SAC’s YF-23 counterpart, J-20’s lost rival design “Snow Owl” revealed | Page 6 | World Defense

SAC’s YF-23 counterpart, J-20’s lost rival design “Snow Owl” revealed

Khafee

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
11,133
Reactions
114 21,093 1,066
Country
Saudi Arabia
Location
Saudi Arabia
sir im not referring to this particular statement. but a lot of people have this view in their heads that pakistan can pull such a thing on its own.
no big deal, we all know, PAF will manage IA.
 

AliYusuf

THINK TANK: ANALYST
Joined
Aug 22, 2019
Messages
384
Reactions
3 1,268 42
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
So basically J10 A is not FC 20?
So FC 20 is either J10 B or J10C?
If you can expand on this. Thanks you.
Not sure, as I don't exactly know the list of modifications requested by the PAF on the basic J-10A to the Chinese ... so cannot say whether J-10B fulfills PAF's requirements or J-10C does.
 
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Messages
31
Reactions
79
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Recent project azam shot on twitter!!!!
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20200710-023739_Twitter.jpg
    Screenshot_20200710-023739_Twitter.jpg
    171.4 KB · Views: 42

Khafee

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
11,133
Reactions
114 21,093 1,066
Country
Saudi Arabia
Location
Saudi Arabia

Counter-Errorist

THINK TANK
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
981
Reactions
3 2,500 136
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Thanx for tagging honestly not impressed by this design and esp with presence of canard
This was an initial design on paper. Since then, the J-31 has made it past prototype. If we had picked up this rejected design early on, there could have been significant design changes since. Also seeing as how we are able to borrow J-20 tech into JF-17, we could have been taught some lessons on how to mitigate the RCS penalty of canards.
 

Counter-Errorist

THINK TANK
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
981
Reactions
3 2,500 136
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Thanx for tagging honestly not impressed by this design and esp with presence of canard
If they do go with this design, it would be mean they are looking for a low-flying penetrator rather than a high-flying mothership model. This design specifically focuses on a high angle of attack. A high alpha would be useful in dogfights and avoiding SAMs in the mountains. If that were the case, I would agree with you, thoroughly disappointing.
 

Thorough Pro

MEMBER
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
125
Reactions
312 6
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Read the last line of the post you quoted in your message.


people will keep saying whatever comes to their mind about AZM that its indigenous and blah blah blah... but problem is we cant even build a 4th gen fighter on our own how is it possible to build fifth gen fighter without having an industrial base and limited resources.
P.S; im no defense expert but im not dumb either.
 

Thorough Pro

MEMBER
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
125
Reactions
312 6
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you agreeing with my post or disagreeing?
Anyways you made your point, I did mine, we don't have to convince each other, lets move on.



Acquiring FC-31 doesn’t give us training, Developing AZM alongside a bit of Chinese help gives us many advantages, Like you said, We get experience and train a new gen of engineers.

Chinese act as a catalyst, They have some Design sheets which were never implemented, Could be used, Thus saving time. Plus, China has infrastructure ready to test and develop a Fighter, PAC falls short heavily on that.
 

TomCat

THINK TANK
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Messages
1,612
Reactions
3 4,308 138
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you agreeing with my post or disagreeing?
Anyways you made your point, I did mine, we don't have to convince each other, lets move on.
Not agreeing yet not disagreeing, point of debate is the first statement of yours
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Messages
380
Reactions
10 1,382 60
Country
USA
Location
USA
That “Indigenous” isn’t possible in a decade while PAF wants to fly it before a decade.

Plus, the mentality of PAF is to save TIME as well as Money, Why would they go for a total clean sheet by themselves when Chinese with experience and possible worked out Premature designs are available.
Acquiring FC-31 doesn’t give us training, Developing AZM alongside a bit of Chinese help gives us many advantages, Like you said, We get experience and train a new gen of engineers.

Chinese act as a catalyst, They have some Design sheets which were never implemented, Could be used, Thus saving time. Plus, China has infrastructure ready to test and develop a Fighter, PAC falls short heavily on that.
PAF wouldn't make the decision to do EVERYTHING from A-Z for Azm NGF by itself. Due to Pak's limitations it would turn out to be a disaster worse than Tejas...
...by the time each objective would be met the world would have moved on to something better. It will be a constant moving of goal posts and the whole project would become a blackhole sucking up massive funds.

On the other hand...PAF wouldn't be buying something completely off the shelf from China, painting a Pakistani flag on it and calling it Azm NGF. This would be a step backwards...after having developed(together with the Chinese) JF17.

PAF isn't stupid...if we(average civilians) can think of such things...then so can they. IMO it would be something akin to the JF17 program...as in a joint effort. Pak will use it as an opportunity to further develop some indigenous capabilities while recognizing its shortcomings(and just acquiring those things from China).

The above is my opinion

As for on topic discussion...I'm curious as to why SAC chose a single engine design considering that they have long been producing flankers(twin engine)...and TBH for a country like China a twin engine 5th gen makes way more sense than a single engine.
 
Last edited:
Top