biggest bottle neck for Chinese fifth gen projects is higly efficient and high thrust engine
although Chinese are mass producing the previous gen engines(ws-10) it is yet to progress on new gen
engines
if AZM is truely an indigenous effort and clean sheet design then it wont be ready by 2035-40.. this means that PAF would need something in the interm..be it j31,j35 or j10c
IMO we won't 'learn' from any off-the-shelf program, even if we manufacture it in Pakistan.
For the PAF, the main issue here isn't so much the technology or indigenous development, but economics. We simply don't have enough hard/foreign-currency to bankroll a next-gen purchase, unless we're able to source it from home.
If we sign onto the J-35, we'll aim to balance the hard currency cost through investment, counter-trade, and local sourcing.
This could be a situation where AVIC opens shop in Pakistan to build and supply J-35s to the PAF and other export buyers (it may sub-contract to PAC and other Pakistani entities, but we don't own it).
Pakistan
can manufacture every bit of this fighter
if the plants are owned by AVIC (i.e., the Chinese retain ownership of the IP).
This is basically CPEC, but in our defence industry.
It's a stretch of a theory, but this New York Times article actually laid it out.
According to the undisclosed proposal drawn up by the Pakistani Air Force and Chinese officials at the start of the year, a special economic zone under CPEC would be created in Pakistan to produce a new generation of fighter jets. For the first time, navigation systems, radar systems and onboard weapons would be built jointly by the countries at factories in Pakistan.
Under a program China insisted was peaceful, Pakistan is cooperating on distinctly defense-related projects, including a secret plan to build new fighter jets.
www.nytimes.com
I think the above could happen if we opt for the J-35. In this case, I really don't think we'd even customize the J-35 (besides some essential stuff like Ra'ad and H2/H4-integration), just buy it as-is.
The key is what we do in parallel, and that would be Project AZM. If we want to learn fighter development, we're going to need to drive this program on our own. There's no other way. Even if we want to reach Saab's level (which is mostly engineering and integration work, not a lot of Swedish industrial inputs), we're going to need to do it alone.
To me, I see two routes: expediency (express route) and capacity-building (long-route). Instead of trying to merge the two routes (which is what we've been trying and failing at), we should keep them separate.
