What's new

PAKISTAN ARMY INDUCTS NEW ARMOURED CARRIERS FOR COUNTERTERRORISM OPERATIONS

22 MaxxPro APC 2013 2014-2015 22 Second-hand; aid
350 MaxxPro APC (2014) 2014-2018 (350) Second-hand; aid
(30) MaxxPro APC (2016) 2016 (30) Second-hand; aid; incl. 35 ARV version
40 MaxxPro APC 2017 2017 40 $35 m deal; MaxxPro Dash DXM version

Total 442 Maxxpro were transferred to Pakistan from the US according to SIPRI. Not sure how many are operational.
 
22 MaxxPro APC 2013 2014-2015 22 Second-hand; aid
350 MaxxPro APC (2014) 2014-2018 (350) Second-hand; aid
(30) MaxxPro APC (2016) 2016 (30) Second-hand; aid; incl. 35 ARV version
40 MaxxPro APC 2017 2017 40 $35 m deal; MaxxPro Dash DXM version

Total 442 Maxxpro were transferred to Pakistan from the US according to SIPRI. Not sure how many are operational.
All of these are operational , + 200-250 maxx pros acquired from Afghanistan. Among which most are operational and some are for spares.
 
This CSK-182 seems to come ahead from a prototype of EQ2111 series or EQ2101series. It’s supposed to be a MRAP which Humvee and/or Chinese EQ2050 are not. It resembles the JLTV Concept. So the role becomes different too.
Do we have any credible information on how it compares (troop protection from IED’s) to the more established MRAP’s in the market like Maxx Pro etc?

Pakistani defense enthusiasts have been frustrated for years over increasing casualties from terrorist ambushes in ex-FATA and Balochistan. Questions about the acquisitions such as these and whether troops (Army and FC) deployed in ex-FATA and Balochistan will receive them (or other platforms) are completely justified.
 
We don't have balance due to corruption civilian side. Let say today we get oil, plus lithium and our yearly earning gets 1500 billion dollars each year and 150 billion dollars is spend on defence. Trust me the other 1350 billion dollars still won't do any good if corruption on civilian side is not controlled. Problem is our incompetent civilian leaders like Nawaz and Zardari. You give them 100000 billion dollars each year and still no good will come out of that and only they would rob all of it.


I think we should be critical of defence spending too.

What has HIT delivered for example.

Why are we flying none of our drones?

We need to take the defence industry off the leash of the Generals.

Do you remember the fake wand bomb detectors used by airport security. Who heads that?
 
Do we have any credible information on how it compares (troop protection from IED’s) to the more established MRAP’s in the market like Maxx Pro etc?

Pakistani defense enthusiasts have been frustrated for years over increasing casualties from terrorist ambushes in ex-FATA and Balochistan. Questions about the acquisitions such as these and whether troops (Army and FC) deployed in ex-FATA and Balochistan will receive them (or other platforms) are completely justified.
The specs on Chinese equipment are not easily accessible. PA conducts thorough tests so one can hope for better results.

The COIN war and cross border terrorism with Afghanistan cannot be solved/won/decided by just MRAPs or similar 4x4. USA had all and better equipment but packed and ran after 20 years. Pakistan has to equip troops for all formations (including strike ). This war has many dimensions.
 
I think we should be critical of defence spending too.

What has HIT delivered for example.

Why are we flying none of our drones?

We need to take the defence industry off the leash of the Generals.

Do you remember the fake wand bomb detectors used by airport security. Who heads that?
Checking where it's being spend is right thing to do. HIT and POF should be privatised
 
Checking where it's being spend is right thing to do. HIT and POF should be privatised
I've been reading opinions on the Internet and members on this forum who have worked in defence industry who all claim it'd flourish if privatised.

State should set laws against foreign ownership though
 
I've been reading opinions on the Internet and members on this forum who have worked in defence industry who all claim it'd flourish if privatised.

State should set laws against foreign ownership though
Thing is, when most people say, "privatize POF/HIT/PAC, etc" they don't do it without articulating the exact problems with those state-owned enterprises (SOE) and how private ownership would solve them.

That's why I take the "middle road" approach.

Let's keep POF, HIT, PAC, KSEW, etc, as SOEs, but put their day-to-day management in the hands of industry professionals.

Use legislation to create a wall that prevents the armed forces from interfering in the SOEs' leadership and, instead, have the SOEs accountable to tangible KPIs. These KPIs should be: cost control (not cost reduction, but control to ensure that the money is all going into strategically valuable projects), profitability, talent development, etc.

The Turkish model is pretty good.

Their big hitters -- e.g., TAI, Aselsan, Havelsan, etc -- are state-owned, but the military leadership doesn't run the day-to-day. Instead, SOE management is done by industrial experts (often engineers) like Dr. Ismail Demir and Dr. Temel Kotil.

Basically, the Turkish generals realized they don't need to run the defence industry directly. They can leave it to the experts who, in turn, will drive profitability and growth. Then that growth benefits the Turkish generals by driving more capital into the military's pension fund which, in turn, re-invests that money into other ventures (like buying British steel IP). As these ventures grow, the cheques Turkey's military officers cash each gets bigger, more Turks get high-value employment, Turkey's exports go up, etc, etc.

That said, we should also integrate the private sector into our industry. If we leave our SOEs in the hands of experts with a cost-control focus, they'll defer a lot of work to private companies. We'd reach point where PAC might only assemble a fighter plane, but all of the aerostructures, inputs, etc, are coming from various privately-owned Pakistani companies. That's the goal.
 
Use legislation to create a wall that prevents the armed forces from interfering in the SOEs' leadership and, instead, have the SOEs accountable to tangible KPIs.
1. if this happens, how will bayrozgar generals and brigadiers get employment and destroy organizational budgets by using its resources ruthlessly?
2. "legislation" doesnt solve anything in Pakistan. many "autonomous" organizations are autonomous in name only and cannot even hire and fire peons independently.
 
Last edited:
Heart broken, I thaught we could have built it ourselves...
 
Thing is, when most people say, "privatize POF/HIT/PAC, etc" they don't do it without articulating the exact problems with those state-owned enterprises (SOE) and how private ownership would solve them.

That's why I take the "middle road" approach.

Let's keep POF, HIT, PAC, KSEW, etc, as SOEs, but put their day-to-day management in the hands of industry professionals.

Use legislation to create a wall that prevents the armed forces from interfering in the SOEs' leadership and, instead, have the SOEs accountable to tangible KPIs. These KPIs should be: cost control (not cost reduction, but control to ensure that the money is all going into strategically valuable projects), profitability, talent development, etc.

The Turkish model is pretty good.

Their big hitters -- e.g., TAI, Aselsan, Havelsan, etc -- are state-owned, but the military leadership doesn't run the day-to-day. Instead, SOE management is done by industrial experts (often engineers) like Dr. Ismail Demir and Dr. Temel Kotil.

Basically, the Turkish generals realized they don't need to run the defence industry directly. They can leave it to the experts who, in turn, will drive profitability and growth. Then that growth benefits the Turkish generals by driving more capital into the military's pension fund which, in turn, re-invests that money into other ventures (like buying British steel IP). As these ventures grow, the cheques Turkey's military officers cash each gets bigger, more Turks get high-value employment, Turkey's exports go up, etc, etc.

That said, we should also integrate the private sector into our industry. If we leave our SOEs in the hands of experts with a cost-control focus, they'll defer a lot of work to private companies. We'd reach point where PAC might only assemble a fighter plane, but all of the aerostructures, inputs, etc, are coming from various privately-owned Pakistani companies. That's the goal.
Turks had the advantage of getting access to American systems from the very start including component building for F-16s. Pakistan had to turn to China and then incorporate western technology in Chinese equipment.

Having said and done, Pakistan still managed to make AK and JF-17 before Turks produced their MBT Altay and an aircraft TFX.
 
Turks had the advantage of getting access to American systems from the very start including component building for F-16s. Pakistan had to turn to China and then incorporate western technology in Chinese equipment.

Having said and done, Pakistan still managed to make AK and JF-17 before Turks produced their MBT Altay and an aircraft TFX.
Pakistan too had a longtime romance history with usa and its supplied equipments to pak armed forces but our previous rulers opted to get and procure ready made stuff instead of forethinking to establish an industry or industries to manufacture these hardware in their own home under TOT or any other method to transfer critical technology from friendly countries of that era.
 
Pakistan too had a longtime romance history with usa and its supplied equipments to pak armed forces but our previous rulers opted to get and procure ready made stuff instead of forethinking to establish an industry or industries to manufacture these hardware in their own home under TOT or any other method to transfer critical technology from friendly countries of that era.
Not the level of Turkey as Pakistan's alignment with China started to become steady after 65 which can be seen from acquisitions since 1966.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom