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

[Deino]

Hi BAE (UK) 6th generation they intend to put TEMPEST in 2035 with mass production as well as 2025 will be for prototype as their intention is to retire eurofighter 2040

Not again to play the devil's advocate, but with the Tempest we should wait, what will happen after Brexit is fully implemented and my guess is, it will be even worse than anyone of the British voters expected. Anyway even IF - and that IF is a huge one - the Tempest is not an option for Pakistan.

And in general terms:

The European era has passed...

He's right!

But otherwise we are diverting too far off the topic into much too unrealistic scenarios.

 

[JamD]

If the PAF selects the FC-31 or J-35 route, then we're looking at the late 2020s, so the switch will happen after the Block-III. But the first operational unit of the FGFA is likely a 2035+ thing, though production can be in full-swing sooner.

If the PAF selects the CAC or TF-X route, then we're looking at the late 2030s. To be honest, if this is the route, then I think the PAF will actually just buy lots of J-10CEs off-the-shelf. It doesn't help industrialization, but the decision-makers at AHQ et. al aren't industry experts, they're combat operators.

So, from their standpoint, what is there to lose with the J-10CE? The JF-17 Block-III is literally going to use the same weapon systems and many subsystems. I think the only point of interest will be adding Ra'ad/Ra'ad II integration. Otherwise, it's a net-benefit over the JF-17 program as-is to-date.

What will PAC do in the mean time? Well, I think it'll try building an actual prototype of the FGFA in that time. It'll, ideally, become very engineering/R&D heavy while the mass production element goes off to the private sector. That labor/resource can take up the mandatory offsets (via civil airliners, helicopters, drones, etc) the PAF links to its FGFA selection (supporting Aviation City is a must).

I'll put it this way as well. If you commit to 180 J-10CEs by 2040, you can confidently ask for deep ToT for the FGFA, and a serious (100%+) offset on the FGFA (sharing the production of the FGFA and/or have China buy from other related industries, like airliners).

@JamD @kursed

Overall, there are ways to get creative with all of these issues, we don't need to become dogmatic to one extreme or another.

As a planner why would I choose to buy 150 J-10CEs instead of 150 JF-17s? What follows is speculation:
1. The JF-17 may not be able to fully utilize the PL-15 missile's capability due to several reasons, which may include radar limitations, China's refusal to integrate it, structural/size issues. Remember being able to carry something is merely a prerequisite for using a system, not a guarantee that a system can be utilized (I believe the single picture of the PL-15 on JF-17 is photoshopped anyway - the missile looks too big). Therefore, the J-10CE may be needed to form the long A2A arm of the PAF and the rumored PL-15 order may be for a future J-10CE order or just a deterrent smoke-screen.
2. We need to increase numbers quickly and China may be unwilling due to economic and/or political reasons to produce 150 JF-17 BLK3s for us in China instead of producing 150 J-10CEs. We know that even for the Myanmmar orders PAC built sub-assemblies, which implies that Chengdu does not have a full-fledged JF-17 production-line (obviously) as some people like to wish (and currently has the setup to construct prototypes only).
3. A replacement for some of the roles of the Mirage albeit using Chinese munitions.

What I do not think is a reason is Ra'ad/Ra'adII integration. I think this way since we have no indication that PAF has been willing to ask China to integrate local or 3rd-party munitions onto Chinese aircraft (H2/H4 for example). Not sure how asking China to integrate a nuclear capable system onto the J-10CE will go down internationally.

Ideally, I would have liked more JF-17s but it may not be possible due to the above reasons.

 

[Readerdefence]

Not again to play the devil's advocate, but with the Tempest we should wait, what will happen after Brexit is fully implemented and my guess is, it will be even worse than anyone of the British voters expected. Anyway even IF - and that IF is a huge one - the Tempest is not an option for Pakistan.

And in general terms:




He's right!

But otherwise we are diverting too far off the topic into much too unrealistic scenarios.

Hi you are right about not an option for Pakistan I was trying to give him info about uks 6th generation about the brexit that’s why only Italian & Swedish are coming in at the moment even Italian join the project in September sometime last year so hopefully Brexit won’t matter
I believe so
Thank you

 

[Akh1112]

As a planner why would I choose to buy 150 J-10CEs instead of 150 JF-17s? What follows is speculation:
1. The JF-17 may not be able to fully utilize the PL-15 missile's capability due to several reasons, which may include radar limitations, China's refusal to integrate it, structural/size issues. Remember being able to carry something is merely a prerequisite for using a system, not a guarantee that a system can be utilized (I believe the single picture of the PL-15 on JF-17 is photoshopped anyway - the missile looks too big). Therefore, the J-10CE may be needed to form the long A2A arm of the PAF and the rumored PL-15 order may be for a future J-10CE order or just a deterrent smoke-screen.
2. We need to increase numbers quickly and China may be unwilling due to economic and/or political reasons to produce 150 JF-17 BLK3s for us in China instead of producing 150 J-10CEs. We know that even for the Myanmmar orders PAC built sub-assemblies, which implies that Chengdu does not have a full-fledged JF-17 production-line (obviously) as some people like to wish (and currently has the setup to construct prototypes only).
3. A replacement for some of the roles of the Mirage albeit using Chinese munitions.

What I do not think is a reason is Ra'ad/Ra'adII integration. I think this way since we have no indication that PAF has been willing to ask China to integrate local or 3rd-party munitions onto Chinese aircraft (H2/H4 for example). Not sure how asking China to integrate a nuclear capable system onto the J-10CE will go down internationally.

Ideally, I would have liked more JF-17s but it may not be possible due to the above reasons.

When we look at radars, the KLJ family of radars are close derivations of the J-10's radars. There is no reason that the JF-17 would not be able to effectively make use of the PL-15.

In terms of the photo, it seems legit. The missile is VERY large in itself, it fits in well with the photo.

It would be quicker to set up additional production lines of the JF-17 i think than to procure a new platform. IIRC PAC has a capability for 24 aircraft a year? I dont see why this couldnt be scaled up with relative ease since all the groundwork is already there.

In terms of mirage replacements, we are going to struggle to find anything on the current market to replace them. Heck, i think it would be easier to have a gimped version of the RAAD for the thunder than to replace the mirages

 

[KaiserX]

As a planner why would I choose to buy 150 J-10CEs instead of 150 JF-17s? What follows is speculation:
1. The JF-17 may not be able to fully utilize the PL-15 missile's capability due to several reasons, which may include radar limitations, China's refusal to integrate it, structural/size issues. Remember being able to carry something is merely a prerequisite for using a system, not a guarantee that a system can be utilized (I believe the single picture of the PL-15 on JF-17 is photoshopped anyway - the missile looks too big). Therefore, the J-10CE may be needed to form the long A2A arm of the PAF and the rumored PL-15 order may be for a future J-10CE order or just a deterrent smoke-screen.
2. We need to increase numbers quickly and China may be unwilling due to economic and/or political reasons to produce 150 JF-17 BLK3s for us in China instead of producing 150 J-10CEs. We know that even for the Myanmmar orders PAC built sub-assemblies, which implies that Chengdu does not have a full-fledged JF-17 production-line (obviously) as some people like to wish (and currently has the setup to construct prototypes only).
3. A replacement for some of the roles of the Mirage albeit using Chinese munitions.

What I do not think is a reason is Ra'ad/Ra'adII integration. I think this way since we have no indication that PAF has been willing to ask China to integrate local or 3rd-party munitions onto Chinese aircraft (H2/H4 for example). Not sure how asking China to integrate a nuclear capable system onto the J-10CE will go down internationally.

Ideally, I would have liked more JF-17s but it may not be possible due to the above reasons.

None of what you said is true:

1) Pl-15 will be integrated with JF-17 block 3. Up to 6 can be carried with multiple erector hard points

2) We can produce JF-17s at home. It would be wiser to add to our existing construction capacity than start brand new factories in China. By the time we receive the J-10Cs it would be minimum 5-7 years ahead of today. We might as well invest all that energy and time into project AZM and have our own domestic capabilities.

3) RAAD will be integrated into JF-17 block 3/JF-17B the prior issue with the clearance height of the aircraft with the missile has been addressed. Also rather have our own 5th generation jet that can carry Raad than J-10.

The thinking goes why have 100 J-10s when you can have 75 J-31s that can do the same job much better.

 

[Falcon26]

That was to cunter only Turkey's

You’re wrong.

 

[JamD]

When we look at radars, the KLJ family of radars are close derivations of the J-10's radars. There is no reason that the JF-17 would not be able to effectively make use of the PL-15.

Many reasons:

1. China does not want you to use the PL-15 with the JF-17 because they want you to buy the J-10.
2. Incompatible software since the Chinese may not have developed the PL-15 with the JF-17 in mind. So integration needs to be done.
   
3. Insufficient range of the JF-17's radar to utilize the large range of PL-15.
4. Insufficient kinetics of JF-17 to enable max range of PL-15 (J-10 can fly higher and faster).

China is our ally and not our mom after all. We can't expect China to bend over backwards for us.

In terms of the photo, it seems legit. The missile is VERY large in itself, it fits in well with the photo.

I did some quick pixel counting based on my hunch. My hunch was right. The PL-15 is 4 m on the J-10 but suddenly becomes 4.5 m on the JF-17? And also gets mounted in weird front-loaded way? More likely it is a good PS but I could always be wrong. In the picture below I've included what an actual size PL-15 would look like:

The PL-15 is about the same length as the PL-12/SD-10A. You might be confusing the PL-15 with this:

EDIT: Furthermore:

PL-15 is not so bigger and heavier than PL-12.

It would be quicker to set up additional production lines of the JF-17 i think than to procure a new platform. IIRC PAC has a capability for 24 aircraft a year? I dont see why this couldnt be scaled up with relative ease since all the groundwork is already there.

I am not sure if the current AMF can handle anything more than the max 24 (which is hard to achieve in itself). Furthermore, setting up additional assembly lines will not be cheap for us. It took us many many years to set up the current production line.

In terms of mirage replacements, we are going to struggle to find anything on the current market to replace them. Heck, i think it would be easier to have a gimped version of the RAAD for the thunder than to replace the mirages

Agreed, and what you suggested is the reasonable thing to do and we have seen evidence of this happening.

None of what you said is true:

1) Pl-15 will be integrated with JF-17 block 3. Up to 6 can be carried with multiple erector hard points

2) We can produce JF-17s at home. It would be wiser to add to our existing construction capacity than start brand new factories in China. By the time we receive the J-10Cs it would be minimum 5-7 years ahead of today. We might as well invest all that energy and time into project AZM and have our own domestic capabilities.

3) RAAD will be integrated into JF-17 block 3/JF-17B the prior issue with the clearance height of the aircraft with the missile has been addressed. Also rather have our own 5th generation jet that can carry Raad than J-10.

The thinking goes why have 100 J-10s when you can have 75 J-31s that can do the same job much better.

Let's just say I'll be very happy if all of what you said is true. Like I said I was merely speculating for why J-10s might be bought. I might be wrong and JF-17s might very well be completely capable of carrying PL-15s and then there would be even less reason to get J-10s.

 

[Akh1112]

Many reasons:

1. China does not want you to use the PL-15 with the JF-17 because they want you to buy the J-10.
2. Incompatible software since the Chinese may not have developed the PL-15 with the JF-17 in mind. So integration needs to be done.
   
3. Insufficient range of the JF-17's radar to utilize the large range of PL-15.
4. Insufficient kinetics of JF-17 to enable max range of PL-15 (J-10 can fly higher and faster).

China is our ally and not our mom after all. We can't expect China to bend over backwards for us.


I did some quick pixel counting based on my hunch. My hunch was right. The PL-15 is 4 m on the J-10 but suddenly becomes 4.5 m on the JF-17? And also gets mounted in weird front-loaded way? More likely it is a good PS but I could always be wrong. In the picture below I've included what an actual size PL-15 would look like:
View attachment 644457
The PL-15 is about the same length as the PL-12/SD-10A. You might be confusing the PL-15 with this:
View attachment 644456


I am not sure if the current AMF can handle anything more than the max 24 (which is hard to achieve in itself). Furthermore, setting up additional assembly lines will not be cheap for us. It took us many many years to set up the current production line.


Agreed, and what you suggested is the reasonable thing to do and we have seen evidence of this happening.


Let's just say I'll be very happy if all of what you said is true.

"China does not want you to use the PL-15 with the JF-17 because they want you to buy the J-10."


No reason for China not to, remember, China isn't all buddy buddy with us because they like Pakistani food or whatever, but instead, we are a strategic counter to India. If such a thing was the case, the Chinese wouldn't help us with AK2 either because they'd want us to purchase VT4s or whatever. Its in China's best interests to keep us happy or someone else will. China has no reason to push the J-10 on us or they would have in the first place, PAF already rejected it in fact, China would have shown its displeasure back then, not now.

"Incompatible software since the Chinese may not have developed the PL-15 with the JF-17 in mind. So integration needs to be done."

Integration is the least difficult part of this. PAC is able to handle that, connections and radar wise, the PL-15 should be just fine. Software integration should be the least of the worries.

"Insufficient kinetics of JF-17 to enable max range of PL-15 (J-10 can fly higher and faster)."

Kinematics should also not be a worry. deficiencies in altitude can be accounted for by lofting (ill include a graphic on how range is effected by lofting). Speed is also a non factor as missiles aren't designed in mind with oh, launch speed will be X or Y, you'll probably rarely even find planes flying at their top speed.

"Insufficient range of the JF-17's radar to utilize the large range of PL-15."

The JF-17's radar range isn't insufficient? The value for range we have is against a target with an RCS of 3m^2, a flanker for example has an RCS in excess of 10m^2.



Id also be wary of pixel counting, there are so many forms of inaccuracies that can arise. There are inaccuracies with your measurements for example, albeit, minute, however, its just an example. I feel like that is either a really, really professional photoshop or its legit. I am leaning towards the latter since the PAF does want a VLRAAM to keep the edge over the IAF, the CAS had mentioned they would want an analogue to the Meteor, the only choice being the PL-15.


The photo of the missile on the Flanker is the PL-XX/PL-21.


Though once again, we are just speculating to be fair. However, regardless of the authenticity of the photo, i think the PL-15 being integrated onto the Thunder is a matter of when as opposed to if.

 

[Armchair]

Unless the IAF gets the F-35, the IAF's FGFA is about as far-out as the PAF's plans (but the PAF can obviously track sooner by slotting in the FC-31).

However, a FGFA isn't a counter to a FGFA. Rather, a counter to the FGFA is having the right sensor deployment and advanced enough air-to-air missiles (AAM). You could get both with a 4.5+ gen fighter, like the J-10CE, provided you have the subsystems.


Based on the CAS' statements, the general idea I get is that an FGFA is supposed to be in the fleet by 2047. So, that could mean an induction period as early as the late 2020s, or as late as the late 2030s.

Basically...

If the PAF selects the FC-31 or J-35 route, then we're looking at the late 2020s, so the switch will happen after the Block-III. But the first operational unit of the FGFA is likely a 2035+ thing, though production can be in full-swing sooner.

If the PAF selects the CAC or TF-X route, then we're looking at the late 2030s. To be honest, if this is the route, then I think the PAF will actually just buy lots of J-10CEs off-the-shelf. It doesn't help industrialization, but the decision-makers at AHQ et. al aren't industry experts, they're combat operators.

So, from their standpoint, what is there to lose with the J-10CE? The JF-17 Block-III is literally going to use the same weapon systems and many subsystems. I think the only point of interest will be adding Ra'ad/Ra'ad II integration. Otherwise, it's a net-benefit over the JF-17 program as-is to-date.

What will PAC do in the mean time? Well, I think it'll try building an actual prototype of the FGFA in that time. It'll, ideally, become very engineering/R&D heavy while the mass production element goes off to the private sector. That labor/resource can take up the mandatory offsets (via civil airliners, helicopters, drones, etc) the PAF links to its FGFA selection (supporting Aviation City is a must).

I'll put it this way as well. If you commit to 180 J-10CEs by 2040, you can confidently ask for deep ToT for the FGFA, and a serious (100%+) offset on the FGFA (sharing the production of the FGFA and/or have China buy from other related industries, like airliners).

@JamD @kursed

Overall, there are ways to get creative with all of these issues, we don't need to become dogmatic to one extreme or another.

Interesting analysis. My only bother is that JF-17 Block 3 production will most likely end by 2025. Between that and 2035 or 2047 - if PAC does not do any manufacturing, it will be idling a lot of production equipment, and losing a lot of its skilled personnel.

Also, by then the early block Jf-17 will need replacing as well as the Mirages and a good part of the F-16 fleet.

F-16s aren't rebuildable in the same way as Mirages because of the materials used. - Its relatively straightforward for a largely aluminum airframe like the Mirage but becomes highly complex when advanced alloys and carbon-based compounds are involved.

This suggests to me that "something needs to be manufactured after the JF-17". To me, that something is the first iteration of the Azm. PAC has always chosen a gradual evolutionary model rather than revolutionary change - with the Super-7, JF-17 prototype, JF-17, Block 3... we see this pattern.

It may just be more practical to do the same with the Azm, at least the early iterations of it.

 

[Armchair]

After a lot of thinking, I've come to the conclusion that the Azm project has the following possibilities:

1. Conventional layout, twin engine
2. Conventional layout, single engine
3. Delta canard, twin engine
4. Delta canard, Single engine

1. cannot make sense as a cleansheet design as it makes more sense to go with the J-35. Why reinvent the wheel?
4. For similar reasons, 4 doesn't make sense as one can simply go with a stealthy J-10 design, which Chengdu could churn out easily.

This means that the possiblity of 2 and 3 are higher than 1 and 4. Someone was making a point that since Pakistan doesn't have much experience with designing aircraft, it is less likely they will go with a design that they have little experience with. Which means that (2) may be the option of least resistance, and what Occam's Razor would suggest.

Since a conventional layout with a single engine aircraft, that is designed to replace the F-16s, has to be more than the JF-17, perhaps it could be based on a larger engine and airframe. Being powered by something like the WS-10 / WS-15.

Just thinking aloud, don't shoot me for it.

@Arsalan I think this explains my position better.

 

[Arsalan]

@Arsalan I think this explains my position better.

It does. However the main issue is that we cannot say that if a plane have cancards it is BASED on J-10 or Euro Fighter or any other plane with canards. Same goes for all other options. Yes you can deduce by speculation if the plane will be a single engine one or dual engine, will it be delta wing or not, will it have canards or not, however that wont make the plane be BASED on JF-17 or Su-30, Mirage or F-16, J-10 or JF-17!

Ignoring the mixing up of two different planes and projects i agree with the way you are trying to find out a possible design outcome.

 

[Armchair]

It does. However the main issue is that we cannot say that if a plane have cancards it is BASED on J-10 or Euro Fighter or any other plane with canards. Same goes for all other options. Yes you can deduce by speculation if the plane will be a single engine one or dual engine, will it be delta wing or not, will it have canards or not, however that wont make the plane be BASED on JF-17 or Su-30, Mirage or F-16, J-10 or JF-17!

Ignoring the mixing up of two different planes and projects i agree with the way you are trying to find out a possible design outcome.

The key word I used is "layout". I think if route 2 is chosen from my above choices, a lot of subsystems can be used from the JF-17, and a lot of the construction technologies learned and implemented on the JF-17 can also go into the Azm.

So for me, I see Azm as a continuation of an indigenous fighter program started from the Super 7 - JF-17 non DSI prototype - JF-17 - Block 3 - Azm. Yes, it will have a new airframe but that airframe will incorporate many lessons learned from the JF-17 program. And many elements like the Radar, FCS, EW, etc can also be an iterative step up.

I think this gradual method is better than trying to build a mini-F-22 from scratch. I personally don't feel the Azm should have US-level stealth, which may not be economically feasible or as relevant in the future.

 

[Arsalan]

The key word I used is "layout". I think if route 2 is chosen from my above choices, a lot of subsystems can be used from the JF-17, and a lot of the construction technologies learned and implemented on the JF-17 can also go into the Azm.

So for me, I see Azm as a continuation of an indigenous fighter program started from the Super 7 - JF-17 non DSI prototype - JF-17 - Block 3 - Azm. Yes, it will have a new airframe but that airframe will incorporate many lessons learned from the JF-17 program. And many elements like the Radar, FCS, EW, etc can also be an iterative step up.

I think this gradual method is better than trying to build a mini-F-22 from scratch. I personally don't feel the Azm should have US-level stealth, which may not be economically feasible or as relevant in the future.

But it is not. That is the point. We are dragging a speculation further and further for no reason at all. The Project Azm wont be based on JF-17. It is a different aircraft as explained and confirmed by multiple credible sources now. Not need to speculate on things we know.

 

[Armchair]

But it is not. That is the point. We are dragging a speculation further and further for no reason at all. The Project Azm wont be based on JF-17. It is a different aircraft as explained and confirmed by multiple credible sources now. Not need to speculate on things we know.

Guess we will find out eventually. My money is on the horse that says iterative evolution rather than revolutionary change (point 2 on the four possibilities I outlined).

 

[Deino]

Not a popular view, but...I think the PAF may also consider buying a late 4.5 gen fighter in numbers instead (e.g., J-10CE), and much later, add a FGFA for specialized roles (e.g., strike).

I know I'm not always popular (at least to some) and thanks a lot for your reply.

May I add the question what type is the possible in Your opinion? You already mentioned the J-10CE and I must admit I see this type as the only viable option.

Thanks for your thoughts