PAF Future Acquisition Plans

[Pakistan First]

Priority should be to indigenously design an unmanned hypersonic nuclear capable jet.

The entire design needs to be in-house including the engine.

They should aim high, in the age of AI they have access to LLM's that can do the heavy lifting

Foreign publicly available LLMs won't do "heavy lifting" for your advanced military-grade engineering / solutions. No foreign publicly available LLM can be capable or trusted to aid in a sensitive national security project. Yes you can take help in small steps. But nowhere near "heavy lifting".

BTW, our hurdle isn't at that surface layer. Even if we have our own super advance AI. The problem is at hardware / industrial level. That's where we need dedication and finances. The supporting infra needs lot of finances. PAC / NASTP has limited capabilities to build a 4.5 gen with imported engines.

Getting into Fighterjet Engine domain solo would be a mistake at this stage. Partner with any other country. OR I would say just import the engines and focus at the other parts, the weapons, the sensors etc.

 

[user]

Have we deployed forum AI?

 

[Yasser76]

Priority should be to indigenously design an unmanned hypersonic nuclear capable jet.

The entire design needs to be in-house including the engine.

They should aim high, in the age of AI they have access to LLM's that can do the heavy lifting.

PAF also needs to create a Space Force division and begin research on drone warfare in space.

This is the issue, even if the in house design was there,, how many aircraft will the PAF actually buy? Anymore then 40? Will that be enough to justify a new project? Also exprts will be tough, its a very crowded market out there for advanced trainers.

Just not really feasible, although now with what happened to India last year, the Makkah pact and renewed Arab enthusiasm for the PAF, one may conceivably argue that Pakistan with its varied terrain, massive airspace, IP pool and CCS/Air Power centre would be in a good position to set up something very similar to ITTC in Canada or even NATO Joint Training centre at Shepard AFB.
Already there is a lot of cross training with Saudis and Turks at all levels (From PAF Academy to CCS), all three countries use MF-17 as basic/screener plane, so one could conceivably take this one step forward and have all 3 nations fund a base for this (Mianwali may be a good candidate here)

3-4 Squadrons of Hurjet. This can act as a place for spill over as even now Turks and Saudis have a shortage of IPs. In case of Saudis their large Hawk fleet is becoming quite old so they will be facing similar problem as PAF

 

[Michael]

My feeling is PAF will soldier on without a LIFT for some time. I know it is a different subject but also very inetresting F-22, F-35, J-20 and J-35 none have two seater training variants (J-20 2 seat being a specialised aircraft)
USAF is still, to this day, sending pilots from a T-38 to F-35 units. They must seem to think the simulators can now carry much of the burden, not saying LIFT concept is redundant, not at all, but many the major air forces with 5th Gen are either out sourcing or simply skipping the LIFT part to a very large extent, it may be that experiance is shwoing simulators may do the job.

Only issue with PAF is regardless of concept or philisophy in terms of advanced training, we have very old airframes in this role, but then again, so does USAF and it is coping (admittedly they have T-7 roadmap)

In pilot training, AJT (Advanced Jet Training) and LIFT (Lead-In Fighter Training) are effectively two distinct stages: the former focuses on general knowledge, while the latter emphasizes specialized, mission-specific training. In practice, however, many modern trainer aircraft integrate both AJT and LIFT capabilities into a single platform.
The PLA has long employed a "three-aircraft, three-stage" system, where AJT and LIFT are conducted on separate aircraft. In contrast, Western nations tend to favor a "two-aircraft, three-stage" system, combining AJT and LIFT into a single aircraft type.

When a nation's fighter fleet operates as a unified system, the "two-aircraft, three-stage" approach offers a superior, faster, and more cost-effective solution.

For PLA pilots flying fifth-generation fighters, the "two-aircraft, three-stage" system is the primary method; conversely, for pilots of fourth- and 4.5-generation fighters, the "three-aircraft, three-stage" system remains the preferred approach.

"Three-aircraft, three-stage" system: Basic trainer, advanced trainer, and twin-seat combat trainer (of the same type as the operational fighter), followed by direct transition to the operational fighter.​

"Two-aircraft, three-stage" system: Basic trainer and LIFT trainer, followed by direct transition to the operational fighter.​

For the Pakistan Air Force (PAF), there are indeed issues surrounding the procurement of dedicated Lead-In Fighter Trainer (LIFT) aircraft.

The JF-17 constitutes the bulk of its frontline fighter fleet. However, the availability of the JF-17B reduces the need for dedicated LIFT aircraft for this specific platform.

It is important to note that the simulation capabilities of LIFT aircraft are closely tied to the specific combat aircraft ecosystem they support. The JL-10/L-15 cannot effectively simulate Western-style fighters like the F-16 or KAAN, while the Hürjet cannot effectively simulate Chinese-style fighters such as the J-10CE or FC-31/J-35. When used for cross-system training, they essentially function as Advanced Jet Trainers (AJTs) rather than true LIFT aircraft.

While it is essential for the PAF to acquire AJTs, the necessity of procuring aircraft specifically for the LIFT role is a matter worth considering.

Many modern AJT aircraft can actually perform some of the LIFT training for fighter jets. This is a point that is easily misunderstood by the media.

 

[Yasser76]

In pilot training, AJT (Advanced Jet Training) and LIFT (Lead-In Fighter Training) are effectively two distinct stages: the former focuses on general knowledge, while the latter emphasizes specialized, mission-specific training. In practice, however, many modern trainer aircraft integrate both AJT and LIFT capabilities into a single platform.
The PLA has long employed a "three-aircraft, three-stage" system, where AJT and LIFT are conducted on separate aircraft. In contrast, Western nations tend to favor a "two-aircraft, three-stage" system, combining AJT and LIFT into a single aircraft type.

When a nation's fighter fleet operates as a unified system, the "two-aircraft, three-stage" approach offers a superior, faster, and more cost-effective solution.

For PLA pilots flying fifth-generation fighters, the "two-aircraft, three-stage" system is the primary method; conversely, for pilots of fourth- and 4.5-generation fighters, the "three-aircraft, three-stage" system remains the preferred approach.

"Three-aircraft, three-stage" system: Basic trainer, advanced trainer, and twin-seat combat trainer (of the same type as the operational fighter), followed by direct transition to the operational fighter.​

"Two-aircraft, three-stage" system: Basic trainer and LIFT trainer, followed by direct transition to the operational fighter.​

For the Pakistan Air Force (PAF), there are indeed issues surrounding the procurement of dedicated Lead-In Fighter Trainer (LIFT) aircraft.

The JF-17 constitutes the bulk of its frontline fighter fleet. However, the availability of the JF-17B reduces the need for dedicated LIFT aircraft for this specific platform.

It is important to note that the simulation capabilities of LIFT aircraft are closely tied to the specific combat aircraft ecosystem they support. The JL-10/L-15 cannot effectively simulate Western-style fighters like the F-16 or KAAN, while the Hürjet cannot effectively simulate Chinese-style fighters such as the J-10CE or FC-31/J-35. When used for cross-system training, they essentially function as Advanced Jet Trainers (AJTs) rather than true LIFT aircraft.

While it is essential for the PAF to acquire AJTs, the necessity of procuring aircraft specifically for the LIFT role is a matter worth considering.

Many modern AJT aircraft can actually perform some of the LIFT training for fighter jets. This is a point that is easily misunderstood by the media.

For sure a major issue for PAF right now is having to service dual Western/Chinese systems, but if things go fully down the JF-17C/J-10/J-35 route (not saying that is a certainty), then the problem will solve itself. I dont see PAF investing in anything for the future to service an increasingly old F-16 fleet. If KAAN is on the roadmap that is a different matter

 

[Michael]

For sure a major issue for PAF right now is having to service dual Western/Chinese systems, but if things go fully down the JF-17C/J-10/J-35 route (not saying that is a certainty), then the problem will solve itself. I dont see PAF investing in anything for the future to service an increasingly old F-16 fleet. If KAAN is on the roadmap that is a different matter

I am not going to weigh in on the PAF issue; it is too controversial.

Regarding the K-8: I am not sure how Pakistan classifies it, but its Chinese counterpart—the JL-8—is categorized in China as an intermediate trainer, whereas the JL-9 is classified as an AJT (Advanced Jet Trainer).

Based on this classification, the PAF indeed lacks an AJT for the relevant training requirements.

Under your proposed scenario, procuring the JL-10/L-15 would certainly be a sound choice. Of course, the Hürjet would also be a perfectly viable option if the requirement is simply for an AJT. However, if the requirement calls for both AJT and LIFT (Lead-In Fighter Trainer) capabilities, then the JL-10/L-15 stands as the only option. That said, I am not certain whether your line of thinking aligns with the PAF's decision-making.

 

[Yasser76]

I am not going to weigh in on the PAF issue; it is too controversial.

Regarding the K-8: I am not sure how Pakistan classifies it, but its Chinese counterpart—the JL-8—is categorized in China as an intermediate trainer, whereas the JL-9 is classified as an AJT (Advanced Jet Trainer).

Based on this classification, the PAF indeed lacks an AJT for the relevant training requirements.

Under your proposed scenario, procuring the JL-10/L-15 would certainly be a sound choice. Of course, the Hürjet would also be a perfectly viable option if the requirement is simply for an AJT. However, if the requirement calls for both AJT and LIFT (Lead-In Fighter Trainer) capabilities, then the JL-10/L-15 stands as the only option. That said, I am not certain whether your line of thinking aligns with the PAF's decision-making.

Yes, hard to know what the PAF is exactly thinking (although some on here will claim they do).

This got me thinking though, as technology developments and software advances, if you remove the language issue, will future 6th Gen US v Chinese be very different for pilots?

 

[Michael]

This got me thinking though, as technology developments and software advances, if you remove the language issue, will future 6th Gen US v Chinese be very different for pilots?

There are certainly significant differences between the two. But exactly where do those differences lie? It is hard to say right now.

My speculation is that China might release further details—or even officially unveil the sixth-generation fighter—around Army Day (August 1st) next year. However, some on Chinese social media even suggest that the aircraft could make an appearance at the Zhuhai Airshow this December.

Very little information has been publicly released regarding the United States' sixth-generation fighter jet; a physical prototype is still under development, making it difficult to speculate on the aircraft's specifics.

Based on the limited information currently available, there appear to be significant technical divergences between China and the U.S. regarding the development of sixth-generation fighters. However, it will be a long time before the actual results become clear.

 

[Yasser76]

There are certainly significant differences between the two. But exactly where do those differences lie? It is hard to say right now.

My speculation is that China might release further details—or even officially unveil the sixth-generation fighter—around Army Day (August 1st) next year. However, some on Chinese social media even suggest that the aircraft could make an appearance at the Zhuhai Airshow this December.

Very little information has been publicly released regarding the United States' sixth-generation fighter jet; a physical prototype is still under development, making it difficult to speculate on the aircraft's specifics.

Based on the limited information currently available, there appear to be significant technical divergences between China and the U.S. regarding the development of sixth-generation fighters. However, it will be a long time before the actual results become clear.

Yeah, I am thinking of it from a human interface perspective. Inevitably the capability of weapons and some tactics of both sides will converge. F-47 may have much in common with J-36 in those terms. This is not like the early 80s comparing a Chinese F-6 to US F-16, tech is similar or almost similar.

My point is 10 years from now, if one can change language and software will jumping into a Chinese plane be radically different from jumping to a US plane?

That has big implications for countries when considering LIFT/AJT

 

[Michael]

Yeah, I am thinking of it from a human interface perspective. Inevitably the capability of weapons and some tactics of both sides will converge. F-47 may have much in common with J-36 in those terms. This is not like the early 80s comparing a Chinese F-6 to US F-16, tech is similar or almost similar.

Based on currently available information, the F-47 and J-36 are fighter aircraft with completely different characteristics and operational roles. They belong to entirely different categories, so there is no basis for comparison regarding similarities.
Based on details released by the U.S. military, the F-47 remains classified as a heavy fighter. Although analysis of available information suggests it may be highly advanced, it does not transcend the heavy fighter category; its core tactical objective is to secure air superiority.
The J-36 fighter, however, clearly falls outside this category. It appears to be a military aircraft redefined by applying a "fighter mindset" to a "fighter-bomber airframe." Its core tactical objective is to strike high-value targets deep within the enemy's rear. ------ The tactical target positioning of the J-50 fighter jet is closer to that of the F-47.

The US military previously stated that the cost of the F-47 fighter would be lower than that of the F-22. This objective stands in stark contrast to China's goals for its sixth-generation fighters.
Current analysis and observations indicate that the costs of the J-36 and J-50 fighters will be significantly higher than those of any of China's fifth-generation fighters. Both aircraft feature a twin-seat configuration.
It appears that China's strategic approach is as follows:
1. System A: The J-50 provides frontline strike capabilities. It features vastly enhanced capabilities for the manned fighter itself (a factor directly driving up costs) and operates in tandem with large numbers of low-cost UCAVs to form a Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) combination.
2. System B: The J-36 is tasked with specialized penetration missions. It possesses all-aspect stealth capabilities and is designed for deep-penetration strikes, utilizing heavy, ultra-long-range missiles carried in its internal weapons bay (IWB) to directly engage high-value enemy targets.
These two systems coexist.
However, all manned sixth-generation fighters are—and will remain—extremely expensive, high-value weapon platforms. They will certainly not be cheaper than the J-20 or J-35!

 

[Falgrine]

Okay, tell me exactly what the PAF has said that states that the LIFT will not come before the NGFA.

We've established that AHQ said the LIFT will come before the FGFA. Yes, it was in 2019, but it was said, on the record, correct?

Now, tell me, on the record, where the PAF said the plan has changed.

Waiting.


I want proof the plan has changed. Show me.

Because, re: LIFT, we have (1) an ACM saying on the record that it will come before NGFA and (2) clear reports (e.g., @Trailer23 plus anyone who spoke to AVIC at IDEAS) of the L-15 being tested WITHIN Pakistan.

Now, show me, where did the PAF say the J-35AE is coming before LIFT.

L15 was tested by a QFI/F16 driver around 2 years ago at NurKhan.
Chinese at the back seat.

 

[Hussain]

PAF also needs to create a Space Force division and begin research on drone warfare in space.

There is a lot more going on in space, and we already have a "Directorate" for it.

 

[SBD-3]

Still no word on Additional J-10CE's? guess the PAF and I have one thing in common, we are both broke lol

I, too, expect the PAF to acquire more J-10CEs, but it seems the PAF may have placed its bigger bet on the PFX as its next workhorse fighter. My guesstimate for the J-10CE fleet is around 72 aircraft, enough to equip four squadrons, with two each deployed in the northern and southern sectors.

However, the PFX factor could significantly influence future procurement decisions. If the PFX is indeed intended to be an MMCRA (medium multirole combat aircraft), the PAF may prefer to make up for the eventual shortfalls in both the JF-17 Block III and J-10CE fleets through a larger PFX programme rather than significantly expanding J-10CE acquisitions.

The PFX could also offer the PAF an opportunity to pursue a more diversified technological approach, combining indigenous Pakistani development with Turkish systems integration and Chinese technologies. Such a programme would potentially provide greater flexibility in shaping the PAF's future force structure while gradually increasing domestic capabilities and reducing dependence on a single foreign supplier. Much will ultimately depend on the PFX's development timeline, projected costs, and how ambitious the PAF intends to be with its requirements.

 

[hussain0216]

I, too, expect the PAF to acquire more J-10CEs, but it seems the PAF may have placed its bigger bet on the PFX as its next workhorse fighter. My guesstimate for the J-10CE fleet is around 72 aircraft, enough to equip four squadrons, with two each deployed in the northern and southern sectors.

However, the PFX factor could significantly influence future procurement decisions. If the PFX is indeed intended to be an MMCRA (medium multirole combat aircraft), the PAF may prefer to make up for the eventual shortfalls in both the JF-17 Block III and J-10CE fleets through a larger PFX programme rather than significantly expanding J-10CE acquisitions.

The PFX could also offer the PAF an opportunity to pursue a more diversified technological approach, combining indigenous Pakistani development with Turkish systems integration and Chinese technologies. Such a programme would potentially provide greater flexibility in shaping the PAF's future force structure while gradually increasing domestic capabilities and reducing dependence on a single foreign supplier. Much will ultimately depend on the PFX's development timeline, projected costs, and how ambitious the PAF intends to be with its requirements.

Is PFX still a thing?

 

[Berseker]

Is PFX still a thing?

It seems like it’s under development, I hope it turns out like KF-21, I want Pakistan to have a stealthy sexy Jet, although JF-17 is cool, but it’s ugly in appearance.