What's new

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

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.

I agree and I will repeat myself Sir. PAF is going in for FGFA before or around 2030 and that could be by way of in-house of joining existing program/consortium. Azm will follow the same timeline, plans & R&D what you have also elaborated. Azm will help us to build in-house with everything and R&D and if we separate NGF/FGFA for the time being, PAF will bring in even if it has to be an off-the shelf but has to keep ahead of adversary.

Since then we will set another goal for the adversary to meet and compete with PAF in NGF category, in the meanwhile, Azm could have excelled further. And if we look beyond 2030 to 2047, Azm by its definition and as sometimes discussed will come into reality where we will be calling it our own and that might also up another level in the sense that may have 6th Gen capability to begin with. So all in all, I see that plan is to keep ahead and we will do so hence, the calm with PAF. Of-course a Made In Pakistan Azm without our own R&D and all, doesn't makes sense to fly around 2030 except that, a miracle happens. I don't see that Azm is tied to any requirements in next decade or before 2030. There is flexibility and an NGF followed by Azm can happen.

2047 vision is based upon our independence in this area and freedom to call it our own. A requirement of PAF cannot be and shouldn't be mixed with Azm Vision.
 
.
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.

You said it all there Bilal Khan.

People are emphasizing more on a product rather than realizing that the real aim of Project AZM is to enable PAC/PAF to cope with next generation advanced military aviation technologies. Developing 5G, 6G, MALE drone, Stealth tankers etc. will be by default an out come of extending our knowledge base, human resource pool, academic depth through developing multiple R&D institutes at Aviation City. AZM is about nurturing a generation who will produce future inventors for PAF, InshaAllah.
 
.
Lets face it..we need to go into a joint venture with turkey or china to leaen how to build an aircarft before we can dream about azm.

We also need to do JV with several countries to learn several subsystems
 
.
China's most mature engine, and the one used most by its fighter aircraft is the WS-10. WS-13 has seen little use and there is only one program that can use the WS-13, that too in the future. With the closer ties being formed by China and Pakistan, it would make most sense to see Pakistan go with a WS-10 / WS-15 based fighter, which would also keep to PAF's preferred single engine strategy.

AESA radar, EW suite, FCS, engine, avionics, data links, SDR, all these critical subsystems are mature and available from the Block III and / or China. All one really has to do is develop a new airframe to re-package the available systems. I believe this is possible within a 2025 time-frame.
 
.
China's most mature engine, and the one used most by its fighter aircraft is the WS-10. WS-13 has seen little use and there is only one program that can use the WS-13, that too in the future. With the closer ties being formed by China and Pakistan, it would make most sense to see Pakistan go with a WS-10 / WS-15 based fighter, which would also keep to PAF's preferred single engine strategy.

AESA radar, EW suite, FCS, engine, avionics, data links, SDR, all these critical subsystems are mature and available from the Block III and / or China. All one really has to do is develop a new airframe to re-package the available systems. I believe this is possible within a 2025 time-frame.

WS 10 is a large engine, the reason of there is STEALTH fighter is to reduce RCS. Larger airplane will have larger RCS.

Double engine plane will give more space for internal weapon bay, it is why the single engine design of KFX/IFX doesnt have internal weapon bay, and it is one of the reasons (there are other reason as well like range that preferred by Indonesian) the design is rejected. And it is why your senior officer said that AZM will have two engine.
 
.
WS 10 is a large engine, the reason of there is STEALTH fighter is to reduce RCS. Larger airplane will have larger RCS.

Double engine plane will give more space for internal weapon bay, it is why the single engine design of KFX/IFX doesnt have internal weapon bay, and it is one of the reasons (there are other reason as well like range that preferred by Indonesian) the design is rejected. And it is why your senior officer said that AZM will have two engine.
The F135 is a larger engine than the WS-10 ... the size of the engine does not dictate the RCS emissions but rather the IR treatment. That is why you see stealthy serrated F135 and WS-10X nozzles on the F-35 and J-20 respectively.
 
.
Perhaps it is our assumption that AZM will be a high end stealth fighter like F-22 or F-35.


I think realistically what might be happening is the PAC take the JF-17 as a basic building block and reconfigure it as single or dual engine low observable jet. This way the FCS doesn't have to be developed from scratch. Strongly believe avionics, radar and engine will be foreign most likely Chinese. So mostly what PAC might be doing is developing a 'stealthier' airframe and integrating everything into it. Considering this a timeline of 2030 seems achievable.
 
.
I am not sure if this has been seen anywhere but here is an official Project Azm plaque at PAC.
Azm.jpg
 
.
Perhaps it is our assumption that AZM will be a high end stealth fighter like F-22 or F-35.


I think realistically what might be happening is the PAC take the JF-17 as a basic building block and reconfigure it as single or dual engine low observable jet. This way the FCS doesn't have to be developed from scratch. Strongly believe avionics, radar and engine will be foreign most likely Chinese. So mostly what PAC might be doing is developing a 'stealthier' airframe and integrating everything into it. Considering this a timeline of 2030 seems achievable.

Exactly, well summarized. It seems the obvious case. The Occam's Razor.
 
.
Perhaps it is our assumption that AZM will be a high end stealth fighter like F-22 or F-35.


I think realistically what might be happening is the PAC take the JF-17 as a basic building block and reconfigure it as single or dual engine low observable jet. This way the FCS doesn't have to be developed from scratch. Strongly believe avionics, radar and engine will be foreign most likely Chinese. So mostly what PAC might be doing is developing a 'stealthier' airframe and integrating everything into it. Considering this a timeline of 2030 seems achievable.


We do have credible info (Tenders released by PAC) that PAC is working on an Airborne fire control AESA. IDK whether this could either be to arm early block JF-17's or for AZM but it could add an interesting twist to things. However, once again, im going to point you back to ACM's statement where AZM will be a twin engine heavy fighter with a clean sheet design.
 
. . .
...
To me, the dream AZM would be a lightweight, single-engine fighter with an unstable design and respectable range and payload, ...

That would be such a pointless project.

A light-weight fighter would be (by then) nothing more than replacement for JF-17 Thunder with full Pakistani ownership.
 
. .
That would be such a pointless project.

A light-weight fighter would be (by then) nothing more than replacement for JF-17 Thunder with full Pakistani ownership.
That is literally the best outcome...i.e., a 75-100% 'Made in Pakistan' high-tech fighter that will replace the most numerous fighter in our air force. This solves economies-of-scale and controls acquisition cost. It also gives us the ability to build quantity in our air power, but without compromising quality (since it'd be an unstable 5+/6-gen).

Moreover, the scope of "lightweight" will keep changing. In the 1950s, it meant F-86, and today, it's Gripen/Tejas/JF-17. The Gripen E/F -- still lightweight -- is bigger, and the Indian Tejas Mk2 is moving in that direction.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom