What's new

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

Ideally it should be singled engine aircraft. Challenge would be to obtain 1 x high power output engine that can be sourced without political issues and is economical to operate and maintain. I think if PAF is deciding to utilise 2 x Low-medium powered engines that can be because of inability of China & Russia to make excellent single high output engines. 2 engines mean double the probability of a break down, double the fuel cost, double maintenance cost & time, double the down time for servicing and for overhauls.

It would be interesting to see PAF's engine choice. If Russia can improve the RD33 engine issues in RD93MA model, then perhaps Pakistan can use 2 x RD93MAs in its 5th gen fighter too? I have read that Russia is also willing to install thrust vectoring nozzles on these engines if the customer desires. If we develop RD93 platform to a good level and use 1 engine across the board it would be great for cost, maintenance, logistics, training technicians.


No, PAF is looking for twin engines as the entire goal of this is to have a mirage replacement that can strike in the heart of India and come home unscathed. To do this effectively, you want to maximize internal payload carriage, for this, you COULD go for a smaller single-engined platform, or you could go for something larger and more spacious. Alongside this, you'd also have greater power generation from the engines meaning more power for onboard systems, allowing you to fit more capable ones if needed.
 
.
F-35 uses a single Pratt & Whitney F135 engine which produces 43,000 lbf (191 kN) of thrust. Dual engine is not a necessity for more thrust/carrying capacity/space etc. If deep penetration capability is desired then 1 efficient and powerful single engine is better option then 2 low powered engines. 2 engines would most likely have double mechanical losses and less fuel efficiency against a comparative single engine jet. The problem here is with finding a reliable powerful single engine is more difficult for Pakistan since US and European markets are unsuitable and unsustainable suppliers due to political reasons and lobbying.

Twin engines have no advantage over single engines of same thrust category. No car ever came with 2 engines just to increase horsepower. Twin engines helps to add thrust and manoeuvrability - where a single powerful engine is not available. RCS of a single engine jet would also be more smaller than a twin engine one. Two hot nozzles at the back emitting heat would also be easier for a radar to find (Arguably).
 
.
F-35 uses a single Pratt & Whitney F135 engine which produces 43,000 lbf (191 kN) of thrust. Dual engine is not a necessity for more thrust/carrying capacity/space etc. If deep penetration capability is desired then 1 efficient and powerful single engine is better option then 2 low powered engines. 2 engines would most likely have double mechanical losses and less fuel efficiency against a comparative single engine jet. The problem here is with finding a reliable powerful single engine is more difficult for Pakistan since US and European markets are unsuitable and unsustainable suppliers due to political reasons and lobbying.

Twin engines have no advantage over single engines of same thrust category. No car ever came with 2 engines just to increase horsepower. Twin engines helps to add thrust and manoeuvrability - where a single powerful engine is not available. RCS of a single engine jet would also be more smaller than a twin engine one. Two hot nozzles at the back emitting heat would also be easier for a radar to find (Arguably).

well Thats a load of bull crap. Twin engine is always better than the single engine. If one engine isn’t working properly the second one can take the ball from there

Also F35 is more like a payload dropper type stealth aircraft. Not an superiority fighter like the raptor, Su57, J-20 which are all twin engine

and am sure all of those countries aren’t stupid to lace their air-superiority fighters with twin engine. Specially if the objective is to go into enemy airspace and gain superiority over that airspace
 
.
well Thats a load of bull crap. Twin engine is always better than the single engine. If one engine isn’t working properly the second one can take the ball from there

Also F35 is more like a payload dropper type stealth aircraft. Not an superiority fighter like the raptor, Su57, J-20 which are all twin engine

and am sure all of those countries aren’t stupid to lace their air-superiority fighters with twin engine. Specially if the objective is to go into enemy airspace and gain superiority over that airspace

You need to grow up a bit gentleman. And don't make sweeping statements too. You can have your opinion but keep the bull crapry stuff to yourself please. You can study more on the topic, it is debatable. There are pros & cons of both single & twin jet engines. Twin would always be more expensive to manufacture(if manufacturing yourself), less fuel efficient, more cost of servicing, more cost of overhauling, more downtime for repairing and more technical glitches to deal with at any given time due to double amount of everything - wiring, vacuum pipes and electronics. In passenger airplanes, 3 & 4 engined jets have been replaced by 2 for the same reason. 2 is the sweet spot for large airliners. For combat aircrafts, IMO if 1 engine makes power equaling 2 engines then there is no need whatsoever to put 2 smaller engines to make the same amount of power and make the whole aircraft more complex, less reliable in the process.

With jet engines becoming more reliable, engine failures during flight are not very common these days. Flight safety has been tremendously increased. Plus with advanced missile technology taking air fights to BVRs & long range cruise missiles, coupled up with air refueling, there is not much real advantage of "deep penetration" that a twin engine can offer.

A simple example would be road vehicle. To get more power, no car came with 2 x 4 cylinder engines. We do have V8s. No semi-truck has 2 engines, we have 1 engine that can be 13000 - 16000cc or more. If we still need more power from a single engine we put 1 or 2 turbos on it. We supercharge it. But yes if we don't have refined enough technology to build 1 x super charged/ twin turbo-ed powerful engine. We may use 2. This is what's happening in the fighter jets. US technology is up there, hence they are using 1 engine in F35. When Russia and China get there, they will probably ditch the 2nd engine too.

Plus, an engine should not fail during flight anyways. Putting 2 engines just that so you can come back in case 1 dies does not tell that twin engine aircrafts are superior. No one made a car with 2 engines so that you can come home if 1 dies. It is an advantage but not a considerable for air forces at all.

P.S. You can't compare SU57 & J20 to F35. F35 is way more advanced. Americans don't even consider SU57 & J20s to be proper 5th Gen aircrafts and you are saying SU57 & J20s are air superiority fighters as compared to F35? Cool :-)


 
Last edited:
.
You need to grow up a bit gentleman. And don't make sweeping statements too. You can have your opinion but keep the bull crapry stuff to yourself please. You can study more on the topic, it is debatable. There are pros & cons of both single & twin jet engines. Twin would always be more expensive to manufacture(if manufacturing yourself), less fuel efficient, more cost of servicing, more cost of overhauling, more downtime for repairing and more technical glitches to deal with at any given time due to double amount of everything - wiring, vacuum pipes and electronics. In passenger airplanes, 3 & 4 engines jets have been replaced by 2 for the same reason. 2 is the sweet spot for large airlines. For combat aircrafts, IMO if 1 engine makes power equalling 2 engines then there is no need whatsoever to put 2 smaller engines to make the same amount of power and make the whole aircraft more complex, less reliable in the process.

With jet engines becoming more reliable, engine failures during flight are not very common these days. Flight safety has been tremendously increased. Plus with advanced missile technology taking air flights to BVRs & long range cruise missiles, coupled up with air refuelling. There is not much real advantage of "deep penetration" that a twin engine can offer.

A simple example would be road vehicle. To get more power, no car came with 2 x 4 cylinder engines. We do have V8s. No semi-truck has 2 engines, we have 1 engine that can be 13000 - 16000cc or more. If we still need more power from a single engine we put 1 or 2 turbos on it. We supercharge it. But yes if we don't have refined enough technology to build 1 x super charged/ twin turbo-ed powerful engine. We may use 2. This is what's happening in the fighter jets. US technology is up there, hence they are using 1 engine in F35. When Russia and China get there, they will probably ditch the 2nd engine too.

Plus, an engine should not fail during flight anyways. Putting 2 engines just that so you can come back in case 1 dies does not tell that twin engine aircrafts are superior. No one made a car with 2 engines so that you can come home if 1 dies. It is an advantage but not a considerable for air forces at all.

P.S. You can't compare SU57 & J20 to F35. F35 is way more advanced. Americans don't even consider SU57 & J20s to be proper 5th Gen aircrafts and you are saying SU57 & J20s are air superiority fighters as compared to F35? Cool :-)



Sigh... why does the response of everyone here is to stitch 2 video links

I can make the statement which are factually true. But didn’t knew you’re a little girl who would get butt hurt about it.

And 2- when you’re making a plane who’s literal job is to go into enemy space and capture it. The argument of how but it’s expensive etc.... yeah no shit ... but it’s Job is commensurate with its importance of work

3- I am not comparing it to F-35 you are..: which is wrong because Pakistanis want to make a 5th gen air superiority fighter. And F-35 has a vastly different role than that

4- I brought in J-20 and SU-57 and the raptor because All of them are 5th gen and all of them are air superiority fighters. Which are more relevant reference aircrafts to the discussion
 
Last edited:
.
I'm being optimistic, but based on what the previous two CAS said about the NGFA, the PAF will likely join some consortium as a partner (e.g., Turkey or China). If they're sticking to the 2028-2029 date for a maiden flight, then there's no way they're pulling it off on their own -- 100% either TFX or J-35.

That said, the PAF sees itself transitioning to next-gen by 2047. So, either way, this FGFA business is a ways out.

Makes sense. Project AZM will be most likely based on the J35/J31 with Pakistani/Turkish input. Pakistan cannot design and build a plane from scratch as only a few countries in the world can do that. We also don't have the time and money for that. I was thinking our 5th generation induction would be around 2030 but now I can't see anything before 2035. J20 first flight was 2011 and induction after 7 years. So we would definitely need a 4.5+ fighter jet to fill in the vacuum. India bought Rafale for that which was a good move.
 
.
2- when you’re making a plane who’s literal
Sigh... why does the response of everyone here is to stitch 2 video links

I can make the statement which are factually true. But didn’t knew you’re a little girl who would get butt hurt about it.

And 2- when you’re making a plane who’s literal job is to go into enemy space and capture it. The argument of how but it’s expensive etc.... yeah no shit ... but it’s Job is commensurate with its importance of work

3- I am not comparing it to F-35 you are..: which is wrong because Pakistanis want to make a 5th gen air superiority fighter. And F-35 has a vastly different role than that

4- I brought in J-20 and SU-57 and the raptor because All of them are 5th gen and all of them are air superiority fighters. Which are more relevant reference aircrafts to the discussion

You determination to knowledge is commendable. You did not even open the links and declared them video links. There is no video in there. Anyways! Some manners, will go long way! Cheers
 
.
If it makes use of the test infrastructures of different countries for the first flight, he can make the first flight on the specified dates.
 
.
Makes sense. Project AZM will be most likely based on the J35/J31 with Pakistani/Turkish input. Pakistan cannot design and build a plane from scratch as only a few countries in the world can do that. We also don't have the time and money for that. I was thinking our 5th generation induction would be around 2030 but now I can't see anything before 2035. J20 first flight was 2011 and induction after 7 years. So we would definitely need a 4.5+ fighter jet to fill in the vacuum. India bought Rafale for that which was a good move.

I think Pakistan should probably skip its 5th gen fighter program and buy J20s from China instead and focus on a 6th gen platform in the meantime. Its a bit too late to start for a 5th Gen fighter, considering that it takes 30 odd years to develop a next Gen aircraft from scratch. Its better that we buy 5th gen for now and focus on making a 6th Gen one by 2040 or 2050. USA is already testing prototypes of its 6th gen fighter. China is working on it too. It would be better to join hands with China and try to catch up with the latest tech. Having 5th Gen in 2035 when 1st world would be again flying 6th Gens might bring us back to square one! Plus even in 2035 we will be having a platform that would require further refinement. Proper induction of munition and training of our pilots would take another 5 years or so. (Like in case of JF, we are still integrating new ammunition on it) Our focus should rather be to develop the capability and have the connections with friendly countries to develop a next gen fighter on our own without western reliance, not just to counter India.
 
.
I think Pakistan should probably skip its 5th gen fighter program and buy J20s from China instead and focus on a 6th gen platform in the meantime. Its a bit too late to start for a 5th Gen fighter, considering that it takes 30 odd years to develop a next Gen aircraft from scratch. Its better that we buy 5th gen for now and focus on making a 6th Gen one by 2040 or 2050. USA is already testing prototypes of its 6th gen fighter. China is working on it too. It would be better to join hands with China and try to catch up with the latest tech. Having 5th Gen in 2035 when 1st world would be again flying 6th Gens might bring us back to square one! Plus even in 2035 we will be having a platform that would require further refinement. Proper induction of munition and training of our pilots would take another 5 years or so. (Like in case of JF, we are still integrating new ammunition on it) Our focus should rather be to develop the capability and have the connections with friendly countries to develop a next gen fighter on our own without western reliance, not just to counter India.


The line between 5th and 6th generation is blurred firstly. There isnt a clear definition with how there was for 3rd and 4th. The fundamentals are the same, both revolving around LO and advanced sensors. So it doesnt REEEEEALLY matter, besides, ACM did mention some '6th generation' features that will be present onboard.

Secondly, the J-20 is NOT export cleared and wont be, the FC-31 is the export platform.
 
.
The line between 5th and 6th generation is blurred firstly. There isnt a clear definition with how there was for 3rd and 4th. The fundamentals are the same, both revolving around LO and advanced sensors. So it doesnt REEEEEALLY matter, besides, ACM did mention some '6th generation' features that will be present onboard.

Secondly, the J-20 is NOT export cleared and wont be, the FC-31 is the export platform.
I think force compositions are moving towards two main types:

1. 'Conventional' fighter designs (aka 4+/4.5-gen) with state-of-the-art electronics and no compromise in terms of agility and maneuverability, but conscious focus on cost-control. South Korea's KF-21 and India's TEDBF/ORCA are good examples of this approach.

2. 'Stealth' fighter designs (aka 5/5+/6-gen) with an emphasis on range, payload, low-observability, etc. The main purpose of these fighters is to carry out strike and other special mission operations.

Thus, the so-called 4.5-gen fighters are here to stay. The specific designs might go away with time (e.g., the Typhoon), but we'll still see future 4.5-gen designs. There's nothing inherently wrong with these fighter types as they cover everything an air force would need bar some niche capabilities.

The stealth fighters would deliver the niche capabilities.

@JamD ... so it turns out my dream re: "next-generation doesn't need to be fifth generation" isn't a nightmare?
 
.
I think force compositions are moving towards two main types:

1. 'Conventional' fighter designs (aka 4+/4.5-gen) with state-of-the-art electronics and no compromise in terms of agility and maneuverability, but conscious focus on cost-control. South Korea's KF-21 and India's TEDBF/ORCA are good examples of this approach.

2. 'Stealth' fighter designs (aka 5/5+/6-gen) with an emphasis on range, payload, low-observability, etc. The main purpose of these fighters is to carry out strike and other special mission operations.

Thus, the so-called 4.5-gen fighters are here to stay. The specific designs might go away with time (e.g., the Typhoon), but we'll still see future 4.5-gen designs. There's nothing inherently wrong with these fighter types as they cover everything an air force would need bar some niche capabilities.

The stealth fighters would deliver the niche capabilities.

@JamD ... so it turns out my dream re: "next-generation doesn't need to be fifth generation" isn't a nightmare?

IMO every one who is thinking 4th gen would stay longer will be surprised how quickly they will be phased out. Their importance would be no more than F7s in our air force. Just a Tassali, for count but they will have no real significance when once 5th gen start becoming common.

Like with every computer processor, the next one is developed quicker and more powerful, the same way I believe stealth wars will soon become the main theme of air forces around the world. Anti stealth radars and anti stealth radar jammers will be a thing, this thing would go on & on. Every next generation of fighters will have a shorter life span despite being much more high tech. In 6th gen we might see self flying aircrafts, controlled remotely. AI would also play a major role in every upcoming thing. We better be on our feet & running.
 
.
The line between 5th and 6th generation is blurred firstly. There isnt a clear definition with how there was for 3rd and 4th. The fundamentals are the same, both revolving around LO and advanced sensors. So it doesnt REEEEEALLY matter, besides, ACM did mention some '6th generation' features that will be present onboard.

Secondly, the J-20 is NOT export cleared and wont be, the FC-31 is the export platform.

I hope it does not suffer from the same fate as the JF17 thunder! It would be good if it comes as a 5+ instead of 5. Although JF17 is decent for what it is, but it isn't an air superiority fighter. Plus PAF has done a terrible job of marketing it! No properly published technical specs. Even high quality pictures of that aircraft are not available! The "promotional" video about it on YouTube has the cheesiest voice over ever! Haha and no technical information is available about it except Wikipedia crap. Since block 1 was out, all info has mainly remained the same. Or there are some controversial claims with no confirmation.

Some military fan boys would say because we want to keep it secret. I'd say LOL, more stuff is available on F35s, F22s and F16s and every other fighter but ours! There's nothing much hi tech to hide in it!
 
. .
I think Pakistan should probably skip its 5th gen fighter program and buy J20s from China instead and focus on a 6th gen platform in the meantime. Its a bit too late to start for a 5th Gen fighter, considering that it takes 30 odd years to develop a next Gen aircraft from scratch. Its better that we buy 5th gen for now and focus on making a 6th Gen one by 2040 or 2050. USA is already testing prototypes of its 6th gen fighter. China is working on it too. It would be better to join hands with China and try to catch up with the latest tech. Having 5th Gen in 2035 when 1st world would be again flying 6th Gens might bring us back to square one! Plus even in 2035 we will be having a platform that would require further refinement. Proper induction of munition and training of our pilots would take another 5 years or so. (Like in case of JF, we are still integrating new ammunition on it) Our focus should rather be to develop the capability and have the connections with friendly countries to develop a next gen fighter on our own without western reliance, not just to counter India.

After reading the specs on the Azm project it sounded like a 6th generation platform to me. Just keep the Azm project make it 6th generation and go for J20s for the immediate short term needs to bolster the inventory ranks..

I have also seen some saying the Azm will be ready after 2 decades that is wrong. If Turkey can get it done by 2023 then Azm could be finalized entirely by 2024-2025 providing that the turks share the intel with you and I don't see why they wouldn't since they are one of the main allies of Pakistan along with China..

You can switch the Azm into 6th generation and honestly it always sounded like 6th gen since it has laser weapon technology etc etc.. things you normally don't find in 5th generation platforms.

The fate of Azm has always been linked to TF-X
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom