SAC - FC-31 Grey Falcon Stealth aircraft for PAF : Updates & Debate

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

If the AZM is aiming for a J-20/Su-57/F-22 weight class, then it will be the WS-15. If it is aiming for a medium weight class like the FC-31, then the WS-19 will do. I'm sure either engine could be upscaled or downscaled in thrust if the AZM wants something in the middle to an extent.

If the PAF is aiming for a single fighter fleet, then AZM could end up being in-between the FC-31 and J-20. So, an approximate MTOW of 29,000 kg to 32,000 kg. It might be a situation of trying to pull more range, so having more space for internal fuel. But at the same time, they'll want to control operating costs. I think WS-19 would be a good fit.

 

[GreyHat]

If the PAF is aiming for a single fighter fleet, then AZM could end up being in-between the FC-31 and J-20. So, an approximate MTOW of 29,000 kg to 32,000 kg. It might be a situation of trying to pull more range, so having more space for internal fuel. But at the same time, they'll want to control operating costs. I think WS-19 would be a good fit.

I don't think it is plausible that PAF can afford a Single fleet Fighter Jet. Sure the cost and logistics can be reduced a lot more, & As you mentioned, China could catch up in Engine manufacturing & AESA department until the time Project Azm could be in final shape. But is it really viable to restrict the fleet so much that benefits of fighter jets that might be easier to get (TFx , FC-31) should not attained keeping in mind that they can/will have better performance in some department which AZM Does not Excel in?

 

[Yasser76]

Actually this is not true. The Chinese are best in high thrust turbofans and the weakest in low thrust turbofans due to a lack of investment in the area. That is why they still rely on Motor Sich for the AL-222 for the L-15 trainer aircraft. The main issue historically with the Chinese gas turbine industry is the manufacturing quality of the single crystal superalloy and P/M disks. But ever since 2017, they are able to produce superalloy with a 90% yield rate (the best indicator of material quality), which is pretty comparable to Western engine makers. That is why the J-20, J-10C, and all major aircrafts of the PLAAF has switched to Chinese engines now. Regarding the lifespan issue, the WS-10 was reported to have a 1500 hour service life with 300 hours "regular maintenance" back in 2014, which was the original design specs. I have no doubt the latest WS-10s have exceeded this but they still have considerably lower lifespans than the F110GE-132 or F119, which is something that can only be solved by the next generation of engines.

The Chinese have two engine programs directed to this. The WS-15 is expected to be incorporated into the J-20 between 2021 and 2023 while the WS-19 will take a little longer, although progress is very fast. Both are T/W > 10 engines.

WS-15 : 180 kN engine (analogous to the F119 or F135) ---> J-20, H-20, future single engine fighter
WS-19 : 110 kN engine (analogous to a heavily uprated EJ200) ---> J-35, FC-31, AZM

Indeed you are correct in terms of low thrust. With regards to WS-15 and WS-19, even if ready I imagine PAF will want to see this being flown in real conditions by Chinese for a few years before we adopt it.

 

[Yasser76]

The PAF also said it wants super-cruising with AZM/FGFA, so, unless it's somehow got-in on the F414/EJ200/M88, it's probably looking at the WS-19/WS-15.

But if AVIC makes it easy for our private industry to buy these engines, our companies could start designing their own equipment. So, for example, access to a 10 kN Chinese engine can help some Pakistani companies develop a loyal wingman UAV. The key is cutting the red-tape and simplifying collaboration between Chinese and Pakistani companies.

Indeed, even out going Chinese Ambassador said only issue in our relationship with them is getting more Pakistanis in Pak Gov who understand how Chinese companies work. It is shocking that after all these years of collaboration we still need to progress on such a basic front

 

[araz]

Well I would argue that the PAF did indeed anticipate this. US is just realising it also needs affordable and effective platforms in numbers. Whilst the rest of the world was focusing on twin engine heavy fighters or super expensive stealth, essentially just Sweden and Pakistan went down a route of cheap and lightweight fighters Something that had gone out of fashion since the F-5/MIG-21

We know have a fighter that whilst not as capable as say a SU-30 or Rafale, gives us much of the capability for much much lower cost. USAF now find themselves in a situation where they have to upgrade more F-16s and F-15s and even order new F-15s. This is simply due to not having numbers and going for very high end.

Likewise with AZM, it seems that this is just not one project but several using elements of the same tech.

Thank you for an interesting perspective on the prevailing situation from both yourself and @Bilal Khan (Quwa). What I:wanted to point out is the possibility that US may indeed return to ordering more F35s as production ramps up and per unit cost goes down. It seems they do not have a replacement for the mighty F15 given its utility. To some extent neither F16s nor F35s/22s can replace this for obvious reasons. One wonders whether there maybe a hybrid solution ala the silent eagle on the 22s but obviously it would compromize its utility to some extent.
From PAF's perspective we need cheap affordable platforms in numbers that are/easy tocmaintain and manufacture and where technology could be updated as it becomes available.
A

 

[Yasser76]

Thank you for an interesting perspective on the prevailing situation from both yourself and @Bilal Khan (Quwa). What I:wanted to point out is the possibility that US may indeed return to ordering more F35s as production ramps up and per unit cost goes down. It seems they do not have a replacement for the mighty F15 given its utility. To some extent neither F16s nor F35s/22s can replace this for obvious reasons. One wonders whether there maybe a hybrid solution ala the silent eagle on the 22s but obviously it would compromize its utility to some extent.
From PAF's perspective we need cheap affordable platforms in numbers that are/easy tocmaintain and manufacture and where technology could be updated as it becomes available.
A

Many thanks for your words. Well we certainly live in interesting times. Historically PAF always had a large number of "low end" complemented by a small number of "high end"

in the 50s/60s this was Sabre/F-104 Starfighter, in the 70s this was basically F-6/Mirage combo and in the 80s/90s this was basically F-7-Mirage/F-16A and now basically JF-17/ F-16 MLU/C/D (F-7 now pretty much relegated to second line duties).

Question is does PAF continue this strategy of low end and high end? Thank goodness we are not taking an IAF approach of basically having 7 overlapping types all capable of doing the same job!

If we go high end and low end again what does that look like? in 10 years even Block 52 F-16 will be considered "low end".. So do we have a "low end" force of JF-17 Block III/F-16 C/Ds and a high end of AZM?

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

We need a similar program and encourage private sector to design. ...

Private sector can design but can it deliver? Look at the failed project like the LCA Flying Rickshaw for an example.

Do we know the reasons why FC-31 has still not been inducted by a single air force?

@MastanKhan says it's because the US won't allow it.

 

[LKJ86]

Do we know the reasons why FC-31 has still not been inducted by a single air force?

@MastanKhan says it's because the US won't allow it.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I don't think it is plausible that PAF can afford a Single fleet Fighter Jet. Sure the cost and logistics can be reduced a lot more, & As you mentioned, China could catch up in Engine manufacturing & AESA department until the time Project Azm could be in final shape. But is it really viable to restrict the fleet so much that benefits of fighter jets that might be easier to get (TFx , FC-31) should not attained keeping in mind that they can/will have better performance in some department which AZM Does not Excel in?

I think it depends.

Today, the hi/lo mix makes sense for the PAF because we operate lightweight and medium-weight frames. In addition, our access to medium-weight frames is generally restricted due to cost or other issues. And we are able to make a lightweight airframe at home with China's help.

However, with AZM (or even FC-31) we would get our biggest airframe to-date. The range, payload and on-board electronics/capability restrictions are gone. So, does 'lightweight' or 'medium-weight' even matter if the PAF continually has a fighter that can do everything it needs it to do?

The only reason we'd maintain multiple fighter types is (1) to fulfil niche roles and (2) the cost of twin-engine jets is too high for sustaining a single fighter fleet.

I don't know how much of a factor cost will be since we will have to evaluate the fighter on a cost-per-flight-hour basis. China's economies-of-scale could make the WS-19 a generally affordable system, for example.

Now if we're talking about (2) -- e.g., a dedicated stealth strike fighter or light-bomber -- then that's probably a different story.

 

[Yasser76]

I think it depends.

Today, the hi/lo mix makes sense for the PAF because we operate lightweight and medium-weight frames. In addition, our access to medium-weight frames is generally restricted due to cost or other issues. And we are able to make a lightweight airframe at home with China's help.

However, with AZM (or even FC-31) we would get our biggest airframe to-date. The range, payload and on-board electronics/capability restrictions are gone. So, does 'lightweight' or 'medium-weight' even matter if the PAF continually has a fighter that can do everything it needs it to do?

The only reason we'd maintain multiple fighter types is (1) to fulfil niche roles and (2) the cost of twin-engine jets is too high for sustaining a single fighter fleet.

I don't know how much of a factor cost will be since we will have to evaluate the fighter on a cost-per-flight-hour basis. China's economies-of-scale could make the WS-19 a generally affordable system, for example.

Now if we're talking about (2) -- e.g., a dedicated stealth strike fighter or light-bomber -- then that's probably a different story.

Also need to throw into the mix that we can never again allow us to be held hostage to one country. China has and I suspect always will be, Pakistan's strongest ally but no one can predict the future 20 years from now. A totally all Chinese fleet does provide some element (albeit very small) of risk. I am sure in the early 80s when new F-16s were being delivered we did not imagine 10 years later in 1991 a total arms embargo by US.

I think mix of JF-17 Block III where PAF can still fully support itself independently and a AZM with great Chinese input maybe the future. Unsure where (if anywhere) European/Turkish suppliers fit in. I really doubt PAF (for many reasons) will want to cut off all technical/training ties with the West

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Also need to throw into the mix that we can never again allow us to be held hostage to one country. China has and I suspect always will be, Pakistan's strongest ally but no one can predict the future 20 years from now. A totally all Chinese fleet does provide some element (albeit very small) of risk. I am sure in the early 80s when new F-16s were being delivered we did not imagine 10 years later in 1991 a total arms embargo by US.

I think mix of JF-17 Block III where PAF can still fully support itself independently and a AZM with great Chinese input maybe the future. Unsure where (if anywhere) European/Turkish suppliers fit in. I really doubt PAF (for many reasons) will want to cut off all technical/training ties with the West

Turkey's got a gas turbine program. I'd put some money on the Turkish turbofan if it means we co-own the IP of the final product. It may or may not succeed in the end, but what's the harm in hedging?

 

[Syed1.]

Correct me if I'm mistaken but wouldn't engine selection be driven by size, weight of the aircraft as well as design cruise altitude range and loiter/combat radius. This would mean that you don't buy an engine and build a jet around it, rather you want close collaboration with the engine manufacturer and engine selection starts from the conceptual design phase.

From the discussion here it seems we are waiting for the Chinese to build a competent engine for THEIR needs and we just buy it and make it work for our FGFA.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Correct me if I'm mistaken but wouldn't engine selection be driven by size, weight of the aircraft as well as design cruise altitude range and loiter/combat radius. This would mean that you don't buy an engine and build a jet around it, rather you want close collaboration with the engine manufacturer and engine selection starts from the conceptual design phase.

From the discussion here it seems we are waiting for the Chinese to build a competent engine for THEIR needs and we just buy it and make it work for our FGFA.

It depends.

The starting point is the PAF setting its general requirements. I think this part was complete with the "first conceptual design phase" of the project. The PAF wants a twin-engine jet with super-cruising capability. We can assume the PAF is also looking for enough capacity for delivering SOWs.

So AvRID should have an idea of what kind of engine it wants.

It will now look at the market to see what's available.

IIRC the safer route is to select and engine and then design the fighter around it. The PAF is indeed waiting for a Chinese (or some ITAR-free engine available to it, the only non-Chinese route is Turkey tbh).

Yes, the engine would be developed for someone else's needs, but they're functionally the same across the board that it's not an issue as long as the ASR is met.

I do think we should hedge with the Turks, especially if they're open to two engine programs (i.e., the 130 kN for their TF-X and a 90+ kN for their LIFT Hurjet -- we can fund the latter engine).

 

[RadarGudumluMuhimmat]

It depends.

The starting point is the PAF setting its general requirements. I think this part was complete with the "first conceptual design phase" of the project. The PAF wants a twin-engine jet with super-cruising capability. We can assume the PAF is also looking for enough capacity for delivering SOWs.

So AvRID should have an idea of what kind of engine it wants.

It will now look at the market to see what's available.

IIRC the safer route is to select and engine and then design the fighter around it. The PAF is indeed waiting for a Chinese (or some ITAR-free engine available to it, the only non-Chinese route is Turkey tbh).

Yes, the engine would be developed for someone else's needs, but they're functionally the same across the board that it's not an issue as long as the ASR is met.

I do think we should hedge with the Turks, especially if they're open to two engine programs (i.e., the 130 kN for their TF-X and a 90+ kN for their LIFT Hurjet -- we can fund the latter engine).

I heard that Rolls Royce and Kale Pratt Whitney - TEI cooperation (Trmotor) continues, but this is for TFX. In such an economic environment, TAI -TEI can't dreams develop new engine for Hurjet. Even Hürjet itself covers the development costs from TAI's own budget. Working with Rolls Royce in India as far as I know, they play a little too lobbying for Pakistan. I think Pac's strategy will be to complete the project with minimal input like JF17 and then replace them with their native counterparts. This includes the engine. As your Chinese friend said, prototype or phase 1 (whatever you say) stage will use WS series engines.

 

[Deino]

Private sector can design but can it deliver? Look at the failed project like the LCA Flying Rickshaw for an example.

Do we know the reasons why FC-31 has still not been inducted by a single air force?

@MastanKhan says it's because the US won't allow it.

And you believe him?

Why on earth should the USA have even the slightest saying in if or if not to export the FC-31?