I want to play the devil's advocate here:
1. Manpower: Physical humans exist, yes. People with requisite skills and knowledge, no. I know I keep repeating the Turkish Aerospace example ad nauseam but it is a good example and one I know well. Look at how much more developed their human resource is than us. And yet they felt the need to get BAE folks to help on Ka'an. Also, I can tell you that the majority of the Turkish people working on Ka'an had experience working on Hurjet and Hurkus. Unfortunately, we don't have such human resource. The people that worked in China on the JF-17 were few and have long since retired (early or natural).
2. Computational infrastructure: Again, you are underestimating the amount of compute time needed. I actually interfaced with the NUST HPC and the TA HPC. You essentially need a ridiculously large HPC that is dedicated to you. Those HPCs were really bad for "us" because we were constantly in lines waiting for our jobs to run. If the CFD you need tomorrow, takes three weeks in line then you are basically screwed. If you were starting an aircraft program, you better have a dedicated high capacity HPC. Pakistan would have to make one for PFX. The current HPCs are used for various other things and are running over capacity if anything.
3.Windtunnels: We have very few and they aren't instrumented well enough due to the restrictions on Pakistan. Again sorry to bring in TA example but for Ka'an they reached out to every wind tunnel on the planet (even us) because you need so much WT time and data. And they have and have built some really nice WTs locally too. So you can't expect to run a fighter program with 3-4 poorly equipped WTs.
4. Machining: You need mass precision machining. We do have machines at AMF that were imported for the JF-17. This is the thing that we do have. Capacity might be a bottle neck here because those CNC centers are few.
5. Surface treatment: This is well established in PAC.
6. Composite manufacture: You can make composites in your garage if you wanted. But they won't be aerospace grade composites. I know for a fact the quality issues that SPD orgs face with respect to composite parts. Tolerances and strength and repeatability are terrible. These things are acceptable for UAVs. But these parts are not fit for actual aircraft. You need very large autoclaves and carefully controlled environments. You need layup machines. Now PAC is in the process of establishing such a facility but like all things, it is a weirdly broken endeavor where they are doing lots of things wrong that will greatly limit the capacity of what they are about to establish. Basically, the knowledge on how to make aerospace grade composites does NOT exist in Pakistan - let alone the infrastructure for it.
7. CAD/CAM: I think of that as machining so discussed already.
8. Digital Design: Sure yes. But this relates to 1. It is quite easy to design something on a computer. But only experience tells you what you should really be desiging on a computer.
The other advanced things you listed shouldn't even be priority. First you need to fix all of the above.
9. System design: Again, this relates to 1. We don't have the knowhow to design a system as complicated as a jet. A UAV is MUUUCH simpler than a jet.
10. Software capability: Yes, we do have the ability to create software. But this capacity would need to be expanded and refined relating to point 1. Firstly, you need a LOT of people to develop code for an aircraft. Every single system has code. Then you also need this code to conform to aerospace standards - you need experts for this. Then you also need to develop code based on experience developing code for aerospace systems - I don't know if we have people with such experience - maybe we do, maybe we don't.
11. Board design. Yes.
12. Harness. Yes.
13. Electro optics: Yes but very limited. There's a lot of room for improvement.
14. Chip design. Sure.
I think more important than what you have listed is what you have not listed.
1. Certification and testing facilities: Each and every single structural part down from the coupon level to entire assemblies to aircraft is tested under all kinds of loads. You need entire setups that do this sort of testing using specialized, large, and expensive machines. We have no such facility or even the knowledge of such things.
2. Control system design expertise: You need full control of your flight-control system stack and you can't be treating it like the holy-magic-that-cant-be-toched. You need this control so you can do modifications (including stores) at will. Unfortunately, Pakistan has a dearth of controls people because PAF babbus only ever specialized in structures or aerodynamics (not that they have any real-world design experience in that either) and any civilians left the country or some were absorbed by SPD orgs. The ones absorbed by SPD orgs were dumbed down and the very few that resisted that specialized in UAVs and missiles, which are much simpler than aircraft when it comes to control. This also relates to human resource again - you need controls people experienced in the developing of control systems for actual aircraft. It is not as trivial a task as some people might be thinking here.
3. Data fusion expertise: Again this relates to HR but what I mean is the ability to combine ALL of the systems into a single aircraft computer. For example, radar tracks need to be correlated with EOTS tracks, and this information may need to be given to the targetting computer. All of this data fusion requires some very specific expertise, which is definitely not present in Pakistan. Just installing an AESA radar is not enough - you need the aircraft to be able to use it to track and target enemy aircraft efficiently, do jamming, also link with data-link, interface with missile-warning sensors. Lots of software things are behind what make great AESA radars great - not just having the hardware. This is primarily where Pakistan's AESA radar and AN/APG81 would be different. What I mean is that if you gave Pakistan's hardware to Northrup Grumman, they would come up with software that would make your radar murder its competition.
There are very likely many many more things that I cannot possibly remember or list. The point is that you need an entire ecosystem that takes decades to develop. You start simple and slowly build your capability - like TA has over decades. It is quite unrealistic to get everything in 6 years, when you basically have very surface level capabilities. Sorry to be such a Debbie Downer but sometimes realism gets lost on this forum and the things I talk about are only appreciable once you analyze things with a little more patience and a fine comb.
Oh, this is extremely rare fine reply content for this thread. Very good!
You mentioned a lot of conditions and content that are technical in nature, and I'd like to add one very important condition.
A stable environment.
A stable political environment. The various political forces within Pakistan (including the various political parties and the military) must agree on this issue. That is, no matter how much the various political forces fight among themselves, they must not get involved in any issue concerning the PAC.
Stable human environment: the PAC maintains a high degree of political independence and neutrality, and all PAC personnel are prohibited from engaging in any political activities during working hours and at their workplaces. Political influence is completely downplayed.
Stable economic environment. This refers mainly to the economic component related to the PAC.
If interested, Pakistani friends can go through it. How China's “Two Bombs and One Star Program” was developed during the “Chinese Cultural Revolution”.
If I were in control I would do the following:
1. Remove PAC from PAF management. PAF is a fighting force and has no business running an R&D setup that we are envisioning PAC to be. Alternatively, you can downsize PAC to just maintenance and overhaul and shift the R&D setup to a differently managed organization. Lets call it PACE (PAC efficient lol). The board of directors of PACE will still include PAF high command BUT it will also include civilian managers and PAF officers will have no place PACE. If they want to work there they must leave the PAF first.
2. PACE will be laser focused on projects and will not be working on different 10 things every 3 years. I would suggest starting off with a UCAV in the category of a loyal wingman. Just focus on this program for at least 5-10 years and build amazing capacity for it.
3. Then maybe after 10 years PACE can think abou a PFX type fleet-builder.
4. And maybe 15-20 years later PACE can think about a 6th gen aircraft in collab with Turkiye and/or China.
This is a very interesting topic. I may try to get involved. But please ignore my Chinese identity for now. I will just analyze this topic from my personal point of view.
If I were in control I would do the following:
Setp 1. After ensuring a sufficiently stable environment, consolidate all relevant industries and assets in Pakistan into the PAC and ensure that the PAC is self-sustaining and economically balanced. ------ i.e., PAC no longer needs any government investment or subsidies.
Setp 2. Reorganize PAC into an international aerospace industry group to attract foreign investors. Pakistan is the majority shareholder but not controlling. A better share structure would be:
Pakistan 40%. all PAC assets in shares.
AVIC 30%. Equity with sufficient talent, technology, research facilities
Saudi 20%. Sufficient cash for equity participation.
Other 10%. Cash equity participation. Priority to invite future target customers to join.
The new company may have a Pakistani name, but it is not advisable to use the word “Pakistan” directly. The new company will have its headquarters and R&D organization in Pakistan, but will have branches in other parts of the world.
As for TAI. Between TAI and AVIC, Pakistan can only choose one or the other. Of course, Pakistan could also partner with TAI in another separate joint venture. Or just replace AVIC with TAI.
As indigenous as we hope to make it, there is still the issue of the engine. Any indication which engine will be chosen? Perhaps as the J-35A makes it into the PAF inventory c China would be willing to allow its engine to be used on this otherwise hopefully mostly indigenous project.
I mentioned in another thread that Pakistan has been given an updated WS-21 engine. I am not sure of its exact purpose and use.
