PAF Future Acquisition Plans

[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.