Why are you discounting the BW-20? It could be a good replacement. Compared to the G3, it is lighter, it has a reduced recoil, and it is more compact. Moreover, according to Mr. Salman Ali, it is cheaper to produce than the G3.IMO the PA has a new rifle in mind. It just hasn't signed onto a full-scale program yet because, as you said, shortage of funds and other priorities. However, I think it'll happen and, as @Zarvan has wished, will probably involve Turkish OEMs. Of the suppliers available, the Turkish ones are probably able to offer the best bang for the buck.
That said, I don't think POF will manufacture these new rifles.
With our shortage of funds, it's probably untenable to buy licensing and facilities off-the-shelf; this time around, we'll likely see offset-based deals wherein the foreign OEMs set up shop in Pakistan, source Pakistani labor and inputs, and supply to the armed forces directly.
This might be the best course of action for us in the long run. It removes the armed forces from the defence industry business and, potentially, makes it easier for the Pakistani private sector to get involved (by eliminating the red tape and black tape). It's time for the military to become leaner in the sense that it should focus specifically on fighting and, in turn, leave the industry side to the private sector or at least independently-run state-owned enterprises.
TLDR: With an offset policy, the Army wouldn't need to pay for the local production line. Rather, it says it'll buy 1M rifles over 10 years, and sets a sourcing policy, e.g., built with 100% Pakistani inputs. In response, the OEMs invest in Pakistan (to set up their production lines and follow the sourcing policy) and, basically, supply the Army. In the end, the OEM owns the licensing, IP, etc, but through their Pakistani subsidiary. That Pakistani subsidiary might even start re-exporting, thereby giving the OEM additional revenue, supporting Pakistani jobs, and helping us gain foreign currency (via corporate and income taxes).
We won't know until the Army tests it, if it does at all.Why are you discounting the BW-20? It could be a good replacement. Compared to the G3, it is lighter, it has a reduced recoil, and it is more compact. Moreover, according to Mr. Salman Ali, it is cheaper to produce than the G3.
The whole testing scenario was exposed by an American present in the trials. the American who exposed the 2015/6 trials said that the AR (mind you there were more than one AR type rifle in the trial from various vendors) had the best accuracy consistently. however the other non AR rifles were better in reliability.What did the MPT-76 fail to achieve? I wonder now. @Zarvan says the MPT-76 did well in testing. Others say the opposite.
By the way, I need to clear up one thing. The "MPT-76" of that time is not the same as the current MPT-76. As with all industrial new products, MPT-76 has been improved over time. In particular, serious improvements were made in barrel quality.
Thank you for answer.The whole testing scenario was exposed by an American present in the trials. the American who exposed the 2015/6 trials said that the AR (mind you there were more than one AR type rifle in the trial from various vendors) had the best accuracy consistently. however the other non AR rifles were better in reliability.
Basically there were few shortlisted manufacturers and there were some MOU signed like one with CZ for example.
But the thing we can take away from the extensively long procedure is that there was No such a thing as "the best in trials".
there were shortcomings that were exposed and the manufacturers mostly went back to fix the issues or not.
the process as it appeared left a void because despite the heavy handedness in testing the year spent testing destroyed the manufacturers products and no further action was taken beyond few aimless MOU.
however a free of cost product seems to have been accepted.