What's new

JF-17B Updates, News & Discussion

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
5,888
73
22,970
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
IMO this would not bring any thing new to PAF. Because the 40% that is imported for the JF-17 consist of engine and associated systems.


Just a thought that PAF has been rebuilding the Mirage III and V's for the past 30 years so we must have a similar project too with F-7's and JF-17.

If you are saying that PAF lacks this capability then how did PAF rebuild the SAAB 2000 without any hep from the Original Manufacturer who had declared it as write off ?
Re: the F-7P/PGs and Mirages, we still rely on the OEM for critical inputs.

For example, the SLEP we've done on the Mirage III/5s came thanks to aerostructures (e.g., wings) from other airframes. As for the Saab 2000 repairs, it was a mix of local inputs (e.g., cabling work) and, again, using aerostructures from written-off or surplus airframes from other places.

We don't have jigs for any of these aircraft to suddenly go and manufacture their parts -- so the parts are obviously coming from other sources. That said, we learned a lot about how each of these airframes work, especially the Saab 2000. The PAF took the initiative to figure that aircraft out and design its repair order independently of the OEM. However, even with an in-house 'design' we still needed to import inputs.

The Israeli's were able to steal the research and designs of the Mirage III and V to produce the Nesher and KFIR. No one was able to enforce any paneities for this.

What IF PAF decided to manufacture with new composites and modified variant of the Mirage III or V similar to what the Iranians are doing continuously with the F-5 and AH-1 Cobra helicopters.

Install the RD33 engine to this aircraft, production research and manpower cost would be low as we already have trained man power for the Mirages. Composites and the design modifications would lower the RCS of these aircraft. You have a cost effective solution also the older frames of mirage can be retrofitted by these composites and PAF would have increased the production capabilities on a scale not seen so far in Pakistan.
Once you develop the capacity to undertake design, development, and manufacturing, you can move onto exactly that next step. If we had taken the J-10 path with the goal of a local sustainment (where we design a repair or upgrade, produce its inputs, and implement it independently), we could potentially have built the infrastructure to design our own fighter.

It could start off as an experimental platform using whatever we find off-the-shelf (e.g., RD-93 engines, or Grifo radars, etc). We use the experimental to learn flight control tech, more about airframe design, etc, and then move onto a proper next-gen platform.

Brother what have South Africa produced? They procured JAS39's and those too are mostly grounded.
Don't confuse the South Africa of today with the South Africa of the 1980s. The South Africa of the 1980s designed and implemented a total upgrade of the Mirage III/5 -- i.e., Cheetah. It then designed and built a heavyweight attack helicopter (Rooivalk). It also developed the Raptor-I and Raptor-II SOWs -- i.e., the H-2 and H-4 we use in the PAF today -- and may have helped us with our cruise missile program. Towards the end of the Apartheid-era, they were developing their own fighter -- Carver.

Though their defence industry waned, their R&D base is still strong, e.g., CSIR. We can learn a lot.

This statement of yours contradicts PAF stance J-10 do not bring any thing new to what JF-17 has brought.

Moreover you tend to say that JF-17 project has not provided PAF to build indigenous fighter aircraft.

I know you did not intend this but it surely points to this.

If PAF needs something new then, ask Turkey as they have the experience of producing composite structures for the F-35 fuse that with what the Chinese RAM on JF-17 design. This Aircraft would not be 100% stealth but 4.8 gen.
This idea, "J-10 do not bring any thing new to what JF-17 has brought" is not the PAF's stance, it is the view of individual -- and now retired -- PAF officers. The PAF's stance comes from the CAS.

In 2007, ACM Tanvir Mahmood Ahmad said the PAF wants a "Plus One" fighter to complement the F-16 and JF-17, and that they selected the FC-20 (aka J-10A).

In 2017, ACM Sohail Aman said the PAF needs another fighter, and it has Chinese and Russian options. In 2016, the PAF told IHS Jane's that it wanted 30-40 new aircraft, and that the Su-35 and J-10 were options.

In 2020, ACM Mujahid Anwar Khan said if the situation calls for it, the PAF would acquire another fighter type. When there literally is no other type available to the PAF, he was clearly talking about the J-10CE.

Secondly, don't confuse the expertise to manufacture a fighter -- which we gained from the JF-17 -- with the expertise to design and develop one. These are two totally different concepts.

Yes, with the JF-17, the PAF learned a lot about the process of manufacturing fighters -- e.g., supply chain controls, acquiring jigs (and maybe even designing and building jigs), quality controls, etc.

However, design and development moves into actually creating inputs, such as flight control systems, or composite materials, or electronics such as radar and avionics, and so on.

The PAF didn't learn much about these areas through the JF-17. The proof is in the pudding. You need to invest billions of dollars into these areas over at least 10-15 years to see results -- there's no record of the investment or output.

The PAF itself was happy with this because the goal was to get enough fighters to beat on India. As @SQ8 had said several times on the forum, "it doesn't matter where it comes from, as long as it strikes who we need it to strike" (or along those lines). On this basis, the JF-17 is adequate -- as is al-Khalid, Shaheen, etc.

However, don't confuse that benefit with the benefit of R&D.

The latter is a whole other ballgame, and it's not one Pakistan's been playing (aside from the nuclear program, which was a huge exception because we built a lot of expertise and capacity before developing our weapons).
Many thanks for this. I've previously cursorily read about both A-5 and F-6, but somehow never realized they were twin engine aircrafts!

Nevertheless, we don't have recent operational experience, and certainly not with any modern twin engine jets. Both the A-5 and F-6 were 50s/60s designs which makes them 3rd gen.
The issue isn't twin-engine. Rather, the issue is that the PAF never operated a fighter with a MTOW north of 30,000 kg (which -- bar the F-35 -- are all twinsies). IMHO, the design goal of AZM is exactly such a fighter, i.e., a long-range attack and maritime ops-capable warbird.
 
Last edited:

CriticalThought

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 10, 2016
6,858
16
7,188
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
Re: the F-7P/PGs and Mirages, we still rely on the OEM for critical inputs.

For example, the SLEP we've done on the Mirage III/5s came thanks to aerostructures (e.g., wings) from other airframes. As for the Saab 2000 repairs, it was a mix of local inputs (e.g., cabling work) and, again, using aerostructures from written-off or surplus airframes from other places.
That contradicts what PAC engineers said in a televised interview. Structural engineers at PAC rebuilt the missing airframe from scratch, ensuring millimeter level accuracy.
We don't have jigs for any of these aircraft to suddenly go and manufacture their parts -- so the parts are obviously coming from other sources. That said, we learned a lot about how each of these airframes work, especially the Saab 2000. The PAF took the initiative to figure that aircraft out and design its repair order independently of the OEM. However, even with an in-house 'design' we still needed to import inputs.
It has been my assumption that these inputs were electronics and avionics, not the airframe.
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
5,888
73
22,970
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
That contradicts what PAC engineers said in a televised interview. Structural engineers at PAC rebuilt the missing airframe from scratch, ensuring millimeter level accuracy.


It has been my assumption that these inputs were electronics and avionics, not the airframe.
I saw that exact interview.

You can check, but they said:
  • Saab assessed the damage, said they were write-offs
  • AHQ tasked A.C Safdar to lead an in-house assessment
  • A.C. Safdar said the PAF created its own repair plan
  • The PAF showed its plan to Saab, and Saab was positive about it
  • The main indigenous input was the new wiring (via Aircraft Rebuild Factory)
  • Besides learning about the Saab 2000, the other gain was testing and certification
Fact that we could design our own repair plan was huge. It means we have the potential to be a repair site and integrator -- so, ideally, PAC should take up the PN's LRMPA program. IMHO, they have the competency to do it, albeit with some collaboration with a more experienced party (for hardpoint integration and testing, cutting the airframe, etc). It's a hugely valuable get.

However, we're not producing aerostructures for the Saab 2000, at least not yet ;)
 
Last edited:

CriticalThought

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 10, 2016
6,858
16
7,188
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
Once you develop the capacity to undertake design, development, and manufacturing, you can move onto exactly that next step. If we had taken the J-10 path with the goal of a local sustainment (where we design a repair or upgrade, produce its inputs, and implement it independently), we could potentially have built the infrastructure to design our own fighter.
We have exactly that with JF-17. The machining capabilities can now be leveraged to build any aerospace structures we need, that can be machined with the available equipment.

It could start off as an experimental platform using whatever we find off-the-shelf (e.g., RD-93 engines, or Grifo radars, etc). We use the experimental to learn flight control tech, more about airframe design, etc, and then move onto a proper next-gen platform.
I don't know why PAC's inability to develop flight control software comes up so often. They have said clearly that the entire control software for JF-17B is indigenous.

This idea, "J-10 do not bring any thing new to what JF-17 has brought" is not the PAF's stance, it is the view of individual -- and now retired -- PAF officers. The PAF's stance comes from the CAS.

In 2007, ACM Tanvir Mahmood Ahmad said the PAF wants a "Plus One" fighter to complement the F-16 and JF-17, and that they selected the FC-20 (aka J-10A).

In 2017, ACM Sohail Aman said the PAF needs another fighter, and it has Chinese and Russian options. In 2016, the PAF told IHS Jane's that it wanted 30-40 new aircraft, and that the Su-35 and J-10 were options.

In 2020, ACM Mujahid Anwar Khan said if the situation calls for it, the PAF would acquire another fighter type. When there literally is no other type available to the PAF, he was clearly talking about the J-10CE.
That doesn't mean that J-10 brings something new, it simply means we are unable to get the new things on F-16, whereas J-10 comes with no restrictions. And given the wide difference between Su-35 and J-10, it is obvious PAF would go for the Flanker and J-10 is the second choice.

Secondly, don't confuse the expertise to manufacture a fighter -- which we gained from the JF-17 -- with the expertise to design and develop one. These are two totally different concepts.

Yes, with the JF-17, the PAF learned a lot about the process of manufacturing fighters -- e.g., supply chain controls, acquiring jigs (and maybe even designing and building jigs), quality controls, etc.

However, design and development moves into actually creating inputs, such as flight control systems, or composite materials, or electronics such as radar and avionics, and so on.
Design and development of aircrafts means designing new airframes that push the envelope by exploiting advances in materials, electronics, and mechanics. These advancements can come from a local R&D base, or can be accessed from the international market. Today, we need the ability to import those advancements and design something locally. The larger R&D base can come next. Otherwise you fall into the Tejas trap, and that must be avoided at all costs.

The PAF didn't learn much about these areas through the JF-17. The proof is in the pudding. You need to invest billions of dollars into these areas over at least 10-15 years to see results -- there's no record of the investment or output.
And you wouldn't have gotten that if you went the J-10 route. As a matter of fact, given the economies of scale that China needed, and the absolute lack of any aerospace manufacturing in Pakistan, China wouldn't have endangered its key project by putting PAC into the supply chain, thus introducing an uncontrolled variable. It is disingenuous and naive to think China would give R&D share to PAC in early 2000s for the J-10 projects.

The issue isn't twin-engine. Rather, the issue is that the PAF never operated a fighter with a MTOW north of 30,000 kg (which -- bar the F-35 -- are all twinsies). IMHO, the design goal of AZM is exactly such a fighter, i.e., a long-range attack and maritime ops-capable warbird.
Both MTOW, and modern twin engines bring their own set of challenges. And PAF has no experience with either.
I saw that exact interview.

You can check, but they said:
  • Saab assessed the damage, said they were write-offs
  • AHQ tasked A.C Safdar to lead an in-house assessment
  • A.C. Safdar said the PAF created its own repair plan
  • The PAF showed its plan to Saab, and Saab was positive about it
  • The main indigenous input was the new wiring (via Aircraft Rebuild Factory)
  • Besides learning about the Saab 2000, the other gain was testing and certification
Fact that we could design our own repair plan was huge. It means we have the potential to be a repair site and integrator -- so, ideally, PAC should take up the PN's LRMPA program. IMHO, they have the competency to do it, albeit with some collaboration with a more experienced party (for hardpoint integration and testing, cutting the airframe, etc).

However, we're not producing aerostructures for the Saab 2000, at least not yet ;)
Why am I recalling a yellow painted Saab which signifies freshly produced airframe parts integrated into the airframe? Saab wouldn't produce them for us, and there is no history of us buying discarded Saab airframes.
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
5,888
73
22,970
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
We have exactly that with JF-17. The machining capabilities can now be leveraged to build any aerospace structures we need, that can be machined with the available equipment.
Don't you need customized jigs as well? Do we have those for the Saab 2000?

I don't know why PAC's inability to develop flight control software comes up so often. They have said clearly that the entire control software for JF-17B is indigenous.
Can you point me to where you read/heard this?

And you wouldn't have gotten that if you went the J-10 route. As a matter of fact, given the economies of scale that China needed, and the absolute lack of any aerospace manufacturing in Pakistan, China wouldn't have endangered its key project by putting PAC into the supply chain, thus introducing an uncontrolled variable. It is disingenuous and naive to think China would give R&D share to PAC in early 2000s for the J-10 projects.
Perhaps, but we had more leverage to ask in the 1980s and 1990s. Today, we probably won't even get a shot at a wholly custom aircraft from China anymore; we'd have to buy a stock solution (e.g., see VT4, Z-10ME, 054A/P, etc offers). So, times change, and the times in the past likely allowed for bigger asks.
Why am I recalling a yellow painted Saab which signifies freshly produced airframe parts integrated into the airframe? Saab wouldn't produce them for us, and there is no history of us buying discarded Saab airframes.
Question is, did PAC say it manufactured aerostructures?
 

CriticalThought

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 10, 2016
6,858
16
7,188
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
Don't you need customized jigs as well? Do we have those for the Saab 2000?
A 'jig' is a piece of equipment to hold together various airframe parts so they can be integrated. By using creativity and good planning, you can use cranes/scaffolding or any other mechanical device to hold together parts, especially if it is a once off endeavor. When an aircraft is going through initial testing and development, do you think they make custom jigs for it?

Can you point me to where you read/heard this?
You know how the 7th Sep program has a format that ends with an interview with PAC chairman? It was that segment in which the chairman himself said we developed the flight control in-house.

Perhaps, but we had more leverage to ask in the 1980s and 1990s. Today, we probably won't even get a shot at a wholly custom aircraft from China anymore; we'd have to buy a stock solution (e.g., see VT4, Z-10ME, 054A/P, etc offers). So, times change, and the times in the past likely allowed for bigger asks.
You can keep pushing the J-10 wish back to 80s and 90s from the 2000s, but the fact remains: we are where we are because of reasons larger than simply lack of vision.

Today, of course China wouldn't want a competition to J-10. But it serves our purpose to go for a JF-17 NG, and if we have a sincere and visionary leadership, it will serve our purpose.

Question is, did PAC say it manufactured aerostructures?
I think the burden of proof lies upon you to show there were imports of discarded Saab airframes from which we cannibalized airframe parts.
 

Falcon26

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 24, 2015
2,219
4
5,969
Country
United States
Location
United States
Whatever the specific design considerations of the J-10, but in the 1990s, the Chinese were comfortable enough with tackling a relaxed stability design and building its entire flight control system. You need capacity to do it before starting it, otherwise, you take the PAF route of asking someone else to do it.

These are the key ingredients of a 4+ gen fighter. Frankly, the fact that the Chinese were undertaking such a project gave the PAF a leg-up over the IAF, which had to deal with developing the Tejas' FCS alone very early on. We at least had a large power to collaborate with on this front, and we didn't take leverage it.

However, we do know (and it's on the public record since the Sabre II days) that the Chinese were open to collaborating with us on a fighter. They were venturing into original design, so this idea that we had zero chance of taking them up on something more complex doesn't fly. When you start fresh, having partners to share costs and risk is generally desirable.


Well, the earlier one joins in sharing the cost and risk, the more leverage one can get. When the J-10 was a new, ambitious and high-risk project, the door for the PAF was at its widest. As the Chinese matured along the J-10 (and started new fighter programs, like the J-20 and FC-31), that door narrowed and closed (i.e., we can only be customers now, not partners). We are now facing the same question with Turkey; do we want to join when it's high-risk, high-reward?

As for the workshare details. The point isn't to worry about final assembly, but to enter the supply chain of the fighter. Even if we didn't assemble the fighter, if we got a 1/3, 1/4 or even 1/5 workshare deal, then the likes of PAC would actually manufacture and send components back to China. That results in an offset, i.e., partly paying for some of the program back to our economy.

The second component was the opportunity to learn about the technology, including transfer of IP (which we could have co-funded). In turn, these are the parts that would've helped us in our next step, i.e., either design our NGFA as independently as possible, or be a very valuable partner.

Basically, everything doesn't need to boil down to final assembly or production, but rather, whether your industry is growing organically (via 1st, 2nd and 3rd party sales) and your tech base is expanding.

As for the Russian engines. Moscow literally had every opportunity to block the transfer of RD-93s and delay the JF-17 by a decade. If there was a way to get the RD-93, there was probably a way to secure the sale of the AL-31. In fact, in the 1990s, we even tried getting cheeky with the Russians by leading them on about the Su-27 so that we could get a better deal for the M2K (see Flight International 1994-1996).

Now the J-10 aside, the PAF asking for more design features in the Super-7 doesn't automatically mean a J-10 competitor. The two are still in different leagues from a range and payload standpoint. If the PLAAF was focused on the latter two, then it wouldn't even care for a 1:1 Gripen. As far as the Chinese would imagine, the PAF asked for specific features for its specific needs, it will get them. If anything, the funding the PAF puts into the R&D for those inputs would make their way to other Chinese programs. So it's a win-win.


You need to qualify "too sophisticated for us to absorb the technology" with the details.

The PAF understood how to absorb the airframe -- a relaxed stability design with FBW similar to the F-16 -- but not the full extent of the radar, avionics and data-link stack. That was new, but even then the PAF had understood how it worked (as it requested the F/A-18 along with the F-16 in the early 1980s, see WikiLeaks).

In fact, the PAF called for a Gripen-like electronics stack in the JF-17 (e.g., similar MFD HMI, TDL, HMD/S, etc). However, the PAF couldn't do a lot about the airframe design as the JF-17 was beyond the point of fundamental changes. The designers did try to alleviate some of the issues via the Block-III, but it won't fully compensate for the inherent design limitations of the fighter.


This is actually good. So we identified gaps in the J-10. We could've withheld that information in return for a seat at the J-10 program. This was leverage we could've built upon. If we had bought into that fighter, we could've both asked for more and, in return, helped the Chinese understand more.


But our initial interest in the J-10 dated back to 2004-2005 with the "Plus One" program. In fact, the PAF's AFFDP-2015 had even budgeted funds for the FC-20 (i.e., J-10A) in 2006-2007.

So at that time, the engine was not an issue, neither were the electronics, weapons, etc.

It's curious we could summon the funds for 36-40 FC-20As, but couldn't invest more in the JF-17 to make our fleet-builder as good as possible. FC-20 got canned due to the issues of the late 2000s/early 2010s.

This is the issue I've been bringing up in this thread. How is the JF-17 beset with budgetary constraints, yet some off-the-shelf solution isn't? In fact, this is still the case as the PAF is looking at the J-10CE while it will only commit to an order of 30 single-seat Block-IIIs!



The PAF incorporated Western (or original design tech) in the RWR and some subcomponents of the HMI (as confirmed by Usman Shabbir on PakDef). Except for the RD-93, the JF-17 is Chinese in every other area where it matters. We are now at the point where our new technologies (e.g., AESA) are coming because of Chinese advancements in those areas. We didn't fully appreciate the depth of the Chinese industry in the early days, so we didn't get a stake nor did we properly learn. We're still not learning the lesson.


The point was never "we should've chosen Gripen over JF-17," rather, "we should've taken on more of the technology of the Gripen into the JF-17." Two very different points. Ask the PAF if they could have a more maneuverable asset with a higher payload, they'll say yes.


The Tejas Mk2 has the specifications and features of a Gripen E/F. The fact that they have a timeline (2030) is actually more than what we can say about a comparable JF-17. The Block-III has a comparable tech stack Tejas Mk1A (minus HMD/S, which we don't have yet), but otherwise, no major feature differences. But the PAF has no plans for an enlarged JF-17 akin to what the Tejas Mk2 is to the Mk1A, hence all the buzz about the J-10CE. So, while the Indians have had their project management issues, they're moving to evolve their aircraft program -- and are on the verge of starting the TEDBF/ORCA and AMCA -- while we're vague about our commitment to the JF-17 Block-III (i.e., only signed for 30 out of the 50 planes we were planning for).


I urge you to read up on the Tejas in more detail. Sure, the fighter itself might not be up your alley, but the flight control tech, gas turbine research, electronics stack, industry base, etc are all leagues ahead of where the PAF is at. You can ask the engineers on this forum, especially those with exposure to PAC and AvRID.

Assembly = Importing with More Steps.

So, no.

We need indigenization of the inputs, be it at the material sourcing level, or value-added manufacturing level.

This requires a healthy and consistent run of R&D and IP development, something we should've started with the JF-17 (ideally earlier). Basically, we move to design, develop and manufacture the critical inputs, and, in turn, give Pakistanis both jobs and high value exports.
This is excellent, and should be pinned.

Post of the month, for me.
 

White Lion

FULL MEMBER
Apr 24, 2021
267
0
274
Country
United Kingdom
Location
Pakistan
Many thanks for this. I've previously cursorily read about both A-5 and F-6, but somehow never realized they were twin engine aircrafts!

Nevertheless, we don't have recent operational experience, and certainly not with any modern twin engine jets. Both the A-5 and F-6 were 50s/60s designs which makes them 3rd gen.
A-5 were decommissioned in 2011 according to wikipidia.

Pakistan


FT-6 trainer aircraft based on F-6 are still being operated by PAF these are Twin engine as well.
 

CriticalThought

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 10, 2016
6,858
16
7,188
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
A-5 were decommissioned in 2011 according to wikipidia.

Pakistan


FT-6 trainer aircraft based on F-6 are still being operated by PAF these are Twin engine as well.
I recall it was circa 2004 when we said goodbye to the A-5s. I used to really like them for their ability to carry large loads with 10 hardpoints. Were they in active service use all the way till 2011?

As far as F-6 is concerned, that again comes as a surprise. The current inventory of PAF trainers comprises Mushak/SuperMushak, K-8, F-7PGs for fighter conversion, and now even JF-17B. Can anyone confirm we are still using F-6s for training? Wikipedia lists Pakistan as a former operator:

 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
5,888
73
22,970
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
A 'jig' is a piece of equipment to hold together various airframe parts so they can be integrated. By using creativity and good planning, you can use cranes/scaffolding or any other mechanical device to hold together parts, especially if it is a once off endeavor. When an aircraft is going through initial testing and development, do you think they make custom jigs for it?



You know how the 7th Sep program has a format that ends with an interview with PAC chairman? It was that segment in which the chairman himself said we developed the flight control in-house.



You can keep pushing the J-10 wish back to 80s and 90s from the 2000s, but the fact remains: we are where we are because of reasons larger than simply lack of vision.

Today, of course China wouldn't want a competition to J-10. But it serves our purpose to go for a JF-17 NG, and if we have a sincere and visionary leadership, it will serve our purpose.



I think the burden of proof lies upon you to show there were imports of discarded Saab airframes from which we cannibalized airframe parts.
insh'Allah we'll find out when we rule Pakistan and ask them ourselves. Winner has to buy dinner. :-)
 

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
1,481
10
4,104
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I recall it was circa 2004 when we said goodbye to the A-5s. I used to really like them for their ability to carry large loads with 10 hardpoints. Were they in active service use all the way till 2011?

As far as F-6 is concerned, that again comes as a surprise. The current inventory of PAF trainers comprises Mushak/SuperMushak, K-8, F-7PGs for fighter conversion, and now even JF-17B. Can anyone confirm we are still using F-6s for training? Wikipedia lists Pakistan as a former operator:

A5C were indeed retired in 2011. Not sure about FT-6 trainers but they have been flying as recently as 2011 as well.
 

SABRE

FULL MEMBER
Apr 16, 2007
975
7
1,407
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Thanks.


From my experience and dealing with people of various geographical areas I found two things:

1) Europeans and Americans when developing, think along the lines of what can come next after this and start working towards that goal simultaneously, be it's results might be 10,20 or 30 years out. They are a reactive society, and work towards maintaining their dominance.

2) Asians (least bit African's) think of the current and now to secure a position, not thinking along the lines of how to maintain dominance 10,20 or 30 years down the road. They are a nonreactive society.
Can't say that about all the Asian countries. After all, countries like Japan, China, South Korea, etc., are invested in emerging technologies. Pakistan, on the other hand, thinks in piecemeal terms and indeed thinks in terms of present.
 

SQ8

ADVISORS
Mar 28, 2009
35,485
413
74,840
Country
United States
Location
United States
insh'Allah we'll find out when we rule Pakistan and ask them ourselves. Winner has to buy dinner. :-)
You can probably find out sooner - heaven knows what condition the current ruling generation and the one after them will leave Pakistan in by the time any(If) of the kids in 90s generation is able to rule.

Even today an actual infrastructure choice could be made by giving incentives to the private sector to invest in PAC in return for further commercialization (instead of buying Chinese tablets and rebranding them as local)
 

PakFactor

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 30, 2019
4,954
4
8,858
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Can't say that about all the Asian countries. After all, countries like Japan, China, South Korea, etc., are invested in emerging technologies. Pakistan, on the other hand, thinks in piecemeal terms and indeed thinks in terms of present.
Japan and South Korea (later on China) are a special case than the rest of Asia.

Japan was introduced to Western influence during the Meiji Era around the 1800s. This basically forced an isolated country by nature into industrialization after it's exposure to Western merchants who brought along arms, technology, art, politics, law and foreign relations.

The Japanese realized early on they'll need to adapt or they would be colonized, as, they've done to others within their own borders against clans due to their superiority of arms. The import of arms and a segment of society forced into industrialization, gave rise to a military power. South Korea and China experienced this after the Korean War and adapted as the Japanese have.

Why I say they are a special case than the rest of Asia? Example: Tipu Sultan, was importing arms from the French to fight against the British during his rule. They and others didn't take the initiative to industrialize and develop their own arms as the Japanese did, they would rather wait for the French to ship across the Cape of Cod to be supplied, they lacked any sort of initiative and/or foresight.

Not even thinking that these arms could be turned against them one day, instead they put on bangels and went about. And even other princely states did not do much after his fall to speeden things up in terms of development.

The sad part this mentality still continues to this day within Asia. To change it'll need a cultural revolution as the Japanese had. Another role is the Japanese warrior culture, they’ve always stayed in a constant state of war, reminders me of the Roman saying to have good soldiers a nation must stay at war. Because this gives rise to solutions to the problems military planners have to confront and industries are born to give that solution.

Instead, we are fighting stupid trademark wars on who has the rights over basmati rice, or shipping mangos across the world and calling it king of fruits - which none technically gives a shit about. This is the result of kami zat people rising to the pedestals of power, cause you will end up like them.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom