Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee visits Baykar UAV facility in Turkey

[Goenitz]

the Chinese, and now Turkey, we would need to let go of "wait for it to be mature." Otherwise, we won't develop our own stuff.

I meant our people like to wait so to invest with surety and without risk. But perhaps, we need sometimes to take a leap pf faith.
Investing in Turkish defence industry must have been a priority now as our navy/air force/aviation, all are interested.
You have to consider our safe approach, as it is a nightmare for the procurement department, due to limited resources.
Also, yes, we trust west blindly, like that wireless bomb detector. So we trust their machinery and cannot apply the same for South Africans and Turkey right away.
Also, at one time, Ukrainians ceased all defence relations with Pakistan so to capture Indian market, right after some tank engines (9-10 years ago). So, a trust deficit was there too.

 

[T-SaGe]

View attachment 729422
View attachment 729423

Aksungur UAV. This is the drone which I hope Pakistan goes for from Turkey.

Aksungur is a TAI made aircraft. Aksungur project is actually a continuation project of the ANKA program and defined as ANKA-II. ANKA-S and ANKA-II will be followed by the Göksungur project.


Baykar's projects are TB-3 (new tactical and navalised block), and Akıncı strategic attack system. In addition, work on fixed-wing VTOL tactical systems continues. In a longer perspective, the conceptualization process of the advanced stealth turbofan attack jet, under the name of MIUS, continues. The mockup for this MIUS project could appear next year.

Baykar has a strategic relationship with Ukroboronprom's two companies. One of them is a joint venture of NVKG-Zorya-Mashproek and Baykar. Lodos Propulsion is a company founded on gas turbine engines. The other is that Ivchenko engines are determined as Baykar's one of the main solution partner. Another JV, Black Sea Shield company established for the collaboration of Ivchenko and Baykar. Baykar shares of both companies are 51%, while Ukrainian participation is 49%. Baykar is preparing for a very serious breakthrough. I would like to inform you that, the company will roughly double its size in next 5-6 years. They have put a lot of emphasis on infrastructure investments in recent years and the company is growing at a very radical rate.

The fact that the company is a private affiliate and is specifically related to only one aviation field enables it to develop policies much more effectively and faster than a public institution. Especially, they managed to take a quick position against the reactions (embargo or other bureaucratic obstacles) seen after the great success provided by the TB-2 system. Other than the strategic relationship with Ukroboronprom, Baykar is currently evaluating the possibilities of joint projects with many countries such as Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and working on solutions designed according to the specific conditions of these forces.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I meant our people like to wait so to invest with surety and without risk. But perhaps, we need sometimes to take a leap pf faith.
Investing in Turkish defence industry must have been a priority now as our navy/air force/aviation, all are interested.
You have to consider our safe approach, as it is a nightmare for the procurement department, due to limited resources.
Also, yes, we trust west blindly, like that wireless bomb detector. So we trust their machinery and cannot apply the same for South Africans and Turkey right away.
Also, at one time, Ukrainians ceased all defence relations with Pakistan so to capture Indian market, right after some tank engines (9-10 years ago). So, a trust deficit was there too.

I don't give our decision-makers enough credit to have trust deficits with anyone -- for a country that repeatedly asks for US equipment, I doubt there's a 'trust deficit' issue.

Rather, it has more to do with a very limited vision and a penchant to constantly defer to big suppliers in the West and China.

In fact, even if we start buying lots of Turkish gear now, we are still missing "the point."

The point wasn't to buy from Turkey (or Ukraine or South Africa), but to co-develop weapons and critical inputs (e.g., engines) with those countries.

The point was to make the TAI Anka the TAI-PAC Anka, or the TAI ATAK-2 into the TAI-PAC ATAK-2, not to buy the Anka or ATAK-2. Yes, I understand we have a limited budget, but shipping that money out to some other country and then perpetually rely on that country for supplies (and ship out even more USD) is not a solution. The solution is to redirect that wealth (however limited) to domestic solutions.

Now, I'm sure our generals will say, "well our bloody civilians don't know how to make anything," and I'm sure our engineers will say, "our bloody generals don't know anything."

Fair, but we should undergo that argument, in the open. Too bad we don't have policy people to facilitate that exchange and to line up the facts and arguments from both sides to come up with the best solution.

 

[Yasser76]

I don't give our decision-makers enough credit to have trust deficits with anyone -- for a country that repeatedly asks for US equipment, I doubt there's a 'trust deficit' issue.

Rather, it has more to do with a very limited vision and a penchant to constantly defer to big suppliers in the West and China.

In fact, even if we start buying lots of Turkish gear now, we are still missing "the point." The point wasn't to buy from Turkey (or Ukraine or South Africa), but to co-develop weapons and critical inputs (e.g., engines) with those countries.

Sure, but at the time the PAF would of had competing priorities and limited resources, say for instance we had $100 million to spend on either reinstalling Erieye kit into a couple of SAAB 2000s or investing in a JV with South Africa? I am not saying you are wrong, just that the Armed Forces simply cannot fund any idea no matter how good it is, could be now it is a priority more so then in the past as this kit is battle proven and we have more cash around

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Sure, but at the time the PAF would of had competing priorities and limited resources, say for instance we had $100 million to spend on either reinstalling Erieye kit into a couple of SAAB 2000s or investing in a JV with South Africa? I am not saying you are wrong, just that the Armed Forces simply cannot fund any idea no matter how good it is, could be now it is a priority more so then in the past as this kit is battle proven and we have more cash around

The PAF was also gearing up for Project AZM, so in a way it -- and the PN -- get a pass due to comparable initiatives for original projects (e.g., Jinnah-class, LRMPA, etc).

I'm more concerned about a lack of generalized prioritization for developing critical inputs.

E.g., the Army, Navy, Air Force, SPD and private sector can share the funding of a miniature turbojet, which we could sustain scale for since we need lots of cruise missiles and drones. Likewise, the service arms can also co-fund a dual-motor pulse rocket program (to feed AAM and SAM tech).

Even if the funding is small and can only support a 10-year timeline until we see a demonstrator, it'd be 10 years of solid IP work and capacity building, which we can take to another (e.g., Denel) and say, "let's share IP and complete each of our programs."

Project AZM may not amount to an operable fighter in the near-term, but if we spend 20 years of constant R&D on it, we can reach a point where a true indigenous NGFA comes within arm's reach.

Worst case scenario, others will take our R&D seriously enough to consider a joint-venture or technology sharing. To India's credit, it did develop indigenous IP. Sure, its project management wasn't great (at least for the Tejas), but others could see some serious work across engines, flight control tech, avionics, SAMs and AAMs, etc. India had something to share, and in turn, the likes of IAI, Thales, Safran, etc were willing to share.

 

[Goenitz]

The point wasn't to buy from Turkey (or Ukraine or South Africa), but to co-develop weapons and critical inputs (e.g., engines) with those countries.

The point was to make the TAI Anka the TAI-PAC Anka, or the TAI ATAK-2 into the TAI-PAC ATAK-2

I agree.. perhaps, ACM Suhail Aman realised that and thought of opening knowledge city. As to invest in a research project requires your own experts to foresee that, which I think no General/Admiral/ACM can do, but a professional can.
I really want our small engines production or joint ventures. As you described, the usage is endless from drones to cruise missiles, to power units etc. Plus it is easy. I argued before that lathe machines were developed, bcz swiss watchmakers wanted to make precision components. So when industrial revolution came, they just scaled up the lathe.

Similarly, we need smaller engines production as all the machinery will be smaller and somewhat "sanction free" . I would like to see small drones helicopter for police surveillance like CR 500, and Tucano like aircraft for balocistan COIN and surveillance ops, or light jet like of Philippine air force.

Anyway, can a general be convinced to operate Tucano like aircraft if it has never been used in AFG?

I doubt there's a 'trust deficit' issue

That is different. It is more like the tantrums of the shopkeeper when the customer really want to buy the product.

 

[Yasser76]

The PAF was also gearing up for Project AZM, so in a way it -- and the PN -- get a pass due to comparable initiatives for original projects (e.g., Jinnah-class, LRMPA, etc).

I'm more concerned about a lack of generalized prioritization for developing critical inputs.

E.g., the Army, Navy, Air Force, SPD and private sector can share the funding of a miniature turbojet, which we could sustain scale for since we need lots of cruise missiles and drones. Likewise, the service arms can also co-fund a dual-motor pulse rocket program (to feed AAM and SAM tech).

Even if the funding is small and can only support a 10-year timeline until we see a demonstrator, it'd be 10 years of solid IP work and capacity building, which we can take to another (e.g., Denel) and say, "let's share IP and complete each of our programs."

Project AZM may not amount to an operable fighter in the near-term, but if we spend 20 years of constant R&D on it, we can reach a point where a true indigenous NGFA comes within arm's reach. Worst case, our R&D will be taken seriously by others and we can earn ourselves a spot on someone's table.

Sure, but AZM is also developing a UAV/UCAV right? So maybe PAF put all it's resources for UAV/UCAV into AZM, and there was not much left, it could even be this visit is actually related to AZM, we simply do not know. We are second guessing the PAF (Which is the fun part of being in the forum), but if you ask me I would argue that far from having a lack of prioritisation, PAF have been laser focused on AZM. Last 3 chiefs constantly mentioning it and probably the reason we have had little spare cash for another Block 52/J-10 buy.

One thing you can be sure of with PAF, as an institution it has always remained focus on it's key priorities, even over several decades.

Look at what we did with the Mirage in PAF service? Purchased in 1968, Mirage rebuild factory, purchasing spare airframes, advanced upgrades, installing air to air refuelling. We committed to this plane to the point of obsession. Same story with F-16 and JF-17, these things were prioritised by many ACMs over many decades, we never lost focus. Compare that with the IAF, every few years they had a new shiny toy and lost interest in everything else.....

There is no reason to believe that we will not do the same with AZM, it may well lay the foundation and building blocks for the PAF fighter force for the next 50 years....

 

[CriticalThought]

The PAF was also gearing up for Project AZM, so in a way it -- and the PN -- get a pass due to comparable initiatives for original projects (e.g., Jinnah-class, LRMPA, etc).

I'm more concerned about a lack of generalized prioritization for developing critical inputs.

E.g., the Army, Navy, Air Force, SPD and private sector can share the funding of a miniature turbojet, which we could sustain scale for since we need lots of cruise missiles and drones. Likewise, the service arms can also co-fund a dual-motor pulse rocket program (to feed AAM and SAM tech).

Even if the funding is small and can only support a 10-year timeline until we see a demonstrator, it'd be 10 years of solid IP work and capacity building, which we can take to another (e.g., Denel) and say, "let's share IP and complete each of our programs."

Project AZM may not amount to an operable fighter in the near-term, but if we spend 20 years of constant R&D on it, we can reach a point where a true indigenous NGFA comes within arm's reach.

Worst case scenario, others will take our R&D seriously enough to consider a joint-venture or technology sharing. To India's credit, it did develop indigenous IP. Sure, its project management wasn't great (at least for the Tejas), but others could see some serious work across engines, flight control tech, avionics, SAMs and AAMs, etc. India had something to share, and in turn, the likes of IAI, Thales, Safran, etc were willing to share.

Who knows they are in Turkey to learn what the world has to offer, so they can compare with what SPD has developed. Let us not forget the very recent incident of ATAK-129 and third party engines. Turkey is a NATO member, we are not. That said, there is definitely a lot that is lacking in our leadership in terms of original thought and vision.

 

[Goenitz]

That said, there is definitely a lot that is lacking in our leadership in terms of original thought and vision.

what about new ACm? is just on seniority based? and some argued ha has ~2k flying hours and spent most of the time heading research groups? I mean it is a sign of change as his appointment took input from the prv ACM?

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

To the best of my knowledge no such top foreign defense official ever visited any facilities of the Bayraktar family, which is very close to the Muslim political establishment in Turkey. It itself is a message! I won't be surprised if Pak has much deeper and longer defense cooperation with Turkey than the common folks know.....

 

[T-SaGe]

To the best of my knowledge no such top foreign defense official ever visited any facilities of the Bayraktar family, which is very close to the Muslim political establishment in Turkey. It itself is a message! I won't be surprised if Pak has much deeper and longer defense cooperation with Turkey than the common folks know.....

Bayraktar(which can be translate as "flagship") family's flagship project: MIUS

The aircraft will be capable of strategic attack with approximately 5 tons of MTOW and high subsonic cruise, will also have a new gen AI architecture on it. This project, together with the whole concept it is in, will create a deep-break in the current balance of the region in many aspects. If you ask me, Ukraine got on this train, and there is no reason why Pakistan should not join.

 

[kursed]

The PAF was also gearing up for Project AZM, so in a way it -- and the PN -- get a pass due to comparable initiatives for original projects (e.g., Jinnah-class, LRMPA, etc).

Let's just say PN has had outside professional help in their project planning, acquisition and a long-line of credit availability. It's not that they were able to suddenly produce results where PAF/PA have failed. =)

 

[Goritoes]

Why buy something which they never really use? PA has poor history of using drones to eliminate targets in Afghanistan or tribal areas, maybe purchasing the drones will fill some pockets of Pindi boys.

 

[JamD]

Sure, but AZM is also developing a UAV/UCAV right? So maybe PAF put all it's resources for UAV/UCAV into AZM, and there was not much left,

So maybe I should say this because what you have said is a widespread notion here on the forum. The HR "request" for Project Azm was in the thousands of people. The money that has actually been allocated for Azm has allowed the hiring of a couple of hundred. PAF hasn't put a whole lot of money into Azm. It's best to think of it as a pilot project for now at least.


Edit: Just as a piece of data, this is the 3 year+ progress made on Air University Aviation City Campus (barely 5% of the structure built and has been this way for a year at least).

we simply do not know.

That is the entire point. We have no idea. All we can do is hope that a small group of people are making the right decisions. If it's our lucky day the right people will make the right decision, if it's our unlucky day we're screwed for decades. The antidote to all of this is good and TRANSPARENT policy making. There is no national security threat if PAF PA PN says we will buy these many XXX for XXXX of which 50% has to be manufactured locally.

Sure, PAF has made several excellent decisions. But they have also made several very short-sighted ones.

Hope is not a policy.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Let's just say PN has had outside professional help in their project planning, acquisition and a long-line of credit availability. It's not that they were able to suddenly produce results where PAF/PA have failed. =)

The fact that they delegated to the outside is a big thing IMHO. If the Army delegated, then HIT could've been a much better org.