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

[Syed1.]

I hope for AZM the methodology isn't based on cost effectiveness. You cannot use the same principles that were used for a 4th Gen Thunder with the 5th Gen Azm. For Thunder we wanted them in large numbers so that we multiple jets honing down on an intruder at any time and to run dozens of CAPs.

The role of the Azm would be different, it would be used for air superiority and deep penetration. For that regard I hope we design it with dual engines and most advanced engine our wallets will allow. At max we will need 2-3 squadrons of Azm so we can perhaps live with a higher per unit cost but lower number of units.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Kabotar]

In my opinion it will be a really hard decision to make. On one hand two engines give you the ability to carry more payload, give you redundancy. Also, you could keep the engines common with the Jf-17. On the other hand you are making each jet almost a third more expensive (at least) and are increasing the maintenance costs/time.

If Azm was planned to be less than ~60 units then I would think a twin-engine design would be more logical (twin RD-93 I would conjecture). If PAF plans to induct excess of ~110 units then a single-engine design makes more sense.

@Quwa what is your opinion on the matter?

At only 110 copies it will bearly cover or F16s replacement requirement. Than add strike and naval role. I would think we will at least need 180. Or enemy will have maybe 100 Su57 maybe some F35s and if they get lucky also AMCA.

 

[Kabotar]

I hope for AZM the methodology isn't based on cost effectiveness. You cannot use the same principles that were used for a 4th Gen Thunder with the 5th Gen Azm. For Thunder we wanted them in large numbers so that we multiple jets honing down on an intruder at any time and to run dozens of CAPs.

The role of the Azm would be different, it would be used for air superiority and deep penetration. For that regard I hope we design it with dual engines and most advanced engine our wallets will allow. At max we will need 2-3 squadrons of Azm so we can perhaps live with a higher per unit cost but lower number of units.

Just my 2 cents.

Would it be unwise to have a 4th gen plane fly CAP when enemy will intrude with 5th gen?

 

[Quwa]

Wouldn't that make AZM cost ineffective program if the production run is for only 100 copies. There was an interview in which ACM Sohail Aman said that PAF was in talks with two countries to buy 5th gens plans.

In my opinion it will be a really hard decision to make. On one hand two engines give you the ability to carry more payload, give you redundancy. Also, you could keep the engines common with the Jf-17. On the other hand you are making each jet almost a third more expensive (at least) and are increasing the maintenance costs/time.

If Azm was planned to be less than ~60 units then I would think a twin-engine design would be more logical (twin RD-93 I would conjecture). If PAF plans to induct excess of ~110 units then a single-engine design makes more sense.

@Quwa what is your opinion on the matter?

The issue isn't so much the final number of Azm fighters the PAF would have -- it could end up as 200+ over 40+ years for all we know; rather, it's the number of how many Azm fighters it gets within a timeframe. So if the output is like 6 a year, then after a decade you would have 60 planes.

The R&D and industrial overhead will be incredibly expensive, so I don't think there'll be a low cap on the final number of jets, we'll probably manufacture it for decades to come.

 

[Army research]

The issue isn't so much the final number of Azm fighters the PAF would have -- it could end up as 200+ over 40+ years for all we know; rather, it's the number of how many Azm fighters it gets within a timeframe. So if the output is like 6 a year, then after a decade you would have 60 planes.

The R&D and industrial overhead will be incredibly expensive, so I don't think there'll be a low cap on the final number of jets, we'll probably manufacture it for decades to come.

I had a talk with a engineer working on azm in 2017 end , and he laughed when I said wouldn't it be better to have a single engine fifth gen ?
The thing is unless you can make a engine as powerful as the one the f35 has ( the f35 still has too many issues) , then it won't be a 5rh gen air craft, there are so many electronics you need to power, you need more speed to give next gen AAMs more kinetic energy for greater ranges , and besides such a costly investment, making a dual engine is like a insurance that should one engine fail , the craft can make it back alive, let alone the fact that it can carry more munitions and in the future when they're are on board direct energy weapons you would need more power for them,
Anyways as of end 2017 , the craft was to be a dual engine clean sheet design ( with Chinese influence and assistance ) , no other details for obvious reasons , and if it hasn't changed yet, then expect it to be this ,
And ofc take all I say with a pinch of salt , you hs e no reason to trust me ,

 

[Quwa]

I had a talk with a engineer working on azm in 2017 end , and he laughed when I said wouldn't it be better to have a single engine fifth gen ?
The thing is unless you can make a engine as powerful as the one the f35 has ( the f35 still has too many issues) , then it won't be a 5rh gen air craft, there are so many electronics you need to power, you need more speed to give next gen AAMs more kinetic energy for greater ranges , and besides such a costly investment, making a dual engine is like a insurance that should one engine fail , the craft can make it back alive, let alone the fact that it can carry more munitions and in the future when they're are on board direct energy weapons you would need more power for them,
Anyways as of end 2017 , the craft was to be a dual engine clean sheet design ( with Chinese influence and assistance ) , no other details for obvious reasons , and if it hasn't changed yet, then expect it to be this ,
And ofc take all I say with a pinch of salt , you hs e no reason to trust me ,

The big benefit of dual engine -- besides potential for more range and payload -- is that you (as @JamD said) could get engine commonality with the JF-17. So if you intend to have a future JF-17 variant with a next-gen engine, you can apply two of those engines to Azm. It'll be much costlier too, but if the future is to do a Hi/Lo of Azm and (for a lack of better term) 'JF-17 NG', then the 'JF-17 NG' is there to fill in gaps in case of Azm procurement issues.

But manufacturing two fighters is another question entirely, and it makes me wonder, if we go that route could we spin off the JF-17 to the private sector so that PAC focuses on Azm?

 

[JamD]

The issue isn't so much the final number of Azm fighters the PAF would have -- it could end up as 200+ over 40+ years for all we know; rather, it's the number of how many Azm fighters it gets within a timeframe. So if the output is like 6 a year, then after a decade you would have 60 planes.

The R&D and industrial overhead will be incredibly expensive, so I don't think there'll be a low cap on the final number of jets, we'll probably manufacture it for decades to come.

But manufacturing two fighters is another question entirely, and it makes me wonder, if we go that route could we spin off the JF-17 to the private sector so that PAC focuses on Azm?

I see. I suppose what I mean is what is the plan. For example for the JF-17 it was 150-250 all along. I can see the PAF going down two routes:
1. JF-17, JF-17NG (as you call it), Azm
2. JF-17, Azm

Option 1 can do with much fewer Azms in which case I would definitely make it into a twin engine. If it was option 2, I would be hesitant to do a twin engine Azm. In a way I can have twice as many JF-17s for every Azm I make.

As far as private sector is concerned, I don't even dream of these things anymore. You would have to convince some REALLY big business owner to invest which I am 99.99% sure we cannot.

 

[Army research]

The big benefit of dual engine -- besides potential for more range and payload -- is that you (as @JamD said) could get engine commonality with the JF-17. So if you intend to have a future JF-17 variant with a next-gen engine, you can apply two of those engines to Azm. It'll be much costlier too, but if the future is to do a Hi/Lo of Azm and (for a lack of better term) 'JF-17 NG', then the 'JF-17 NG' is there to fill in gaps in case of Azm procurement issues.

But manufacturing two fighters is another question entirely, and it makes me wonder, if we go that route could we spin off the JF-17 to the private sector so that PAC focuses on Azm?

Fingers crossed on the economy , with local production our labour force is very very cheap , and considering the news about jf17 exports are true , and picking up , trust me a 5th gen fighter made by us would pick up even more exports ,
Just hope we can actually get their and the civies actually some how fix the economy , Just imagine if over the next 10 years tax collection doubles , even if defence budget increases only by 75% , and there is no expansion of forces and numbers kept constant, means at a steady rate we could supplant f 16s by azm, roughly around 40-75 mil cost I assume ? Rough guess but just 10 a year with that kind of economy and 12-16 jf17s would be doable , plus exports

 

[The Eagle]

Excerpt from provided link. (It is Azm, though)

"The former Air Chief said that Pakistan has started work on 5th generation aircrafts that was a landmark development in aviation industry. He said that many decades were taken in developing design of F16 while our team as developed the design of Azam aircraft just within 2 years that showed great potential of our professional in aviation industry."

 

[Riz]

Excerpt from provided link. (It is Azm, though)

"The former Air Chief said that Pakistan has started work on 5th generation aircrafts that was a landmark development in aviation industry. He said that many decades were taken in developing design of F16 while our team as developed the design of Azam aircraft just within 2 years that showed great potential of our professional in aviation industry."

It means project AZM has nothing todo with China FC-31, and it will be completely different design then FC-31??

 

[The Eagle]

It means project AZM has nothing todo with China FC-31, and it will be completely different design then FC-31??

Allow me to play a little puzzle here. What is the timeline of FC-31 V2 which is totally different than V1 design wise?

However, we don't have any indication in favour of Azm being FC-31.

 

[Riz]

Allow me to play a little puzzle here. What is the timeline of FC-31 V2 which is totally different than V1 design wise?

However, we don't have any indication in favour of Azm being FC-31.

Sorry im not following FC-31 related threads... How ever sounds good that AZM will be our indigenous design.. I wish if we could invite private sectors to invest in this project like many nations are doing

 

[Maxpane]

Sorry im not following FC-31 related threads... How ever sounds good that AZM will be our indigenous design.. I wish if we could invite private sectors to invest in this project like many nations are doing

we are inviting them

 

[CHACHA"G"]

Allow me to play a little puzzle here. What is the timeline of FC-31 V2 which is totally different than V1 design wise?

However, we don't have any indication in favour of Azm being FC-31.

Dear brother : I agree with you but little difference Is …. My understanding says we will go for FC-31 V2 as our 5th Gen bird (AZM) then we will use this knowledge to develop our own Single engine 5th Gen (to replace F-16s ) One can call it JF-17NG (We will use Turkey help in this TF-X)..
Rest time will tell.

 

[The Eagle]

Dear brother : I agree with you but little difference Is …. My understanding says we will go for FC-31 V2 as our 5th Gen bird (AZM) then we will use this knowledge to develop our own Single engine 5th Gen (to replace F-16s ) One can call it JF-17NG (We will use Turkey help in this TF-X)..
Rest time will tell.

Pakistan do need a supplementary Jet between 4th Gen & 5th Gen. As per my understanding NGF be called like a 4.5++ Gen fighter to supplement 5th Gen as well as to be utilized in Medium to Heavy category especially front line air superiority jet. It may become more clearer as & when JF-17 Block-III is revealed along with its capabilities. The modern warfare definition in regard to Jet categories, is different in aspects as per doctrine of Air Forces. Like our NGF could be the 4.5++ Gen plane above to Block-III thunder and then a true 5th Gen Jet will be worked upon called AZM.

We can discuss and express analysis inspired by our own observations/understanding but on other hand, I ask my self that can we afford a fleet of Block-III + bring in NGF and then induct a 5th Gen plane as well. I mean, just look at our geographical depth/size to defend & our doctrine (Defensive). So I can also assume that we may carry on with JF-Block II, III or may be Block-IV (could be the NGF) & finally a stealth 5th Gen AZM. I am not including F-16 fleet along with other near retiring Planes because the subject is about AZM/NGF and category wise discussion.

This is merely my understanding at the moment and I can be totally or partially wrong and strategy could different.

JF-17 Block II to be upgraded close to III = 4th Gen
JF-17 Block III, further upgrades if needed = 4.5++ or
a medium to heavy Jet in = 4.5++ category (not sure).
This space (4.5++) seems undecided because till now JF-17 is light to medium category fighter while understanding of 4.5++ warrants medium to heavy category Jet so the JF-17 IV will be medium to heavy = NGF???
and then or may be
5th Gen Stealth = AZM is NGF (as per our size, need & economy).