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

[M.AsfandYar]

Oh I agree 200%. Waiting anxiously with 100 others for some important fauji uncles to realize what you just said. I have heard some things here and there over the years but nothing that sounded like an actual thing, more like just one-off curiosities of individuals.

In an Q/A session earlier this year ACM(R) Sohail Aman was asked about this. He said that we had ventured here and failed. Now we are looking for help from others. He mentioned not being able to develop a seeker.

We'd eventually need to break the cocoon, we find ourselves in - if we actually want offensive capabilities. No one will give it to us on a platter, not even China. While yes, PL-15 is an option. We need a BVR weapon of our own that we can tinker with.

 

[JamD]

If Pakistan commits the same level of resources it commited for Sub-Sonic cruise missile project, We can see AWC doing wonders in terms of Smart PGM's and Long range AAM.

Isn't that the key?

Sometimes my realism might come off as unrealistic pessimism. I don't doubt the ability to develop any key technology given enough time and money. What I doubt is motivation/planning to do so, based off my limited (but sometimes intimate) interactions with colleagues.

 

[JamD]

In an Q/A session earlier this year ACM(R) Sohail Aman was asked about this. He said that we had ventured here failed and now are looking for help from others. He mentioned not being able to develop a seeker.

Is this documented somewhere? A link?

 

[M.AsfandYar]

Is this documented somewhere? A link?

No. We werent allowed to record. It was at IST.

 

[JamD]

No. We werent allowed to record. It was at IST.

Oh nice.

Well it's not that surprising that the seeker would be the problem. A seeker is a miniaturized and arguably more complicated radar. We have next to no experience developing custom radars so this would be expected.

Down the road the rocket motor would also be a bottleneck. Our solid rocket motor tech isn't exactly the most efficient in the world.

 

[kursed]

Oh I agree 200%. Waiting anxiously with 100 others for some important fauji uncles to realize what you just said. I have heard some things here and there over the years but nothing that sounded like an actual thing, more like just one-off curiosities of individuals.

PAF knows it for a fact that they need an in-house BVR option, I believe this realization has been reached. We did get that Chinese EO/IR weapons range for a reason.

 

[The Eagle]

PAF knows it for a fact that they need an in-house BVR option, I believe this realization has been reached. We did get that Chinese EO/IR weapons range for a reason.

All I can say that PL-15 is like publicly known long range missile expected in PAF but, I dream of our own solution (jointly worked) with a number and size that may fall between like i.e. (SD)10 and (PL)15. That motor to burn is like a love affair.

 

[Armchair]

There are many theories about Project Azm. Let me summarize them here:

Project Azm as J-31 / J-35 Version.
The major supporters of this theory are Bilal Khan of Quwa and Mastan Khan. The belief is that Pakistan will choose a variant of the Chinese 5th generation aircraft, the J-31 for its own Project Azm. The proponents note that Pakistan has severe resource and technical constraints to develop a truly indigenous development.
These proponents are unable to convincingly answer why PAF officials have defined project Azm as a first locally developed design. Their counter that PAF has asked for collaboration doesn't fully make sense - as there can be collaboration on subsystems, wihthout the project losing its characteristic as a clean sheet Pakistani design.

Project Azm as an Clean Sheet Pakistani Design
Myself and others have put forward the view that Project Azm is an indigenous design, noting that if Azm was a J-35 derivative, it would be a step back for Pakistan, and would directly contradict what PAF has said about the project. It would also not make sense to make primary investments, like Aviation city and the various research and development organizations, that just are not needed if Project Azm were a J-35 customized for PAF.

What will Project Azm Look Like?
Assuming Project Azm is a clean sheet design, there are various possibilities for the basic layout and capability level for Project Azm:
1. A J-20 type with twin WS-10 / WS-15 engines and a canard delta
2. A Single WS-10 / WS-15 engine with a delta canard layout
3. A Twin heavy WS-10 / 15 with a conventional layout
4. A single WS-10 / WS-15 engine with conventional layout
5. A twin WS-13 / RD-93 delta canard
6. A single WS-13 / RD-93 delta canard
7. A twin WS-13 / RD-93 conventional layout
8. A single WS-13/ RD-93 conventional layout
9. Something completely different, perhaps like a YF-23, similar to the art found on the PAF C-130 (a YF-23 with canards)

The twin heavy engines are not realistic, as PAF does not have a long range / heavy payload requirement. The single WS-13 / RD-93 are also not realistic, as they would not provide enough thrust for a 5th generation aircraft. This leaves either a single WS-10 / WS-15 engine, or a twin RD-93 / WS-13 engine option, realistically.

Another key problem is the development of an FCS. Some individuals, such as JamD, have suggested that Pakistan does not have the capability or wherewithal to develop an independent FCS. My point of view is that the PAF has the JF-17 FCS. Even if China developed it, the Chinese would not withhold this FCS. Pak would definitely be able to to outsource this FCS from China, giving them adequate compensation.

If Pakistan uses the FCS developed for the JF-17 Block 3, they are limited to a conventional layout option. Meaning, something like a JF-17 / F-16 / F-15. This would also be true if they utilize a Turkish FCS.

This brings our options down to (4) and (7) to most likely option for PAF. Meaning a conventional layout with either a twin RD-93 or a single WS-10 / WS-15.

Now finally, Chak Bamu, another poster on the internet, with a solid track record and some access to the Pakistani R&D community, says he "saw" the Azm. Obviously, there may not actually be a flying prototype right now, so he most likely saw a wind tunnel model. He was clearly able to say that it is in fact a clean sheet design, and not a derivative of the J-35.

Had it been a twin engine conventional layout with RD-93s, the design would have been close / similar to J-35 and would not have allowed Chak Bamu to clearly state that the design was a clean sheet design. The conclusion, therefore, is that the design is in fact, in all probability, a conventional layout with a single WS-10 / WS-15.

The benefit of this layout, if in fact my estimate is correct, is that the engine would be common to the J-10 and J-15s . Allowing Pakistan the capacity to easily simplify the WS-10 / WS-15 to its overall warfighting strategy, should they buy those aircraft.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

There are many theories about Project Azm. Let me summarize them here:

Project Azm as J-31 / J-35 Version.
The major supporters of this theory are Bilal Khan of Quwa and Mastan Khan. The belief is that Pakistan will choose a variant of the Chinese 5th generation aircraft, the J-31 for its own Project Azm. The proponents note that Pakistan has severe resource and technical constraints to develop a truly indigenous development.
These proponents are unable to convincingly answer why PAF officials have defined project Azm as a first locally developed design. Their counter that PAF has asked for collaboration doesn't fully make sense - as there can be collaboration on subsystems, wihthout the project losing its characteristic as a clean sheet Pakistani design.

Project Azm as an Clean Sheet Pakistani Design
Myself and others have put forward the view that Project Azm is an indigenous design, noting that if Azm was a J-35 derivative, it would be a step back for Pakistan, and would directly contradict what PAF has said about the project. It would also not make sense to make primary investments, like Aviation city and the various research and development organizations, that just are not needed if Project Azm were a J-35 customized for PAF.

What will Project Azm Look Like?
Assuming Project Azm is a clean sheet design, there are various possibilities for the basic layout and capability level for Project Azm:
1. A J-20 type with twin WS-10 / WS-15 engines and a canard delta
2. A Single WS-10 / WS-15 engine with a delta canard layout
3. A Twin heavy WS-10 / 15 with a conventional layout
4. A single WS-10 / WS-15 engine with conventional layout
5. A twin WS-13 / RD-93 delta canard
6. A single WS-13 / RD-93 delta canard
7. A twin WS-13 / RD-93 conventional layout
8. A single WS-13/ RD-93 conventional layout
9. Something completely different, perhaps like a YF-23, similar to the art found on the PAF C-130 (a YF-23 with canards)

The twin heavy engines are not realistic, as PAF does not have a long range / heavy payload requirement. The single WS-13 / RD-93 are also not realistic, as they would not provide enough thrust for a 5th generation aircraft. This leaves either a single WS-10 / WS-15 engine, or a twin RD-93 / WS-13 engine option, realistically.

Another key problem is the development of an FCS. Some individuals, such as JamD, have suggested that Pakistan does not have the capability or wherewithal to develop an independent FCS. My point of view is that the PAF has the JF-17 FCS. Even if China developed it, the Chinese would not withhold this FCS. Pak would definitely be able to to outsource this FCS from China, giving them adequate compensation.

If Pakistan uses the FCS developed for the JF-17 Block 3, they are limited to a conventional layout option. Meaning, something like a JF-17 / F-16 / F-15. This would also be true if they utilize a Turkish FCS.

This brings our options down to (4) and (7) to most likely option for PAF. Meaning a conventional layout with either a twin RD-93 or a single WS-10 / WS-15.

Now finally, Chak Bamu, another poster on the internet, with a solid track record and some access to the Pakistani R&D community, says he "saw" the Azm. Obviously, there may not actually be a flying prototype right now, so he most likely saw a wind tunnel model. He was clearly able to say that it is in fact a clean sheet design, and not a derivative of the J-35.

Had it been a twin engine conventional layout with RD-93s, the design would have been close / similar to J-35 and would not have allowed Chak Bamu to clearly state that the design was a clean sheet design. The conclusion, therefore, is that the design is in fact, in all probability, a conventional layout with a single WS-10 / WS-15.

The benefit of this layout, if in fact my estimate is correct, is that the engine would be common to the J-10 and J-15s . Allowing Pakistan the capacity to easily simplify the WS-10 / WS-15 to its overall warfighting strategy, should they buy those aircraft.

The CAS said the ASR is twin-engine, so if we're following what the PAF says, then we should cast aside theories about it being single engine. These are the words of the CAS, verbatim: “We hope it will be a twin-engine single-seater, boasting the likes of super cruise and laser weapons” (Jane's May 2019).

Second, in the same interview, the CAS said that the PAF will be open to a consortium or partnership. We can read into this in a million ways, but Occam's Razor (itself based on other publicly available info, e.g., the Turks inviting Pakistan to the TF-X, or AVIC offering the FC-31 for export customers) means the PAF is likely looking at joining another design/project. Interestingly, the two potential options (TF-X, FC-31) match the ASR.

Yes, we can say, "well they can also collaborate on subsystems, etc" or leverage overseas inputs. This is fair, but that route would not meet the PAF's aggressive timelines.

Third, the PAF's timeline -- i.e., induction starting from the 2030s -- precludes clean-sheet development from scratch. This is a rational assessment based on observing the facts -- it'd take a mature aerospace power 10-15 years to design, tech demo, prototype, and complete a serviceable, production-ready fighter. Pakistan isn't that, so it's not going to meet the CAS' expected timeframe, which rationally speaking, leaves us with FC-31 or TF-X.

However, of the FC-31 and TF-X, only one of them went through a successful demonstrator stage. It's FC-31. If the PAF wants to induct a FGFA by the 2030s, there's no other option.

Now, does this preclude a totally in-house fighter? Of course not. It simply means that the PAF will need to de-link its 2030s FGFA requirement from AZM. In turn, it can pursue AZM without pressing timelines or a fiscal crunch (as it can distribute funding across many more years). This would translate over into a 5+ or 6th-gen fighter program.

What's the evidence for de-linking AZM from the 2030 FGFA? Well, the previous CAS -- ACM Sohail Aman -- said that the PAF is thinking about "beyond 5th-gen." The current CAS also said (in 2018) that the PAF has a 'Vision 2047' -- and eliminating dependencies on overseas suppliers is a goal under that framework. So, we have 2 CAS' thinking very long-term, and a vision for turnkey independence exists. But we can't assume the PAF will make that leap in one go in an aggressive timeline.

 

[Armchair]

The CAS said the ASR is twin-engine, so if we're following what the PAF says, then we should cast aside theories about it being single engine. These are the words of the CAS, verbatim: “We hope it will be a twin-engine single-seater, boasting the likes of super cruise and laser weapons” (Jane's May 2019).

Second, in the same interview, the CAS said that the PAF will be open to a consortium or partnership. We can read into this in a million ways, but Occam's Razor (itself based on other publicly available info, e.g., the Turks inviting Pakistan to the TF-X, or AVIC offering the FC-31 for export customers) means the PAF is likely looking at joining another design/project. Interestingly, the two potential options (TF-X, FC-31) match the ASR.

Third, the PAF's timeline -- i.e., induction starting from the 2030s -- precludes clean-sheet development from scratch. This is a rational assessment based on observing the facts -- it'd take a mature aerospace power 10-15 years to design, tech demo, prototype, and complete a serviceable, production-ready fighter. Pakistan isn't that, so it's not going to meet the CAS' expected timeframe, which rationally speaking, leaves us with FC-31 or TF-X.

However, of the FC-31 and TF-X, only one of them went through a successful demonstrator stage. It's FC-31. If the PAF wants to induct a FGFA by the 2030s, there's no other option.

Now, does this preclude a totally in-house fighter? Of course not. It simply means that the PAF will need to de-link its 2030s FGFA requirement from AZM. In turn, it can pursue AZM without pressing timelines or a fiscal crunch (as it can distribute funding across many more years). This would translate over into a 5+ or 6th-gen fighter program.

The CAS mentioned twin engined, but I don't recall him specifying it as an ASR. I am thinking he was talking loosely. There are in fact two possibilities why it may not be two engines:
1. CAS was mentioning perhaps informally and stating it having in memory one of the contending models
2. That the ASR does not specify if it is twin engined or not, but initial solution was twin engined
3. That the initial ASR was for twin engine but later this was changed (see ACM Lateef interview about how he kept changing the requirements for the JF-17 endlessly until the Chinese were fedup with him)

 

[Armchair]

Third, the PAF's timeline -- i.e., induction starting from the 2030s -- precludes clean-sheet development from scratch. This is a rational assessment based on observing the facts -- it'd take a mature aerospace power 10-15 years to design, tech demo, prototype, and complete a serviceable, production-ready fighter. Pakistan isn't that, so it's not going to meet the CAS' expected timeframe, which rationally speaking, leaves us with FC-31 or TF-X.

Pakistan developed JF-17 in 2.75 years, so the man in charge says. Developing new technology does take a long time, but following other's technological leads is easier. Had Pak tried to develop DSI, turbofan engines, and AESA radars, it could take a long time, but Pak is essentially packaging already invented technology. This should not take so long.
Let's assume it takes twice the time JF-17 took - we still get 5.5 years.
That means, by 2022-2023, Pak will have a flying Azm NGF. By the time it is fine tuned and put in initial production to full production, perhaps 2026-2027. Meaning it meets the timeline of 2030 easily. Also, it coincies with closing down of JFT production.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

The CAS mentioned twin engined, but I don't recall him specifying it as an ASR. I am thinking he was talking loosely. There are in fact two possibilities why it may not be two engines:
1. CAS was mentioning perhaps informally and stating it having in memory one of the contending models
2. That the ASR does not specify if it is twin engined or not, but initial solution was twin engined
3. That the initial ASR was for twin engine but later this was changed (see ACM Lateef interview about how he kept changing the requirements for the JF-17 endlessly until the Chinese were fedup with him)

Well to say (3) -- i.e., "that the initial ASR was for twin-engine, but later this was changed..." needs an evidence, otherwise, it's just supposition based on your desired conclusion (not a conclusion based on proof).

It also wouldn't make sense for the CAS to specify fundamental design features (like twin-engine) unless that was part of the ASR. It literally makes no sense.

And to conclusively state (1) -- i.e., "CAS was mentioning perhaps informally and stating it in having in memory..." requires you to be able to read the CAS' mind. So, that's not a thing, hence why we go with the apparent info -- i.e: twin-engine is the requirement.

 

[Armchair]

Now, does this preclude a totally in-house fighter? Of course not. It simply means that the PAF will need to de-link its 2030s FGFA requirement from AZM. In turn, it can pursue AZM without pressing timelines or a fiscal crunch (as it can distribute funding across many more years). This would translate over into a 5+ or 6th-gen fighter program.

Thus, PAF would not need to delink and change plans. PAF will reach the planned development it set out to do. Sounds more plausible than PAF having to change plans because they misjudged developmental timelines and did a major amateur blunder...

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Pakistan developed JF-17 in 2.75 years, so the man in charge says. Developing new technology does take a long time, but following other's technological leads is easier. Had Pak tried to develop DSI, turbofan engines, and AESA radars, it could take a long time, but Pak is essentially packaging already invented technology. This should not take so long.
Let's assume it takes twice the time JF-17 took - we still get 5.5 years.
That means, by 2022-2023, Pak will have a flying Azm NGF. By the time it is fine tuned and put in initial production to full production, perhaps 2026-2027. Meaning it meets the timeline of 2030 easily. Also, it coincies with closing down of JFT production.

China developed the JF-17. China had conducted the original design work back in the early 1990s, and the PAF signed on in the mid-1990s, and finalized a workshare deal in 1999. So, the end-to-end design to prototype work of JF-17 actually took around 10-11 years, and to reach a IOC-equivalent status took another 5-6 years. And this was for a stable design with a hybrid FCS, so not even a fully digital FCS. That variant flew in 2017. So, to get to a JF-17 with a fully digital FBW system, it took around 27 years from when the PAF first saw the FC-1 design.

Thus, PAF would not need to delink and change plans. PAF will reach the planned development it set out to do. Sounds more plausible than PAF having to change plans because they misjudged developmental timelines and did a major amateur blunder...

The "misjudged developmental timelines..." bit is an assumption. Neither you and I have all the facts of what the PAF thought or planned when it thought of its next-gen fighter plans.

We are only changing our understanding of the situation because the facts are coming to us in waves.

However, it can easily be a situation where the PAF had thought of joining both a consortium and working on its own fighter (i.e., 2 next-gen platforms). The entire scope of the PAF's Aviation City vision stretches to 2047.

 

[Armchair]

China developed the JF-17. China had conducted the original design work back in the early 1990s, and the PAF signed on in the mid-1990s, and finalized a workshare deal in 1999. So, the end-to-end design to prototype work of JF-17 actually took around 10-11 years, and to reach a IOC-equivalent status took another 5-6 years. And this was for a stable design with a hybrid FCS, so not even a fully digital FCS. That variant flew in 2017. So, to get to a JF-17 with a fully digital FBW system, it took around 27 years from when the PAF first saw the FC-1 design.

The "misjudged developmental timelines..." bit is an assumption. Neither you and I have all the facts of what the PAF thought or planned when it thought of its next-gen fighter plans.

We are only changing our understanding of the situation because the facts are coming to us in waves.

However, it can easily be a situation where the PAF had thought of joining both a consortium and working on its own fighter (i.e., 2 next-gen platforms). The entire scope of the PAF's Aviation City vision stretches to 2047.

You've yourself noted PAF will miss its target of induction by 2030 by a decade. Which means either they are incompetent or the analysis is wrong.

The argument you are using can equally be used against your position - PAF has clearly stated it is an indigenous clean sheet design. If the adopt the J-31 - they are contradicting themselves, - far more than whether the clean sheet design should be single engined or twin engined.

So, one cannot complain about chopping down a branch while chopping down the tree trunk...