just expertise in materials engineering, but innovative and possibly customized manufacturing capabilities. This encompasses welding, joints, large object construction, and process for application of stealth materials. Finally, you need specialists in RF/microwave design working with the aerodynamic design specialists.

Your problem is that you cannot envision Azm in your own mind. Which is why you are screaming about involvement of third parties. Azm represents Pakistan's long-term security, which cannot be compromised by giving any third party a large oversight or deep insight into the project. We will need to place some level of trust in PAC to deliver on this aim. Conversely, PAC needs to develop this trust by slowly revealing bits and pieces that show progress in the right direction.

There are two big risks in this project: an unending design and development process, and lack of prior experience. In this regard, an analogy can be drawn with Tejas, but only superficially. Since PAC is closely controlled by the PAF, there are lesser chances of politics playing a factor. Since the initiative is owned by the air force, there are lesser chances of focus being diverted to an off-the-shelf solution.

Both major risks can be mitigated through iterative development, where each iteration is inducted into the air force is some numbers. PAC needs to start with JF-17, open up the design, and give itself 5 years to come up with a newer version. Call it JF-18 if you must, but it needs to be an indigenous effort. From there, move on to a medium weight fighter. This creates the solid aviation industry that is needed for the fifth gen aim, and at the same time, provides the air force with the multi-tiered inventory that it really needs. The second last step should be a twin-engine heavy fighter such as the Su-57. In all three versions, stealth can be judiciously added which gives the designers a hands-on experience.

But the even larger question is the decision to go for a stealth aircraft, or an EW specialist aircraft. There is a case to be made for going full steam towards a better AEWACS type aircraft with all indigenous electronics. PAF needs to conduct studies based on available technologies to identify the pros and cons of one over the other. I find it disturbing that ACM Sohail Aman talked about ‘jumping ahead a generation’ to gain advantage over IAF. I consider the enemy to be the perfect enemy, with capability comparable to USAF or Israeli air force. A handful of fifth-gen fighters is not going to be enough against such an enemy. You need a multi-tiered approach, and EW must play a big role. I have not seen any cost/benefit analysis by PAF between these two approaches, and I find this extremely unsettling.
 
A post with random thoughts to keep the thread alive.

Some uncomfortable truths:
We here at defence.pk have made LCA the butt of many jokes and continue to do so. Of course the LCA program has had many many teething problems and a lot of the criticism is justified, albeit misdirected at the engineering prowess of the Indians. What we must understand now is that with Project Azm we are now embarking on a program that will have the same kind of hiccups and delays that India faced with LCA. It's not about who is better or "God-gifted" at aerospace engineering. It's just the learning curve that everyone must navigate. India has navigated that curve the past 3 decades. We have done some parts of it but most of it lies in front of us in the shape of Project Azm. We must ask ourselves: do we have the stomach to soldier on with Azm in the face of delays, cost overruns, and failures? Has the PAF accounted for these things in their planning or are they going to make the same mistake as the Indians by overestimating their own capabilities? Perhaps it is best to learn from the Indian experience than to repeat it.

Also, no matter what the patriotic bone in your body says, the Indian aerospace industry is technically more advanced than ours. I actually feel that it is my patriotic duty to point this out so we can do something about it. The Indians have been let down by poor project management (to put it succinctly). This means that we should not be surprised if we take more time to develop Azm than even the LCA. The Indian planners have made the strategic decision to not cancel LCA even though it looked like a failure at many instances. They could stomach this "loss" due to their large economy. I wonder if we have the stomach to make such a strategic decision for Azm. Make no mistake: Azm will require the same unwavering, decades-long "commitment to the cause" that the nuclear program required. That program had a national buy-in. Everyone was on board. I wonder if there is a similar national buy-in into Azm, or is it just PAF's pet-project that will be axed if/when the times get tough.

Silver linings:
I hate cliches but a journey of a thousand steps begin with the first. The mere fact that something like Azm is being pursed with such seriousness is revolutionary for Pakistan. As an aerospace engineer this gives me great hope. At least we are trying. Azm may have long-lasting effects on the economy and defense industry of Pakistan.

Some unsolicited advice:
These are just some things that should be done:
  1. Fund research in universities and hire from universities. I've heard of "industry-academia linkages" dramaybazi for a decade now but it needs to be turned into a reality for Azm. Firstly, AvRID needs some mechanism where it funds 3-5 years projects that can support 4-5 graduate students in universities. These projects should be things AvRID does not have expertise for, does not need expertise in immediately, and needs expertise in eventually. This might look like high-risk investment but it pays great dividends in the long-run. A lot of the experts you will train in universities will come and work for you. This may even give a much-needed boost in research in universities that is badly needed. Our universities are a great, untapped asset that most planners don't seem to appreciate. It will be unfortunate if Turkey and China appreciate our universities more than our own organizations and benefit from our tax-payer money used to run these universities.
  2. Have faith in civilian experts. There is a tendency to only trust armed-forces personnel. This has worked great for SPD organizations but this won't work for something like Azm. Our air-force has very limited and very lop-sided expertise that are a function of what they have been asked to do over the years. They've never designed an FGFA and they don't have the expertise for it. Nobody should be shocked by this. PAF is an air force, it is not Boeing or Lockheed Martin. They need to get the expertise in the shape of civilians that will know better. I know a lot of PAF babas personally that will get sick if they have to admit that a civilian expert is better than them or agree/listen to them. Pride is good. Arrogance is toxic.
  3. Once FGFA goes into production, establish a separate factory (AMF-2?) for it and don't just expand AMF at PAC. This is for two reasons: 1-Allows us to make JF-17 unhindered. 2- Distributes the risk of loss of production in case of attacks. The Azm factory could be nearby Attock for logistical reasons but keep it separate.

Fantastic post! Thank you.
 
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.

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?
ACM Sohail Aman said PAC roped in Chinese experts. As @Armchair guessed, we probably have CAC involved in some way. Besides, if the intent is to draw on Chinese engines and (likely) flight control tech, then we'll need to bring more of those experts to help anyways since there's a lot of proprietary knowledge involved.
 
With all due respect, but using the argument "We developed nuclear weapons, therefore we can pretty much do anything", is simplistic at best, and inane at worst. Sure, we developed nuclear weapons...does that mean we can put a man on the moon as well? Yes, we have nuclear weapons...but take a look at the rest of the country. I have no doubt about the capabilities of the PAF and PAC, and as they have stated, whatever comes from project Azm will still require a foreign technology partner, maybe multiple partners. But until there are further details, it might be worth laying off the prepubescent expectations.



Pakistan could put a man on the moon if the survival of the Pakistani race and nation depended on it. Give it another 5-10 years and with Chinese help, Pakistan will be producing world class fighter jets. Perhaps almost indigenously.
 
Back
Top Bottom