Pakistan Hypersonic research

[I S I]

Some 6-7 years and a few hundred million dollars later, this is most probably what we are going to do.

Fixed.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

We need a holistic view of national security power including setting milestones for economy and proper oversight to remove any hurdles that may come in the way because economy is a matter of national security and survival.

True, once it’s potential is unleashed unhindered by petty issues of our own creation it will translate into our national power.

Till then we will keep hearing of it to be the bottle neck to all the direly needed initiatives and a risk to our national security.

We need to decide on a proper defence-economy model.

Do we want to build an industry? Or do we want to import?

It might sound obvious on first glance, but if you have a strong -- and influential -- enough economy, then you can get away with just importing (albeit with localized MRO). It's not an inherently bad model provided you can afford it from a monetary standpoint, like Singapore, Australia, Canada, etc can, for example.

Our decision-makers are caught between two worlds, so we neither do well making things at home, nor do we do well buying things from overseas. The main constraint? Lack of money, which to an extent leads to less than great acquisition and industry decisions. You end up with purchases such as the LY-80/HQ-16, which -- while a good SAM -- uses older SARH technology, and that's $500 m from our exchequer in cost.

If we want to import, then we really need to double down on the economy. We need to pump money into industries that will produce the top-10 most exported goods, like automobiles/auto-parts, consumer electronics, pharma drugs and so on. We also need to move away from relying on FDI; rather, we need domestic investor confidence. So, we'll need the gov't to offer grants, low-equity seed money, guaranteed orders for 10-15 years, protectionism, etc to get these local businesses to start delving into these key areas.

We start resolving the BoP/hard-currency gap, then the defence market will open to us. From there, we can make the decision: do we want industry, or do want the market?

I think, ultimately, the most efficient practice will be to focus all industry investment towards fields we can't buy off-the-shelf (nuclear, ballistic missiles, HGVs, SLVs, UAVs etc) -- we're better off maintaining a turnkey basis.

But for scale-driven areas with complex supply chains, such as fighter aircraft, helicopters, transport aircraft, etc, we could focus on building a consortium with Turkey, Brazil, Ukraine, and South Africa. These are imports, but we can insert our industry wherein we make 33%+ of the inputs, and everyone relies on us just as we rely on them.

For tanks, howitzers, AFVs, IFVs, etc, we can simply buy off-the-shelf as pure imports (i.e., no offsets or ToT). We go to China, and get the max number of good enough systems at as low a cost as possible, and drive our numbers up (using the PLA's economies-of-scale).

For naval, we work in offsets and co-production. So, we select an overseas design, but then require a % of the inputs to come from Pakistan, and final construction to occur at our local shipyards (public or privately owned).

 

[Bilal.]

We need to decide on a proper defence-economy model.

Do we want to build an industry? Or do we want to import?

It might sound obvious on first glance, but if you have a strong -- and influential -- enough economy, then you can get away with just importing (albeit with localized MRO). It's not an inherently bad model provided you can afford it from a monetary standpoint, like Singapore, Australia, Canada, etc can, for example.

Our decision-makers are caught between two worlds, so we neither do well making things at home, nor do we do well buying things from overseas. The main constraint? Lack of money, which to an extent leads to less than great acquisition and industry decisions. You end up with purchases such as the LY-80/HQ-16, which -- while a good SAM -- uses older SARH technology, and that's $500 m from our exchequer in cost.

If we want to import, then we really need to double down on the economy. We need to pump money into industries that will produce the top-10 most exported goods, like automobiles/auto-parts, consumer electronics, pharma drugs and so on. We also need to move away from relying on FDI; rather, we need domestic investor confidence. So, we'll need the gov't to offer grants, low-equity seed money, guaranteed orders for 10-15 years, protectionism, etc to get these local businesses to start delving into these key areas.

We start resolving the BoP/hard-currency gap, then the defence market will open to us. From there, we can make the decision: do we want industry, or do want the market?

I think, ultimately, the most efficient practice will be to focus all industry investment towards fields we can't buy off-the-shelf (nuclear, ballistic missiles, HGVs, SLVs, UAVs etc) -- we're better off maintaining a turnkey basis.

But for scale-driven areas with complex supply chains, such as fighter aircraft, helicopters, transport aircraft, etc, we could focus on building a consortium with Turkey, Brazil, Ukraine, and South Africa. These are imports, but we can insert our industry wherein we make 33%+ of the inputs, and everyone relies on us just as we rely on them.

For tanks, howitzers, AFVs, IFVs, etc, we can simply buy off-the-shelf as pure imports (i.e., no offsets or ToT). We go to China, and get the max number of good enough systems at as low a cost as possible, and drive our numbers up (using the PLA's economies-of-scale).

For naval, we work in offsets and co-production. So, we select an overseas design, but then require a % of the inputs to come from Pakistan, and final construction to occur at our local shipyards (public or privately owned).

And we need to resurrect our 5 years planning. It was used to great effect back in the days. Some say that kind of mechanism is out dated but we see China using it and achieving breathtaking outcomes. Along with the usual ease of business and competitiveness for businesses at large, we should identify core industries/sectors with clear targets to be achieved in 5 years and then support it through policy and pushing the private and public sector to that end.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

And we need to resurrect our 5 years planning. It was used to great effect back in the days. Some say that kind of mechanism is out dated but we see China using it and achieving breathtaking outcomes. Along with the usual ease of business and competitiveness for businesses at large, we should identify core industries/sectors with clear targets to be achieved in 5 years and then support it through policy and pushing the private and public sector to that end.

Yep. We also need ruthless execution of these 5-Year Plans. I reckon a lot of it will also involve reforming the SOEs into efficient entities. I don't want to sell them off, but we need them to run at arms length from government, as if they're private companies basically. We can learn from China in this regard.

 

[Readerdefence]

Hi can somebody discuss about launching satellite in orbit on priority basis I’m taking about military satellites why USA formed a space force now I’m not saying to form that coz they want to tackle China & russia and their hypersonic arsenal with more & more satellites so Indians are already I should say more then couple of miles ahead of pakistan in launching satellites
It’s better for Pakistan to launch as much as they can in short time first to occupy their piece of space second to be more net centric & precise to keep India at bay
I hope someone with more knowledge can shed some more light on my theory
Thank you

 

[Pakistansdefender]

Maybe!


View attachment 639469
How we got funding for Nuclear program? Maybe need to try same tricks here

They make it a lot of fuss about funding.
Actually funding is not a big issue for these type of research groups. As one ordering them also provides them with funds.
The reason these kids say like that is because army is not buying the trinkets they want of the shelf.

 

[Kompromat]

This is not a news, any missile research establishment would have basic hypersonic research capability.

A Pakistan program on hypersonic technology research has been initiated, it involves a number of organisations and research institutes.

There have been certain milestones completed, which will in the next decade be maybe fruitful.

Funding could be a problem, because of mindsets not having enough vision about the future of warfare, we shall see.

 

[R Wing]

We need to decide on a proper defence-economy model.

Do we want to build an industry? Or do we want to import?

It might sound obvious on first glance, but if you have a strong -- and influential -- enough economy, then you can get away with just importing (albeit with localized MRO). It's not an inherently bad model provided you can afford it from a monetary standpoint, like Singapore, Australia, Canada, etc can, for example.

Our decision-makers are caught between two worlds, so we neither do well making things at home, nor do we do well buying things from overseas. The main constraint? Lack of money, which to an extent leads to less than great acquisition and industry decisions. You end up with purchases such as the LY-80/HQ-16, which -- while a good SAM -- uses older SARH technology, and that's $500 m from our exchequer in cost.

If we want to import, then we really need to double down on the economy. We need to pump money into industries that will produce the top-10 most exported goods, like automobiles/auto-parts, consumer electronics, pharma drugs and so on. We also need to move away from relying on FDI; rather, we need domestic investor confidence. So, we'll need the gov't to offer grants, low-equity seed money, guaranteed orders for 10-15 years, protectionism, etc to get these local businesses to start delving into these key areas.

We start resolving the BoP/hard-currency gap, then the defence market will open to us. From there, we can make the decision: do we want industry, or do want the market?

I think, ultimately, the most efficient practice will be to focus all industry investment towards fields we can't buy off-the-shelf (nuclear, ballistic missiles, HGVs, SLVs, UAVs etc) -- we're better off maintaining a turnkey basis.

But for scale-driven areas with complex supply chains, such as fighter aircraft, helicopters, transport aircraft, etc, we could focus on building a consortium with Turkey, Brazil, Ukraine, and South Africa. These are imports, but we can insert our industry wherein we make 33%+ of the inputs, and everyone relies on us just as we rely on them.

For tanks, howitzers, AFVs, IFVs, etc, we can simply buy off-the-shelf as pure imports (i.e., no offsets or ToT). We go to China, and get the max number of good enough systems at as low a cost as possible, and drive our numbers up (using the PLA's economies-of-scale).

For naval, we work in offsets and co-production. So, we select an overseas design, but then require a % of the inputs to come from Pakistan, and final construction to occur at our local shipyards (public or privately owned).

Decades of civil and military rule have failed to achieve real economic growth (I don't mean accounting tricks and other gimmicks) and export-based foreign reserves.

Are our rulers incompetent, sold out to foreign interests or both?

 

[Arsalan]

Fixed.

I mentioned rupee since the pay and expenditure of this local team will be in rupee!!
Anyway!!

 

[I S I]

I mentioned rupee since the pay and expenditure of this local team will be in rupee!!
Anyway!!

Then you should have written billion rupees not million.

 

[Arsalan]

Then you should have written billion rupees not million.

Acha bahi!! I though FEW HUNDRED million will be ok. If you want to turn to billions then i will remove the HUNDRED part.