What's new

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

Additionally, imagine this: PAF, as you suggest, goes for J-31 and starts inducting them around 2025-2030. Then, using the same twin engines, develops an aircraft near identical to the J-31, a decade and half later... That would not make sense at all.
 
.
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.
Yes the analysis can be wrong, that's what it is, an inference based on the available info. But by that reasoning, I can't preclude the possibility that the PAF never intended to get its own homegrown fighter by the 2030s. Rather, it had been open to adopting an off-the-shelf design in the interim from the start -- neither of us know for sure, but a possibility like that would preclude incompetence.
The argument you are using can equally be used against your position - PAF has clearly stated it is a 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.
Yes, there can be a clean-sheet design, fair, but how do we know that the goal is to materialize that design by 2030? The PAF said it wants an FGFA by around 2030, be it in-house or a consortium/partnership (since both ACM Aman and ACM Mujahid raised the the latter as a possibility).

But we know (through engineers with experience working on Pakistani defence projects) that an in-house project won't come to fruition that soon, which leaves us with an off-the-shelf/consortium option.

And BTW, I noticed you think the PAF is buying J-10s or J-15s off-the-shelf, if you believe in that, then you have to accept the off-the-shelf FGFA possibility too. It's ultimately the same issue, i.e., slotting in an off-the-shelf purchase of some kind (be it a total purchase OR consortium) in the interim until AZM materializes.
Additionally, imagine this: PAF, as you suggest, goes for J-31 and starts inducting them around 2025-2030. Then, using the same twin engines, develops an aircraft near identical to the J-31, a decade and half later... That would not make sense at all.
If the J-31E can meet the twin-engine need, it can change the ASR for AZM. Or, it could stick with the twin-engine, in-house design. It might be redundant from a general capability standpoint, but the in-house fighter would involve actual Pakistani technologies, which is the real gain. Heck, the manned fighter at that point may not even the main outcome, those Pakistani technologies could flow into UAV/UCAVs, for example, or some other program.

BTW ... the inclusion of J-31 could strengthen your analysis of AZM ultimately being a single-engine jet. Which is my original point, that the near-term FGFA requirement is for a twin-engine jet (which leaves the FC-31 as the most realistic option), while in the background, AZM can be a single-engine design that comes much later on.
 
Last edited:
.
If the J-31E can meet the twin-engine need, it can change the ASR for AZM. Or, it could stick with the twin-engine, in-house design. It might be redundant from a general capability standpoint, but the in-house fighter would involve actual Pakistani technologies, which is the real gain. Heck, the manned fighter at that point may not even the main outcome, those Pakistani technologies could flow into UAV/UCAVs, for example, or some other program.

BTW ... the inclusion of J-31E could strengthen your analysis of AZM ultimately being a single-engine jet. Which is my original point, that the near-term FGFA requirement is for a twin-engine jet, while in the background, AZM can be a single-engine design that comes much later on.
Why do you guys abandon CAC?:p:
 
. .
In case anyone's interested, here's what ACM Sohail Aman said in 2017:

While that happened, we kept looking at other options. I think we have some of the leading options both in China and Russia. We are also collaborating with Turkey for developing a next generation aircraft.

We are integrating our technology with friendly countries, including Turkey. We are thinking of producing the next-generation aircraft by pooling resources with them. For this, the basic framework and agreements have been made.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/bol-narratives-interview-april-2017-with-acm-sohail-aman.509105/

Why do you guys abandon CAC?:p:
To be honest, everything we say will change again if CAC suddenly flies a NGFA tech demo.
 
.
In case anyone's interested, here's what ACM Sohail Aman said in 2017:

While that happened, we kept looking at other options. I think we have some of the leading options both in China and Russia. We are also collaborating with Turkey for developing a next generation aircraft.

We are integrating our technology with friendly countries, including Turkey. We are thinking of producing the next-generation aircraft by pooling resources with them. For this, the basic framework and agreements have been made.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/bol-narratives-interview-april-2017-with-acm-sohail-aman.509105/


To be honest, everything we say will change again if CAC suddenly flies a NGFA tech demo.
In our session with him, ACM never once mentioned Russia, in relation to AZM. The Turkey part is pretty much what we were told too. He did mention earlier in this decade PAF approached them and were rejected offhand and second time they accepted. This partnership is more recent than one might imagine. He wasnt forthcoming on what exactly would we be doing.
The gist of it regarding AZM was: We over reached but we can still pull it off ......... This is just what i understood, with my very very limited knowledge.
 
. . .
NGFA & Azm be kept separate, so one can understand the options and how to meet a timeline given the circumstances in interviews as such.
We had a debate about the confusion between NGFA and FGFA some time ago. I think we though it was just lazy typing/confusion. But more and more it seems like that these will be two distinct programs. Of course this is educated speculation only.
 
.
We had a debate about the confusion between NGFA and FGFA some time ago. I think we though it was just lazy typing/confusion. But more and more it seems like that these will be two distinct programs. Of course this is educated speculation only.
I had a nightmare once where a PAF official said the FGFA is a 4.5 gen fighter.
 
. . .
We had a debate about the confusion between NGFA and FGFA some time ago. I think we though it was just lazy typing/confusion. But more and more it seems like that these will be two distinct programs. Of course this is educated speculation only.

I agree.
I for myself advocates the point that both subjects are different and what if PAF NGF can land in Pakistan before or around 2030 surprising the rival. I don't see any compromise since we kept it one level up and will do so by any means. How about if I may consider NGF as anything which doesn't exist in PAF at the moment. Such mention, in term of logic & by word, explains a lot and is plausible. Paying attention to the words and not to generalize, will help a lot to understand the possibility and what's being said.

There is no barring of joining other party and there is no limit to which extent, the cooperation will continue. As long as any joint venture or consortium serves the purpose, Pakistan shall go for it.
 
. .
I agree.
I for myself advocates the point that both subjects are different and what if PAF NGF can land in Pakistan before or around 2030 surprising the rival. I don't see any compromise since we kept it one level up and will do so by any means. How about if I may consider NGF as anything which doesn't exist in PAF at the moment. Such mention, in term of logic & by word, explains a lot and is plausible. Paying attention to the words and not to generalize, will help a lot to understand the possibility and what's being said.

There is no barring of joining other party and there is no limit to which extent, the cooperation will continue. As long as any joint venture or consortium serves the purpose, Pakistan shall go for it.
In seriousness, the PAF just needs to be rational.

1. We all agree that developing a true 'Made in Pakistan' fighter is a good idea. No one disagrees. So, let's do it.

2. BUT this Made in Pakistan fighter cannot be tied to any requirement in the next 15 years. It's simply not fair to the R&D base. Do we want them to develop things the correct way -- i.e., with all of the delays, complications, and other issues that'll come with -- or just paint overseas tech in green, and not learn anything?

I want our R&D base to learn and advance, but that's going to take more than 15 years. So, let's make AZM this long-term project for Vision 2047, i.e., a Made in Pakistan fighter in our Centennial Anniversary.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom