Project Azm News & Discussion | Page 3 | World Defense

Project Azm News & Discussion

Armchair

MEMBER
Joined
Sep 21, 2019
Messages
457
Reactions
1,576 56
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
If let's say we take F16 sized aircraft...and add internal weapons bays...wouldn't that make it larger?

Not as fat obviously(as the F35)...but more expansive at the fuselage. I'm expecting an internal weapons bay like the one at the belly of J31(which can carry 4 A2A missiles)...that's at the minimum...if we ignore the two side bays. I'm having difficulty imagining a 5th gen with internal weapons bay that can be a lot smaller than a J31 in size...
...IMO it will be roughly around the size in terms of the fuselage...idk whatever the rest of the design may be.
I would suggest just 2 PL-15 missiles to be carried internally, would be perfect for a singl WS-10 / WS-15 engined fighter.

J-31 is based on F-35, and shares its flaws and faults to some degree. And with a much inferior thrust arrangement.
 

Armchair

MEMBER
Joined
Sep 21, 2019
Messages
457
Reactions
1,576 56
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
I do see ur point...so if Pak instead builds an air superiority fifth gen...what would serve as an F35 analogue? Or should it be F22 analogue(Azm NGF) and F15(stealthy-ish) analogue(some 4++ gen) multirole fighter?
I think Pak only needs an air superiority fifth gen aircraft. Sure, it can play some role in A2G just as F-15 and F-22 can. Putting two ARMs instead of PL-15s is easy. The brunt of the ground pounding can be done by Mirages, JF-17s, F-7PGs, JH-7As.
 
Last edited:

Armchair

MEMBER
Joined
Sep 21, 2019
Messages
457
Reactions
1,576 56
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
An interesting concept design I just saw on the internet.

 
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Messages
371
Reactions
10 1,368 60
Country
USA
Location
USA
An interesting concept art I found on the internet about Project Azm.
View attachment 15364
Credit: https://twitter.com/123jee786
This post is more a fanboy wish than anything else.

These two concepts above hold some potential with slight modifications. I would pick the side intakes of the 1st model rather than the bottom intake of the 2nd concept(I read somewhere that bottom intakes are less stealthy...not sure how accurate that statement is but considering that all 5th gen so far have had side intakes...seems like a safer bet to stick with tried and true designs). From the second design the twin canted vertical stabilizers are better than the single vertical stabilizer on the 1st model.
--> Single engine design...lower cost(as compared to twin engine design).

WS15 has been in development for a while now...as per rumors it's undergoing testing...and they are still working on increasing it's thrust. So that means that Azm NGF can be designed taking into account the dimensions and other technical information of the WS15. For now decoupling the engine with the Azm NGF program(both run simultaneously at their own pace). By the time Azm NGF moves to the stage where the first prototype needs to be built(quite a few years from now)...WS15 would be far enough along to test in a prototype. By the time Azm NGF is ready to go into production...WS15 would definitely be ready.
--> WS15 will be mass produced by China for J20 and any other jets they may produce bcuz it will be their best upcoming engine. Such mass production would help lower cost. The same applies to WS10 currently...but if Azm NGF is built for WS15...it definitely wouldn't be underpowered and will be more future proof(for upgrades/add ons).

Other things that I don't see as crucial for Azm NGF...where PAF can cut costs is supercruise capability. Supercruise is generally associated with a 5th gen fighter jet...but in case of India/Pak...it is not extremely crucial.

Moreover for stealth...if the stealth coatings haven't progressed enough to the point where they are cheaper and less maintenance prone...then Azm NGF should entirely skip or make minimal use of stealth coatings(only on surfaces that really need it). Instead rely on achieving stealth through shaping and use of composites(the kind of composites as much as possible. Though composites are also expensive...but over the lifetime of the aircraft its a lot less costly as compared to RAM coatings(as far as I know).

@Armchair any other ideas of lowering cost of Azm NGF?
 

BATMAN

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
1,171
Reactions
5 1,192 35
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I would suggest just 2 PL-15 missiles to be carried internally, would be perfect for a singl WS-10 / WS-15 engined fighter.

J-31 is based on F-35, and shares its flaws and faults to some degree. And with a much inferior thrust arrangement.
Beyond certain range BVR missiles loose their efficacy.
IMO, around 100 km radius, kill rate ratio would be much higher as compare to anything around 150km.
Long range add weight to the missile, long travel allows more time for counter measures and maneuvers for the target.
IMO, future generation aircraft would be having designs with less drag, high TWR, low wing loading, would carry smart weapons, e.g. laser and electro magnetic guns, smart ECM. Next level communication and sensors.
 

Armchair

MEMBER
Joined
Sep 21, 2019
Messages
457
Reactions
1,576 56
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
Hi @Cookie Monster

Regarding ideas on lowering costs - I would say going with a simple delta like a Mirage 2000 would be the lowest cost option structurally, while maintaining relative performance and stealth. DSI intakes obviously lowers costs.

Keeping to a largely aluminum body would also lower costs. Having a common engine for Azm, J-10, JH-7, J-15, and having MRO facilities, with perhaps even building of spare parts would also lower costs.

Building a very low cost "JF-17 Lite", with a local simplified copy of the RD-93 (using steel and aluminum mostly), lightening the airframe to only 4G-5G capability, would give you a very low cost LIFT. This would allow you to lower costs of all PAF / PNAF assets if the pilots are made to keep their flight hours partially on these Lite LIFT.

So for instance a PN-AF J-15 pilot, let us suppose he needs 200 hrs a year to keep himself fluent. He could get simulator training for 100 hours, LIFT training for 50 hours and only 50 hours a year on the actual platform. This would mean that the large and expensive platforms would become very cheap to operate.
 
Top