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

[The Eagle]

@Indos @RadarGudumluMuhimmat brothers! can we keep it to Azm discussion only? Plese.

 

[RadarGudumluMuhimmat]

Well there is nothing wrong using proven design like C 212 as a base, but it doesnt mean we copy C 212 design, we just try to make it even a better design. It is wrong to say N 219 is a ready made aircraft though.

Just look on KFX/IFX, it also has relatively similar design like F 22 Raptor, but why it needs about 9 years to finalize KFX/IFX design ?


Here is C 212-400 designed by CASA.

N 219

Cessna Skycourier developed by Textron USA also looks relatively similar

Just made first flight this year

Cessna Skycourier

N 219 during wind tunnel testing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C 212-400

Specifications (Series 400)

Data from Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1989–90[51][52]

General characteristics

• Crew: 2
• Capacity: 26 passengers / 25 paratroops / 2,820 kg (6,217 lb) military payload / 2,700 kg (5,952 lb) cargo payload
• Length: 16.15 m (53 ft 0 in)
• Wingspan: 20.28 m (66 ft 6 in)
• Height: 6.6 m (21 ft 8 in)
• Wing area: 41 m2 (440 sq ft)
• Aspect ratio: 10
• Airfoil: NACA 653-218[53]
• Empty weight: 3,780 kg (8,333 lb)
• Max takeoff weight: 8,000 kg (17,637 lb) military

7,700 kg (16,976 lb) standard

• Max Landing weight: 7,450 kg (16,424 lb)

Performance

• Maximum speed: 370 km/h (230 mph, 200 kn) VMO (maximum operating speed) at MTOW
• Cruise speed: 354 km/h (220 mph, 191 kn) (max cruise) at 3,050 m (10,007 ft)
• Economical cruise speed: 300 km/h (190 mph; 160 kn) at 3,050 m (10,007 ft)
• Stall speed: 145 km/h (90 mph, 78 kn) in take-off configuration
• Range: 835 km (519 mi, 451 nmi) with full military payload
• Ferry range: 2,680 km (1,670 mi, 1,450 nmi) with maximum fuel and 1,192 kg (2,628 lb) payload
• Service ceiling: 7,925 m (26,001 ft)

3,380 m (11,089 ft) on one engine

• Rate of climb: 8.283 m/s (1,630.5 ft/min)
  
• Take-off distance to 15 m (49 ft): 610 m (2,001 ft) (MIL-7700C)
• Landing distance from 15 m (49 ft): 462 m (1,516 ft) (MIL-7700C)
• Landing run: 285 m (935 ft) (MIL-7700C)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N 219

Specifications
Data from Manufacturer[24]

General characteristics

• Crew: 2
• Capacity: 19 passengers
• Length: 16.49 m (54 ft 1 in)
• Wingspan: 19.5 m (64 ft 0 in)
• Height: 6.18 m (20 ft 3 in)
• Empty weight: 4,309 kg (9,500 lb)
• Max takeoff weight: 7,030 kg (15,498 lb)
• Fuel capacity: 1,600 kg
• Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-42 turboprop engines, 630 kW (850 shp) each
• Propellers: 4-bladed Hartzell Propeller

Performance

• Maximum speed: 390 km/h (240 mph, 210 kn)
• Cruise speed: 310 km/h (200 mph, 170 kn) Economical
• Stall speed: 109 km/h (68 mph, 59 kn)
• Range: 890 km (550 mi, 480 nmi) with 19 pax
• Ferry range: 1,533 km (953 mi, 828 nmi)
• Service ceiling: 3,000 m (10,000 ft) operating altitude, max altitude 24,000 feet (7,315 m)
• Rate of climb: 9.85 m/s (1,938 ft/min)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cessna Skycourier

Specifications
Data from Cessna[12]

General characteristics

• Capacity: 19 passengers/5,000 lb (2,268 kg) payload (commuter) or 3×LD3s/6,000 lb (2,722 kg) payload (cargo)
• Length: 54 ft 10 in (16.71 m)
• Wingspan: 72 ft 0 in (21.95 m)
• Height: 19 ft 9 in (6.02 m)
• Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-65SC turboprop, 1,100 hp (820 kW) each
• Propellers: 4-bladed McCauley

Performance

• Cruise speed: 230 mph (370 km/h, 200 kn) maximum
• Range: 460 mi (740 km, 400 nmi) Cargo Range (with 5,000 lb payload)
• Ferry range: 1,000 mi (1,700 km, 900 nmi)
• Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,600 m)
• Takeoff Distance : 3,300 ft (1,006 m)

Dude planes do not consist of body design and changes, nobody questions your fluid dynamics knowledge, of course, you can design, you can move the fins, you can extend the flaps, but you will use ready-made body. The T129 also has not similarity with the A129 helicopter in parts that are neither electronic, aerodynamic or critical, but were not developed from scratch as a result. $ 100 million is a very high sum to develop a twin turboproped plane of this size with support from another aircraft.

While the subject is for Project Azm, let's not comment any more off topic. But in this forum you need special topics for these planes.

 

[The Raven]

PAF leadership in the past has mentioned "stealthy version of JF17" during its participation in different airshows.

so the harping is not without merit.
generally PAF seems to run away from twin engine fighter like a plague
so they might change mind from ywtwin in to single and back to twin.

Yes, it is true, there have been references to a "stealthy" JF-17, but that was before project Azm was announced, and in that regards, it has been clear from the outset that it will be a twin engine design. In any case, there's only so far the JF-17 design can be taken in terms of airframe, and to push the JF-17 to become a true fifth gen platform would mean so much redesign work, that it would effectively be no different to a clean sheet design. And for that, a twin engine design would be far more capable and flexible in terms of capability.

 

[Indos]

@Indos @RadarGudumluMuhimmat brothers! can we keep it to Azm discussion only? Plese.

OK brother, I just respond a comment.

 

[Chak Bamu]

I agree. Moreover, we literally just had the CAS himself say the ASR is for a twin-engine jet, and that we are open to working in a consortium. He wouldn't bring up the consortium point if it wasn't on the table.

In fact, even if we had the engineering expertise and technology base (which we don't, but let's assume we do) the tighter timelines (induction in the 2030s) would still force us to work in a consortium. Why? We lack fiscal resources and will need partners to carry out key development work in parallel to us to cut timelines and control cost.

But we lack all of the critical inputs. So, in all likelihood, we're going to pull on existing inputs, and with that in mind, the PAF will likely just join a working project instead of try piecing inputs together on its own.

If it wants to recreate the wheel, then it should learn how to make it on its own (which is why I, @JamD etc support the idea of a parallel NGFA project to develop critical tech without pressing deadlines).

Be it China or Turkey, we're probably going to roll into a consortium.

But if & when the design comes to fruition, it will kick serious ***. And precisely it is the nature of the design that makes me skeptical of it being manageable. There is one advanced feature, not found in any currently flying 5th Gen, that makes me pessimistic of it being possibly handled by Pakistan's own technical resources.

Aside from the above post, I am sure the design would be widely known in the next few months (I came across it, didn't I?) and we can discuss it to death. Naysayers and skeptics can hold their peace until then.

 

[Arsalan]

But if & when the design comes to fruition, it will kick serious ***. And precisely it is the nature of the design that makes me skeptical of it being manageable. There is one advanced feature, not found in any currently flying 5th Gen, that makes me pessimistic of it being possibly handled by Pakistan's own technical resources.

Aside from the above post, I am sure the design would be widely known in the next few months (I came across it, didn't I?) and we can discuss it to death. Naysayers and skeptics can hold their peace until then.

And what would that be?

 

[Chak Bamu]

And what would that be?

No Comments. I'll immediately point it out when the pics start trickling in.

 

[Enigma SIG]

Yes, it is true, there have been references to a "stealthy" JF-17, but that was before project Azm was announced, and in that regards, it has been clear from the outset that it will be a twin engine design. In any case, there's only so far the JF-17 design can be taken in terms of airframe, and to push the JF-17 to become a true fifth gen platform would mean so much redesign work, that it would effectively be no different to a clean sheet design. And for that, a twin engine design would be far more capable and flexible in terms of capability.

OT but the JF-17 could be redesigned, Super Hornet for comparison. You could rename it to JF-17/F, a larger aircraft that allows to fix the shortcomings of the earlier design. It could take design cues from Project AZM as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet

The Super Hornet carries 33% more internal fuel, increasing mission range by 41% and endurance by 50% over the "Legacy" Hornet.
The fuselage was stretched by 34 in (86 cm) to make room for fuel and future avionics upgrades and increased the wing area by 25%
The General Electric F414 engine, developed from the Hornet's F404, has 35% additional thrust over most of the aircraft's flight envelope
Other differences include intake ramps for the engines and two extra wing hard points for payload (for a total of 11), retaining previous hardpoints on the bottom centerline, wingtips, and two conformal fuselage positions.[62] Among the most significant aerodynamic changes are the enlarged leading edge extensions (LEX) which provide improved vortex lifting characteristics in high angle of attack maneuvers, and reduce the static stability margin to enhance pitching characteristics. This results in pitch rates in excess of 40 degrees per second, and high resistance to departure from controlled flight.

 

[Riz]

No Comments. I'll immediately point it out when the pics start trickling in.

No vertical stabilizers like one painted picture on the tale of C-130??

 

[Chak Bamu]

No vertical stabilizers like one painted picture on the tale of C-130??

Not familiar with that. However, do not expect a response even if you show it to me.

This is my last post on the subject until something concrete comes up by someone else in the coming months.

 

[Akh1112]

@JamD the parts that are missing like FCS can be borrowed or taken from other parties (China / Turkey, most likely China). Remember, the F-117 had FCS that was borrowed from the F-16 program, and they slapped the same FCS on all three axis, creating the "wobbling goblin".

What our brother saw was very possibly a wind tunnel model, as he chanced upon it. This means that the design stage is complete. Since he could clearly identify it as a cleansheet design, it definitely isn't the J-31 or a similar layout - meaning not a twin engined conventional design. Either a conventional design with a single engine, or a twin engined delta canard.

Since Pak doesn't have the FCS for a delta canard, it therefore is most likely a single engined conventional design. Or so I would deduce.

Just thinking aloud, please don't release your attack dogs.

Once again, your deduction is against ACM's specifications for the aircraft...

Why is this so hard to understand

 

[JamD]

According to you why is so expensive to build STEALTH fighter ? Even KFX/IFX who is not fully STEALTH need 10 billion USD. I dont know where the money actually being spent since the design will be done with their own engineers (KAI+PTDI+ADD) and testing facility have already been there. Most money IMO is spent on building 6 prototypes, flying test, and there are some avionics development cost like AESA radar and others but most subsystems will be imported like engine.

For comparison, Indonesia aerospace (PTDI) only need less than 100 million dollar to develop N 219.

The unsatisfying answer is it depends - on several things:
1. Who is developing it? USA, China, Russia, India, Indonesia, Pakistan? This affects cost of labour/expertise, culture, redtape, tech level, infrastructure.
2. What's the timeline: in general longer running programs cost more
3. A lot of the tech needs to be converted from demonstrator level to practical system level. This takes time and money, and often causes delays and cost overruns.
4. Mission requirements: Is it an aircraft expected to do 10 missions well (f35) or just a few (f22). Cramming too much stuff into one aircraft gets really expensive and complicated.

This is just off the top of my head. The reality is probably even more complex.

 

[RadarGudumluMuhimmat]

I am sorry that I can only give examples from my own country on these issues, sometimes I would like to visit these topics and get more information about Azm, but I think Pac will not allocate the necessary budget for these planes as long as China presents new planes to Pakistan. TFX, which has been progressing loose due to the F35 project, started to accelerate at once after things started to get worse with USA. This will include the new engineering building, which will soon include TAI / BAE Systems engineers working for TFX, Pakistan needs a devotion like Thunder, but it's funny to think China will be so generous for TOT on a 5th generation aircraft.

You can understand the seriousness of Pac from the public part of the project. The conceptual design of Azm must be officially announced at least within 1 - 1 and a half years. You cannot finish a project of this size in the form of SURPRISE.

 

[JamD]

@JamD the parts that are missing like FCS can be borrowed or taken from other parties (China / Turkey, most likely China). Remember, the F-117 had FCS that was borrowed from the F-16 program, and they slapped the same FCS on all three axis, creating the "wobbling goblin".

What our brother saw was very possibly a wind tunnel model, as he chanced upon it. This means that the design stage is complete. Since he could clearly identify it as a cleansheet design, it definitely isn't the J-31 or a similar layout - meaning not a twin engined conventional design. Either a conventional design with a single engine, or a twin engined delta canard.

Since Pak doesn't have the FCS for a delta canard, it therefore is most likely a single engined conventional design. Or so I would deduce.

Just thinking aloud, please don't release your attack dogs.

I own no hounds, I am a humble student.

That F-16 F-117 analogy falls apart when you consider the fact that the US is the world leader in aerospace while Pakistan has never developed an FCS.

Secondly, like I said, designs are super EASY to do. I can make several, that will probably be very good. Windtunnel models just means they are trying to make a mathematical model of the flight dynamics. Nothing more, nothing less. For all we know there might be 30 different models to be tested. An aircraft is more than just it's flight model (especially an advanced 4+ or 5th gen aircraft).

Finally, I happen to have some first-hand (or second-hand at worst) knowledge about the state of some aspects of Project Azm. Let me just say that we are struggling and realizing that we may have bit off more than we can chew when we said "we'll develop an FGFA on our own." There are mountain size holes in our technical capability that our planners seem to have overlooked. Maybe I'll detail the stories many years later when it won't affect anything.

@JamD just provided the pics and u just provided the script for some ill informed attention seeking teenager to bust out a YouTube video...with excessive use of words like "دوستوں".

I was literally afraid of this as I wrote that post. That is why I added the disclaimer at the end lol.

Bonus Chooran: You can sell the two types of "stealthy" aircraft being refueled as Azm prototypes themselves. In reality I just made some nice looking jahazes in an hour to be refueled for the pictures lol.

I am not trying to show off. I am trying to show how easy it is to make designs that look good and impressive. It doesn't mean I have Lockheed Martin in my bedroom lol.

 

[Cookie Monster]

I was literally afraid of this as I wrote that post. That is why I added the disclaimer at the end lol.

Bonus Chooran: You can sell the two types of "stealthy" aircraft being refueled as Azm prototypes themselves. In reality I just made some nice looking jahazes in an hour to be refueled for the pictures lol.
View attachment 655858
I am not trying to show off. I am trying to show how easy it is to make designs that look good and impressive. It doesn't mean I have Lockheed Martin in my bedroom lol.

There's no shortage of jahazes sir...Lahore ja ke dekhiye...bohat jahaz nazar aaein ge