Bilal Khan (Quwa)
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2016
- Messages
- 7,004
- Reaction score
- 97
- Country
- Location
We have a chicken-and-egg situation. If not for constant hard-currency outflows, I would argue our helicopter fleets would be larger across the board. So the lack of budget to constantly fund imports probably impacted our ability to field desired or optimal numbers.
Not only that, but the PAA never even got to use the helicopter it considered an optimal workhorse -- i.e., UH-60. You need a design that fulfills 80% of your requirements in order to build a large fleet around it (or else you end up with too many of a specialist type). So, if you're designing an in-house project to build your workhorse, then chances are, you'll have enough of a requirement to support it.
It isn't only a question of how much it costs, but where that money is going. If you're spending on local R&D to develop the inputs, then you're spending on education, high-tech capacity (for development, test and integration work), industries that result in critical inputs, and so on.
Let's say the helicopter program fails, you would still have built a large high-tech capacity base to (1) recoup the costs by supporting other programs, especially in other countries that would like to use your IP and (2) reduce the cost of designing and developing a 'second go' of a system later.
This doesn't even account for indirect economic benefits, such as your eco-system venturing into self-funded initiatives. For example, the Pakistani company you asked to design and build composites can export those services abroad, further design its products, and grow. Moreover, these companies (plus their employees) pay taxes, so you get a feedback in additional funding power.
Collaboration can be an option, nothing wrong with that approach. However, I wouldn't dismiss taking a project in-house entirely if we execute it correctly.
The point of defence R&D isn't only to build weapons, but to build a country's economy so that it learns to export high-value goods and services. The more you take in-house, the more you control in terms of the work, and the more you benefit in terms of gaining the critical or high-value IP.
Working with Turkey is an option (they've invited us), but they're already working full-steam on their own engine, rotors, transmission, etc. These are all of the critical and most valuable parts of a helicopter. You are not going to get a 30-40% return in workshare unless you help foot the bill for developing those critical inputs. We didn't do that when Turkey actually could've considered an external supporter. They will not let us in on it now that their projects are actually progressing.
The invitation they have for us now (re: helicopters) is on parts manufacturing and maybe assembly and taking up 3rd party maintenance contracts. This is good, but this isn't going to help us take the necessary leap to becoming a proper industrial power. Rather, we need to be thinking like Turkey, i.e., take initiative.
"Cost" is a relative term. For someone tied to fiscal books, like a general, it's a zero-sum equation of "if I spend on R&D, I spend less on buying from China." For an economist or public policy expert, "cost" is an investment. The money you put into developing a helicopter is, in actuality, an investment in all of the key industries we need to transform Pakistan from a footnote or joke, to a power with respect and authority.
We need vision and a "how to" mentality to build a country, not a "can't do this, no can't do that, no too expensive" finger-wagging mentality. If we left the nuke project to today's generation, we'd be smuggling hand-me-downs from China -- 100%. How we went from a nation that studied jig manufacturing, contributing to Atoms for Peace, and looking to build fighter planes in the 1950s to the status quo is astounding.
Last edited:
