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

[jupiter2007]

Yeah so we're definitely gonna need some sort of MMRCA in addition to AZM.

Because JF17 can only go so far. It's lightweight.

Mirages and F16 won't be here forever. So we're gonna medium weight multiroles of our own.


Sooooo fkin tru man, unfirtunately.
However, this time on paper at least. PAF says they are serious about AZM.

I feel that way about PakMil industriss as well. So lazy and every effort is often half assed.

I agree along with JF-17 block 3, we should have considered Medium Weight Fighter project with AZM true 5th generation fighter.

These maybe fake pictures...just sharing ideas.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Slight tangent but I think PAF should also look into the developing AI for wingman drones. That will help us increase our overall squadron/fighter aircraft strength. Which in my view at least is dismally low compared to our neighbors(also in my very CONTROVERSIAL view) China won't always be a friend. Also India's allies given the South China scenario could also be belligerent to us.



Yeah a couple dozen should be fine. As long as they don't distract PAF/PAC completely from AZM and Medium Weight Multirole

This is the key. We have finite resources. It's easy to say, "let's develop this" and "let's develop that" but be it at the whole system level or the subsystem level, we don't have the means to do everything alone.

There are trade-offs.

To be frank, I'd much rather make AZM into the FC-31 if it means we can spare resources for a loyal wingman UAV, decoy UAV, and a deep-strike UAV. In some ways, the UAV route might be a good way to get our domestic bureaus to engage in R&D in flight control tech, composites, and even engines without putting them under the pressure of the axe because the manned fighter wasn't coming early enough.

 

[maverick1977]

This is the key. We have finite resources. It's easy to say, "let's develop this" and "let's develop that" but be it at the whole system level or the subsystem level, we don't have the means to do everything alone.

There are trade-offs.

To be frank, I'd much rather make AZM into the FC-31 if it means we can spare resources for a loyal wingman UAV, decoy UAV, and a deep-strike UAV. In some ways, the UAV route might be a good way to get our domestic bureaus to engage in R&D in flight control tech, composites, and even engines without putting them under the pressure of the axe because the manned fighter wasn't coming early enough.

i am sure pakistan will build upon FC31 to bring product to the market at a faster pace with its own customization than to buikd it from the scratch .. otherwise it will be costly and a long project

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

Agreed

This is the key. We have finite resources. It's easy to say, "let's develop this" and "let's develop that" but be it at the whole system level or the subsystem level, we don't have the means to do everything alone.

There are trade-offs.

To be frank, I'd much rather make AZM into the FC-31 if it means we can spare resources for a loyal wingman UAV, decoy UAV, and a deep-strike UAV. In some ways, the UAV route might be a good way to get our domestic bureaus to engage in R&D in flight control tech, composites, and even engines without putting them under the pressure of the axe because the manned fighter wasn't coming early enough.

 

[MastanKhan]

No, I have no source, that tiny little green men live on Mars, but that does not make a claim "since you cannot prove they are not, so they must" valid.
Or in return: Do you have proof that Pakistan and Turkey is already involved in the FC-31 project?
Or is this again "just an assumption" on your own in the same way you agreed "in all accord" that a still secret Italian engine will power the Block 3, or it can already now use the AIM-120 AMRAAM? Or do you once again expect proof from me that it cannot?

Hi,

Welcome to the world of defense equipment---its manufacturing and its procurement---.

If you are here to seek the truth---you are in the wrong place---or you may have wrong understanding of the business---.

Did you really believe that if I knew, I would give out secure information about my country's mainstay program just to get some brownie point---.

 

[Akh1112]

This is the key. We have finite resources. It's easy to say, "let's develop this" and "let's develop that" but be it at the whole system level or the subsystem level, we don't have the means to do everything alone.

There are trade-offs.

To be frank, I'd much rather make AZM into the FC-31 if it means we can spare resources for a loyal wingman UAV, decoy UAV, and a deep-strike UAV. In some ways, the UAV route might be a good way to get our domestic bureaus to engage in R&D in flight control tech, composites, and even engines without putting them under the pressure of the axe because the manned fighter wasn't coming early enough.

Realistically though, i don't see Loyal wingmen being useful in our area of operations. ATM every development is for A2G with very limited payloads. Sure it could be evolved (i had discussed this in an article earlier. ill link that at the end since i go a little more in depth). The only time i see a loyal wingman being half useful for us would be one with some form of A2A capability which then begs the question, what missiles? If the US did decide to go for A2A drones, the Peregrine is a VERY good option, however, we do not have those options. I really don't see why a loyal wingman is more useful than something like a cruise missile or even defensive suites like MALD or whatever, yeah it may be a weird comparison but the whole point of Loyal wingmen is to mitigate risk in dangerous environments right? Why not instead of developing a new aircraft, use those funds to vastly improve the suite of munitions? Develop new cruise missiles with longer range (since this would literally pretty much take over Loyal Wingman's role atm), these would be more beneficial as they can be used across branches, use that money to further enhance the combat potence of our current platforms, new EW, decoys etc. I think money for a loyal wingman would be far better spent enhancing other parts of the PAF.

 

[The Accountant]

It's important to remember that Pakistan's industrial/technology planning and military planning happens from the same palm. In other words, if for some reason urgency becomes a factor (i.e., a military issue), then it'll basically shape the development side.

The last CAS, ACM Sohail Aman, started with the goal of developing an FGFA alone, but he entertained the idea of collaboration and partnerships (with Turkey and China). The current CAS, ACM Mujahid Anwar Khan, had liked the idea of developing an FGFA alone, but he said that as long as the design is ITAR-free, they'll be happy to roll into a consortium. Basically, AZM is heading towards a consortium direction.

In other words, to save on time and cost, Pakistan is not going to manage the bulk of the design work or even much of the technology development. It'll help with production (by taking up a sizable % of the workshare, and ideally, contribute to the supply chain of all primary partners).

I wouldn't say it's a step backwards from the JF-17. Rather, it's a lateral step or continuation of what PAC is kind of doing already. If anything, if the PAF can access China's supply channel by manufacturing stabilizer, fuselage, etc, PAC will end up with a lot more work on its hands.

Basically, the PAF has to choose between:

1. Expediency, but probably no major workshare output (China)
2. Major workshare output, but a slow and higher-risk project (Turkey)

However, while China would say no to placing some of its military supply chain in Pakistan, it may entertain the idea for commercial aircraft. If, by choosing the FC-31, Pakistan can get a 100% price offset through commercial aircraft, helicopters, etc, then it could be a good choice.

Yes, it won't drive the developmental track directly, but if China agrees to $10 b in aviation purchases from Pakistan over 15-20 years, we can channel that offset into investment, encouraging the private sector, etc.

Those steps will help our economy, and we'll actually end up with companies that can drive valuable R&D.

@JamD @Syed1. @The Accountant @airomerix

personally I like the China route. There are too much risk involved in going with Turkey as we are witnessed in T129.

We have done these programs in past as well like JF17, agusta submarines, al-khalid tanks. However, all the manufacture remains limited to that specific military product only.

We need to understand that a military industry cannot run without a parallel commercial industry unless your product is mature and advance that you can sell to outside world (eg. super mushaq).

We need to link these projects with the organization manufacturing commercial products. It will not only make these products cheaper by sharing of overheads but technology from these military industry can be applied on commercial products making them more competitive.

For example, al khalid manufacturing could have been linked by setting up a public limited company manufacturing, trucks, buses, 4x4 vehicles and other vehicles. Initial cost to be bared by GoP which later on to be recovered by listing of shares in stock exchange.

The core benefit of such an approach will be that this public limited company will now have the responsibility to develop the next version of Al-Khalid and they can do so from profits of the commercial section.

 

[Deino]

Hi,

Welcome to the world of defense equipment---its manufacturing and its procurement---.

If you are here to seek the truth---you are in the wrong place---or you may have wrong understanding of the business---.

Did you really believe that if I knew, I would give out secure information about my country's mainstay program just to get some brownie point---.

So once again no contribution nor explanation - I never demanded any revelation of state-secrets - but again a post of in the meaning of "I know there men on Mars, You know nothing, I won't tell you and you are anyway a stupid foreigner!? I'm sure your typical fans will once again cheer how you bashed a stupid foreigner but that does not make any of your claims credible.

Let's wait ...

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Realistically though, i don't see Loyal wingmen being useful in our area of operations. ATM every development is for A2G with very limited payloads. Sure it could be evolved (i had discussed this in an article earlier. ill link that at the end since i go a little more in depth). The only time i see a loyal wingman being half useful for us would be one with some form of A2A capability which then begs the question, what missiles? If the US did decide to go for A2A drones, the Peregrine is a VERY good option, however, we do not have those options. I really don't see why a loyal wingman is more useful than something like a cruise missile or even defensive suites like MALD or whatever, yeah it may be a weird comparison but the whole point of Loyal wingmen is to mitigate risk in dangerous environments right? Why not instead of developing a new aircraft, use those funds to vastly improve the suite of munitions? Develop new cruise missiles with longer range (since this would literally pretty much take over Loyal Wingman's role atm), these would be more beneficial as they can be used across branches, use that money to further enhance the combat potence of our current platforms, new EW, decoys etc. I think money for a loyal wingman would be far better spent enhancing other parts of the PAF.

Yep. If anything, I'd say, making the biggest fish simple (FGFA/FC-31), we can allocate more risk to lower priority projects, such as UAVs, MALD-type systems, etc. However, and I want to stress this, I wouldn't deal with anyone unless we either get serious work share (i.e., supply to the other main partner) OR a huge offset package to boost our private sector.

 

[Scorpiooo]

It's important to remember that Pakistan's industrial/technology planning and military planning happens from the same palm. In other words, if for some reason urgency becomes a factor (i.e., a military issue), then it'll basically shape the development side.

The last CAS, ACM Sohail Aman, started with the goal of developing an FGFA alone, but he entertained the idea of collaboration and partnerships (with Turkey and China). The current CAS, ACM Mujahid Anwar Khan, had liked the idea of developing an FGFA alone, but he said that as long as the design is ITAR-free, they'll be happy to roll into a consortium. Basically, AZM is heading towards a consortium direction.

In other words, to save on time and cost, Pakistan is not going to manage the bulk of the design work or even much of the technology development. It'll help with production (by taking up a sizable % of the workshare, and ideally, contribute to the supply chain of all primary partners).

I wouldn't say it's a step backwards from the JF-17. Rather, it's a lateral step or continuation of what PAC is kind of doing already. If anything, if the PAF can access China's supply channel by manufacturing stabilizer, fuselage, etc, PAC will end up with a lot more work on its hands.

Basically, the PAF has to choose between:

1. Expediency, but probably no major workshare output (China)
2. Major workshare output, but a slow and higher-risk project (Turkey)

However, while China would say no to placing some of its military supply chain in Pakistan, it may entertain the idea for commercial aircraft. If, by choosing the FC-31, Pakistan can get a 100% price offset through commercial aircraft, helicopters, etc, then it could be a good choice.

Yes, it won't drive the developmental track directly, but if China agrees to $10 b in aviation purchases from Pakistan over 15-20 years, we can channel that offset into investment, encouraging the private sector, etc.

Those steps will help our economy, and we'll actually end up with companies that can drive valuable R&D.

@JamD @Syed1. @The Accountant @airomerix

Sir whats ur idea, where Pakistan will ho now for Azm toward china or turky?
Do you think project azm will limited to one jet program at all or can have more then one active program in it for manned based fighter aircraft

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Sir whats ur idea, where Pakistan will ho now for Azm toward china or turky?
Do you think project azm will limited to one jet program at all or can have more then one active program in it for manned based fighter aircraft

IMO (for now)... it's 1 manned fighter, and the PAF will probably work with China.

 

[Akh1112]

Yep. If anything, I'd say, making the biggest fish simple (FGFA/FC-31), we can allocate more risk to lower priority projects, such as UAVs, MALD-type systems, etc. However, and I want to stress this, I wouldn't deal with anyone unless we either get serious work share (i.e., supply to the other main partner) OR a huge offset package to boost our private sector.

Im on the same page. Heck, i REALLY wish Pakistan made it easier for private sector contractors to get a foot in the market. After all, competition sparks innovation. However we could end up w a HAL type scenario where they slap a price tag of $80m per Tejas. I guess both has risks and benefits.

IMO (for now)... it's 1 manned fighter, and the PAF will probably work with China.

I'm pretty much with you here, as much as id prefer this not to happen since id really rather Pakistan did not place all of its dependency on one supplier, its the most likely route, issue is however, how do we add value to the program lol. Our industry really doesn't bring much to the table at best we can only really do so little, airframe is a nope, perhaps we could offer structural parts or non mission critical parts like gear assembly or something. We really don't offer much, all PAC imo does is act as the middleman between the east and west, strapping western systems on eastern airframes lol

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Im on the same page. Heck, i REALLY wish Pakistan made it easier for private sector contractors to get a foot in the market. After all, competition sparks innovation. However we could end up w a HAL type scenario where they slap a price tag of $80m per Tejas. I guess both has risks and benefits.




I'm pretty much with you here, as much as id prefer this not to happen since id really rather Pakistan did not place all of its dependency on one supplier, its the most likely route, issue is however, how do we add value to the program lol. Our industry really doesn't bring much to the table at best we can only really do so little, airframe is a nope, perhaps we could offer structural parts or non mission critical parts like gear assembly or something. We really don't offer much, all PAC imo does is act as the middleman between the east and west, strapping western systems on eastern airframes lol

Like, if we give China the fighter, let's do helicopters with Turkey (ATAK-2 & 10-ton Transport Helicopter), frigates with the Turks (MILGEM-J/TF-2000), submarines with South Korea, large FACs with the Netherlands, armour with the Poles and Ukrainians, rifles with the Czechs, radars with Saab/Sweden, and pangay on our own

But in seriousness, we need to start channeling offsets to the private sector. I am confident that if we build investor confidence into raising capacity to support production, they could eventually branch into original R&D. PAC might be 'stuck' with testing, integration and assembly work, but we could have other companies doing other stuff. Some might even get their own IP for some key inputs, and allow us to add real value later on.

Right now, our defence procurement brings $0 in support to the private sector. If we can give them $1 b in work every year (which is doable for us), then I do think our investors and firms will rise to the occasion.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

It's been 3 years into the mission , projected 10 year cycle to make a new Fighter Jet
Pretty difficult to assess how far the Scientist are in their initial designs

I hope some news comes out by 5th year at least on proposed design or Prototype

 

[RadarGudumluMuhimmat]

Like, if we give China the fighter, let's do helicopters with Turkey (ATAK-2 & 10-ton Transport Helicopter), frigates with the Turks (MILGEM-J/TF-2000), submarines with South Korea, large FACs with the Netherlands, armour with the Poles and Ukrainians, rifles with the Czechs, radars with Saab/Sweden, and pangay on our own

But in seriousness, we need to start channeling offsets to the private sector. I am confident that if we build investor confidence into raising capacity to support production, they could eventually branch into original R&D. PAC might be 'stuck' with testing, integration and assembly work, but we could have other companies doing other stuff. Some might even get their own IP for some key inputs, and allow us to add real value later on.

Right now, our defence procurement brings $0 in support to the private sector. If we can give them $1 b in work every year (which is doable for us), then I do think our investors and firms will rise to the occasion.

Whatever Pac, Kamra or Avrid are. As you said, even if they cannot distribute high money to the private sector, can they not publish a large and small product range for SME level enterprises? So you can help reduce the dependency on a 2nd party country, so you are a country with a high population

You know, I don't know, Aselsan has a website for SMEs to supply products that it can produce for entrepreneurs but it is ridiculous for him to open a production line for it. There is an announcement area for sub units such as RF power amplifiers, capacitors, axial military standard fans etc. used in the own products. If you can produce these products in these components, it hires you as a supplier, so it prefers to don't buy it from China.


https://gucumuzbir.com/
https://gucumuzbir.com/millilestirme-calismalari/millilestirme-kapsamindaki-urunler

It also encourages those who want to start this business by sharing the HD quality of the products that are procured from its official Twitter account some time, by publishing it with the name of its supplier.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1267697225930588160

Even with just one site, you can get these things on your way