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

[KapitaanAli]

First i am not an expert thats why i asked things, not argue.
Secondly with BAE, doesn't it means lot of string attached?

Turkey is blessed by Qatar. Bongs will be paid handsomely to remove as many strings as possible.

Obviously within limits.

 

[Shabi1]

Project AZM is not just a single aircraft project. Its establishment of a aviation city, smart munitions, a MALE UAV and a fifth gen fighter. The MALE UAV and smart munitions are expected to be completed in the near term.

Unfortunately below article by Bilal Khan is the max amount of information we have so far. But the ACM statement is an indication China will handle air frame and engine integration work. MALE UAV should be coming out soon and we will get a glimpse of the approaches being taken, maybe its a re branded WingLong 2 UCAV with Pakistani subsystems.

The video for the aviation city also gives a hint that the priority is to develop subsystems in a way similar to the Israeli and Turkish aviation industry where they make most of their electronics in house and integrate on already developed platforms. There was no indications of establishing a high end wind tunnel testing facility in the documentary.

https://quwa.org/2017/12/07/pakistan-collaborating-with-china-on-next-gen-fighter/

A model of the AVIC FC-31.
Daily News
Dec 7, 2017Bilal Khan -
PAKISTAN COLLABORATING WITH CHINA ON NEXT-GEN FIGHTER
ShareTweet

In the inaugural session of AirTech ’17, a conference being held at Air University in Islamabad, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) Chief of Air Staff (CAS) Air Chief Marshal (ACM) Sohail Aman stated that China is supporting Pakistan’s efforts to develop a next-generation fighter, a satellite program and a manned space mission.

“Pakistan is engaged with Chinese experts in manufacturing the next generation aircraft”, Aman told the audience, adding, “China is also providing technical assistance for launching the satellite programme.”

Under “Project Azm” the PAF is seeking to develop its own 5th-generation fighter. Besides having a system to support its future requirements, Project Azm is envisaged to steer Pakistan towards greater autonomy in domestically sourcing big-ticket defence systems and expanding Pakistan’s aviation industry.

Having formally launched Project Azm in July, ACM Aman provided additional details of the project, such as 60% of its workforce comprising of civilians and that “it will take five years to initiate the production” of the aircraft (Dawn News).

Under Project Azm, Pakistan Aeronautical Complex’s (PAC) Aviation Design Institute (AvDI) was tasked to develop a medium-altitude long-endurance (MALE) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). ACM Aman outlined that the AvDI MALE UAV will also be produced in 18 months.

Reiterating upon his prior statements of building Pakistan’s domestic industry base and reducing its need for foreign suppliers, ACM Aman reportedly told the audience at AirTech ’17 that the PAF will source the bulk of its weapon systems from Pakistan by 2020.

In addition to Project Azm, the CAS revealed that China was also assisting Pakistan in space development.

Besides assisting Pakistan in satellite development – e.g. the Pakistan Remote Sensing Satellite (PRSS-1) earth-observation satellite due to launch in March 2018 – ACM Aman announced that China will assist in sending Pakistani astronauts into space in the next two years.

Notes & Comments:

Regarding the CAS’ statement of the Project Azm 5th-generation fighter (FGF) entering production in five years, it is unclear if the CAS was referring to serial production or the production of a prototype. However, the notion of PAC collaborating with China on the program was to be expected following the relationship built as a result of the JF-17 Thunder program, which is the mainstay fighter of the PAF fighter fleet.

In its July piece discussing the launch of Project Azm and the Kamra Aviation City initiative, Quwa stated:

In some respects, the PAF’s messaging regarding the FGF, AvDI and the Kamra Aviation City seems to point towards an original design effort. However, unless the PAF wants to repeat the arrangement in place for the JF-17 (such as China being responsible for engine integration and testing or manufacturing JF-17 prototypes), it would need to make capital investment in aviation development infrastructure in Pakistan. Besides cost, time will also be required to build requisite human resources … to undertake the continual development work.

Although the Kamra Aviation City has ambitious goals, Pakistan will likely seek overseas support, and this would be a factor in any originally designed fighter. Given the political and economic realities, Pakistan’s principal partner in this endeavour would be China.

Pakistan could accelerate its process by essentially procuring the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC) FC-31 off-the-shelf with a deep level of transfer-of-technology for local production and customization. In 2016, SAC began testing the second FC-31 prototype, which exhibits numerous changes to the original FC-31’s design, such as revised vertical stabilizers and forward fuselage. The FC-31 is being designed with the export market in mind. In 2015, the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) committed to bringing the FC-31 to full operational capability (FOC) by 2024. This would be a risk-averse avenue, one that could see the PAF acquire a potent strike and maritime-capable solution through the 2020s.

The alternate scenario would be for PAC to continue its ties with Chengdu Aerospace Corporation (CAC) and to co-develop another FGF design. While this would come later than the FC-31, the PAF could steer it as a long-term solution for replacing the JF-17 from the 2030s (the oldest JF-17s will be 20 years of age by then) and organically build design, research and development (R&D) capacities with China’s support. The PAF’s decision to establish AvDI – an entity specializing in aerospace design and development work – indicates a willingness to embrace an original design program instead of acquiring the FC-31 off-the-shelf.

The other aspect that could suggest an original design is Pakistan’s aspiration to export big-ticket defence items, including combat aircraft. While a capital-heavy investment, commissioning a new program would see Pakistan own (like it does with the JF-17) workshare and a portion of the profit of third-party sales. It would be premature to dismiss the possibility of AVIC allowing Pakistan to join the FC-31 as a partner if it compensates AVIC for some of the development cost. However, the original development route will see the state’s expenditure feed Pakistan’s own design and R&D efforts, which would help with maturation in the effort and generate valuable intellectual property for use in Project Azm and future programs.

Regarding the AvDI UAV, it is worth noting that Pakistan has not availed existing off-the-shelf options such as the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) CH-5 and/or CH-4, Turkish Aerospace Industries’ (TAI) Anka or CAC Wing Loong. The PAF has not released its required parameters for MALE UAVs, but existing off-the-shelf options occupy a diverse range of capabilities. The TAI Anka, CASC CH-4 and CASC CH-5 have payload capacities of 200 kg, 345 kg and 1,200 kg, respectively.

From cost management, risk mitigation, design evolution (based on Pakistan’s prior UAV development efforts) and technology (e.g. propulsion) access standpoints, one could plausibly expect the AvDI UAV to mirror the specifications of the TAI Anka and CASC CH-4. In fact, the Pakistani armed forces have refrained from importing the Anka and CH-4, despite both being offered and noticeable upgrades over existing UAV-based surveillance and targeted-strike assets in the Falco and CH-3A-based Burraq, respectively. Pakistan could be intending to acquire analogous capabilities domestically through the AvDI MALE UAV.

 

[Thunder.Storm]

Pac signed for wingloong 2 tot.

 

[Armchair]

Look, for an engine to increase max thrust fro 80kn to 105kn is quite a substantial claim, the least you can do is provide some valid link instead of pointing me to some id I don't know, it's called basic respect.

Now, to compare TWR of J-31, it has empty weight of 13.5 tons, assume 5 tons fuel + 1.5 tons weapon and 11 tons WS-19 will give it air combat TWR of 1.1. I'll just leave it at that.

This sentence doesn't even makes sense, I don't know where to begin.....

Now, of course stealth fighter is not just fact sheet as you call it, but then we weren't discussing subsystems are we? We started this discussion because you were making some statement about J-31 airframe. I don't know whether your little comment is meant to be condescending or it just came off this way....

If your previous comment weren't meant to be insulting, this one certainly is. Well done.

Now, I've tried to back up my arguments with facts and logic. I don't see any useful rebuttal from you except thinly veiled insult or your "feelings" about Chinese technology. I see you have already made up your mind on the matter, there is no need for further discussion. I bid you farewell.

The person I noted is well known on this forum and you'll just have to look it up, there is a search function that is very useful. I'm sorry you feel insulted.

You've come up with a lot of numbers, but I am not sure where those numbers are from. Suffice it to say, I'm not putting the same level of trust as you on the WS-19 (we are yet to see the WS-13 in production!).

A wing like an F-22's, is designed with a certain general parameter in mind - what altitude and speeds it is appropriate for. For instance, if you design a wing for an optimal supercruising profile at 40,000+ feet, then you put in engines that won't let the aircraft supercruise, you're creating a sub-optimal solution.

The issue becomes more complicated when you realize that, very roughly and broadly speaking, wing area is very important for high altitude flight. (the air is less dense up there, to have the same level of control authority, you need larger surfaces). However, again, oversimplifying the issue, larger the wing area, other things held constant, the greater the drag.

In this regard, if you take a look at the F-22's wings, or the Eurofighter's wings, or the Su-57's wings, and then take a look at the J-31, you can see the difference. Some of us may choose not to - because our patriotism may or may not blind us (and I mean you no insult), but there you have it.

 

[enroger]

The person I noted is well known on this forum and you'll just have to look it up, there is a search function that is very useful. I'm sorry you feel insulted.

You've come up with a lot of numbers, but I am not sure where those numbers are from. Suffice it to say, I'm not putting the same level of trust as you on the WS-19 (we are yet to see the WS-13 in production!).

A wing like an F-22's, is designed with a certain general parameter in mind - what altitude and speeds it is appropriate for. For instance, if you design a wing for an optimal supercruising profile at 40,000+ feet, then you put in engines that won't let the aircraft supercruise, you're creating a sub-optimal solution.

The issue becomes more complicated when you realize that, very roughly and broadly speaking, wing area is very important for high altitude flight. (the air is less dense up there, to have the same level of control authority, you need larger surfaces). However, again, oversimplifying the issue, larger the wing area, other things held constant, the greater the drag.

In this regard, if you take a look at the F-22's wings, or the Eurofighter's wings, or the Su-57's wings, and then take a look at the J-31, you can see the difference. Some of us may choose not to - because our patriotism may or may not blind us (and I mean you no insult), but there you have it.

I will give you a response despite my better judgement.

Those numbers I quote are quite well known coming out of Avic presentation in Zhu Hai air-show. I would have dig up the link for you, but then I just decided I am too lazy for that, you can use the search function on the internet.

Please read what you wrote and realize how ridiculous it is. You started by claiming J-31 wings "too small", now that you are better educated thanks to me, then you start claiming J-31 wings too big (F-22 too big), therefore too draggy and unable to super-cruise.

That is why I do not like to talk "very roughly and broadly speaking", I like to deal with exact quantities, If you are willing to learn, that I just might be willing to explain drag in different speed regime, how skin friction and wave drag behaves in different speed and their relation to wing sweep.

This might come as a surprise to you, but the people that design planes for a living knows a little more about aerodynamics then you. They starts by specifying the requirements (super-cruise at Ma? at ? altitude with ?dry thrust), then they tune design parameter to satisfy those requirements. They don't starts by thinking how big of a wing they want....

Finally you just can't refrain from name-calling can't you. Calling the other side blinded by patriotism will sure help you win a debate!

 

[帅的一匹]

I will give you a response despite my better judgement.

Those numbers I quote are quite well known coming out of Avic presentation in Zhu Hai air-show. I would have dig up the link for you, but then I just decided I am too lazy for that, you can use the search function on the internet.

Please read what you wrote and realize how ridiculous it is. You started by claiming J-31 wings "too small", now that you are better educated thanks to me, then you start claiming J-31 wings too big (F-22 too big), therefore too draggy and unable to super-cruise.

That is why I do not like to talk "very roughly and broadly speaking", I like to deal with exact quantities, If you are willing to learn, that I just might be willing to explain drag in different speed regime, how skin friction and wave drag behaves in different speed and their relation to wing sweep.

This might come as a surprise to you, but the people that design planes for a living knows a little more about aerodynamics then you. They starts by specifying the requirements (super-cruise at Ma? at ? altitude with ?dry thrust), then they tune design parameter to satisfy those requirements. They don't starts by thinking how big of a wing they want....

Finally you just can't refrain from name-calling can't you. Calling the other side blinded by patriotism will sure help you win a debate!

 

[Basel]

First i am not an expert thats why i asked things, not argue.
Secondly with BAE, doesn't it means lot of string attached?

Nope, because Turkey have already sorted out things, that is why they offer TFX to Pakistan.

 

[Armchair]

I will give you a response despite my better judgement.

Those numbers I quote are quite well known coming out of Avic presentation in Zhu Hai air-show. I would have dig up the link for you, but then I just decided I am too lazy for that, you can use the search function on the internet.

Please read what you wrote and realize how ridiculous it is. You started by claiming J-31 wings "too small", now that you are better educated thanks to me, then you start claiming J-31 wings too big (F-22 too big), therefore too draggy and unable to super-cruise.

That is why I do not like to talk "very roughly and broadly speaking", I like to deal with exact quantities, If you are willing to learn, that I just might be willing to explain drag in different speed regime, how skin friction and wave drag behaves in different speed and their relation to wing sweep.

This might come as a surprise to you, but the people that design planes for a living knows a little more about aerodynamics then you. They starts by specifying the requirements (super-cruise at Ma? at ? altitude with ?dry thrust), then they tune design parameter to satisfy those requirements. They don't starts by thinking how big of a wing they want....

Finally you just can't refrain from name-calling can't you. Calling the other side blinded by patriotism will sure help you win a debate!

You're putting words in my mouth I'm not saying "the J-31's wings are bigger" than F-22 or whatever. I'm saying they are two small for the given need for high-high performance. Additionally, the body looks to be high drag, with weak engines.

As far as Chinese engines go, I'll believe it when I see it. You're welcome to believe in future supposed engine capabilities, but as far as history has shown, China hasn't been too good with its engine development.

There are western experts that have echoed what I've stated. You can use the search function to find them on the internet. I'm not sure though they will meet your criteria for "knows a little more about aerodynamics" than whoever.

Incidentally, one such gentleman claims that the J-31 is a result of Shengyang having too many engineers and didn't know what to do with them... But that may hurt your feelings so I'll not proceed to show you quotes from those bad people.

 

[enroger]

You're putting words in my mouth I'm not saying "the J-31's wings are bigger" than F-22 or whatever. I'm saying they are two small for the given need for high-high performance. Additionally, the body looks to be high drag, with weak engines.

As far as Chinese engines go, I'll believe it when I see it. You're welcome to believe in future supposed engine capabilities, but as far as history has shown, China hasn't been too good with its engine development.

There are western experts that have echoed what I've stated. You can use the search function to find them on the internet. I'm not sure though they will meet your criteria for "knows a little more about aerodynamics" than whoever.

Incidentally, one such gentleman claims that the J-31 is a result of Shengyang having too many engineers and didn't know what to do with them... But that may hurt your feelings so I'll not proceed to show you quotes from those bad people.

You do realize smaller wings = lower drag (keeping all other parameters constant) for both skin and wave drag right? That is like aerodynamics 101. I've offered to give you a little talk in aerodynamic, now I decide not to, because I fear I might need to start from newton's laws.

The right thing to complain about small wings is lack of lift, but I've educated you on this point before so I won't repeat myself.

About engines I'd admit it is the only weakness in China's aerospace industry, which many people are working hard on improving despite the nay-sayer such as yourself. However I'll assume official statements until there is reasons not to. btw J-31 2.0 is currently flying with WS-13.

Sure, you can pick whatever "experts" you choose to believe in, that is your choice. You can believe in flat earth for all I care. Don't worry about hurting my feelings, I'm having a great time here.

 

[Armchair]

You do realize smaller wings = lower drag (keeping all other parameters constant) for both skin and wave drag right? That is like aerodynamics 101. I've offered to give you a little talk in aerodynamic, now I decide not to, because I fear I might need to start from newton's laws.

The right thing to complain about small wings is lack of lift, but I've educated you on this point before so I won't repeat myself.

About engines I'd admit it is the only weakness in China's aerospace industry, which many people are working hard on improving despite the nay-sayer such as yourself. However I'll assume official statements until there is reasons not to. btw J-31 2.0 is currently flying with WS-13.

Sure, you can pick whatever "experts" you choose to believe in, that is your choice. You can believe in flat earth for all I care. Don't worry about hurting my feelings, I'm having a great time here.

yes, small wings mean less drag, I am aware, as should have been clear from what I have written in my past posts, but I understand English may not be your strong point.
LOL @ "I've educated you"

If you are still imagining that the J-31's aerodynamics vis-a-vis its thrust and drag are suitable for modern high speed high altitude BVR combat, you need to be educated yourself before educating anyone I'm afraid.

I'm not aware that the WS-13 is in mass production yet. Sounds like the early adoption of the WS-10, which I recall was delayed, overweight, underperformed and had a horrible MTBF. Things have improved now but to what extent is still a Pandora's Box.

Last I saw, your prototypes had to go on afterburner to sustain a turn. That's like dinosaur-era aerodynamics.

Lastly, I'd disagree with you on engines being the only weakness - I'd say Chinese designs are still not there compared to what Russia and the West can build. Quality and reliability is a major issue of many components. But definitely you've made a great leap forward from the MiG-21 copies.

 

[enroger]

yes, small wings mean less drag, I am aware, as should have been clear from what I have written in my past posts, but I understand English may not be your strong point.
LOL @ "I've educated you"

If you are still imagining that the J-31's aerodynamics vis-a-vis its thrust and drag are suitable for modern high speed high altitude BVR combat, you need to be educated yourself before educating anyone I'm afraid.

I'm not aware that the WS-13 is in mass production yet. Sounds like the early adoption of the WS-10, which I recall was delayed, overweight, underperformed and had a horrible MTBF. Things have improved now but to what extent is still a Pandora's Box.

Last I saw, your prototypes had to go on afterburner to sustain a turn. That's like dinosaur-era aerodynamics.

Lastly, I'd disagree with you on engines being the only weakness - I'd say Chinese designs are still not there compared to what Russia and the West can build. Quality and reliability is a major issue of many components. But definitely you've made a great leap forward from the MiG-21 copies.

You are just repeating your feelings over and over again you realize that? Do you have any thing concrete to say or you just want to say the last words?

Your contempt for my country is clearly showing, I don't know what is your issue but it's fine by me. Your opinion does not matter.

 

[Armchair]

You are just repeating your feelings over and over again you realize that? Do you have any thing concrete to say or you just want to say the last words?

Your contempt for my country is clearly showing, I don't know what is your issue but it's fine by me. Your opinion does not matter.

I've stated what is generally considered the opinion of the J-31 in Western circles. I've tried to discuss it with you, but you're too sensitive and have taken offence. I'll let you have the last word now, I hope it helps you with whatever issues you're having with anything other than "China great!!"

On a separate note, this is what Airbus' 5th gen looks like:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/TNkfPRtIKJA/maxresdefault.jpg

 

[Armchair-General]

I've stated what is generally considered the opinion of the J-31 in Western circles. I've tried to discuss it with you, but you're too sensitive and have taken offence. I'll let you have the last word now, I hope it helps you with whatever issues you're having with anything other than "China great!!"

On a separate note, this is what Airbus' 5th gen looks like:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/TNkfPRtIKJA/maxresdefault.jpg

France and it's Delta wing fighters

 

[enroger]

I've stated what is generally considered the opinion of the J-31 in Western circles. I've tried to discuss it with you, but you're too sensitive and have taken offence. I'll let you have the last word now, I hope it helps you with whatever issues you're having with anything other than "China great!!"

On a separate note, this is what Airbus' 5th gen looks like:

So you just accept whatever opinion however biased they maybe instead of thinking for yourself? Let me tell you the truth, you pick what you want to believe, if you own up to it then you have the chance to become a better person.

All of my arguments have been based on physics and logic while all your "arguments" are basically your feelings. Try to think rationally for a second, I hope you learn something from this unpleasant conversation.

P.S. I like that Airbus design, clearly has it's merits.

 

[enroger]

Just a few words on J-31 and AZM in general. I'm sure any potential customer of Avic would be given full test data involving flight envelope/rcs/subsystem ...etc, and PAF will choose the most optimal solution accordingly be it CAC/SAC/TFX...etc.

It's not like Avic can dupe PAF into buying inferior fighter despite what some people might think. Those are just business deal, no feelings need to be involved.