Pakistan totally failed to capitalize the technology transfer of the Agosta-90B Submarines.

[-blitzkrieg-]

We didn't construct a single submarine after the initial three. Instead we are buying eight more Chinese submarines. What was the whole point of wasting resources for building future submarines that we will never build?

Because regraless you have the technology to build a new 90b or not you still need the specific parts that only France (DCN) can sell you and those parts are hell hell expensive. The value isnt there for PN, thats why PAkistan gradually moved to a Chinese solution. Regardless of the move the people who got trained in Cherbourg can use the skill on newer projects.

 

[MastanKhan]

With out TOT Pakistan cannot fit it with Babur missile.

Hi,

My boy---you just winged it---.

TOT and fitting Babur cruise missile are two different things---.

Building a vessel and modifying a vessel are different sciences---.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

There you go. They would handover a stockpile of engines from the 80s era, and no guarantees of avionics.

What about engine repairs? What about new versions of engines? Like RD-93 now develops into RD-93 MA. What about avionics? Let's take a stroll down memory lane. When the Thunder was first revealed circa 2004, the internet was full of derisive comments like 'if we don't give them missiles it would be useless'. The only reason why today we can talk about the Spanish Indra is because our Chinese brothers have helped us develop a potent finished product and people are now forced to sit-up and take notice. They now realize there is business to be had that will otherwise go to the Chinese.

So far what we have seen, these other programs are sounding like a VERY BAD idea.

PAC already had ability to repair the ATAR-series engine by the 1980s (depot-level MRO with ability to manufacture some new parts), hence the reason why the PAF is still able to fly the Mirage III/5 today.

As for avionics, my point was that Dassault didn't care where the PAF sourced its requirements from (i.e. the point re: technical limitations), hence the PAF could pick from the UK, Italy, etc, as it had done with the Mirage ROSE program.

As for new engines. In the 1990s the South Africans and Russians were fielding a variant of the RD-33 - i.e. SMR-95 - on Cheetah and Mirage F-1 test-beds. The biggest thaw in Russian-Pakistani relations occurred in the mid-1990s, at which time Moscow openly offered the MiG-29 and Su-27. So on that basis, procuring the SMR-95 wouldn't have been an issue if the PAF needed a new engine for the Mirages.

In fact, our ties with South Africa were very good in the 1990s (major contributor to the H2/H4 and Ra'ad programs), so in all likelihood, the Mirages as a whole could have had the R-Darter BVRAAM, U-Darter WVRAAM and Denel Archer HMD/S too.

All that we are doing with the JF-17 today, we could have been doing with the Mirage F-1 in the 1990s, i.e. 15-20 years earlier. So all those lessons we are learning today, we will have learned by now, putting us at the middle of Project Azm instead of the start.

 

[CriticalThought]

PAC already had ability to repair the ATAR-series engine by the 1980s (depot-level MRO with ability to manufacture some new parts), hence the reason why the PAF is still able to fly the Mirage III/5 today.

As for avionics, my point was that Dassault didn't care where the PAF sourced its requirements from (i.e. the point re: technical limitations), hence the PAF could pick from the UK, Italy, etc, as it had done with the Mirage ROSE program.

As for new engines. In the 1990s the South Africans and Russians were fielding a variant of the RD-33 - i.e. SMR-95 - on Cheetah and Mirage F-1 test-beds. The biggest thaw in Russian-Pakistani relations occurred in the mid-1990s, at which time Moscow openly offered the MiG-29 and Su-27. So on that basis, procuring the SMR-95 wouldn't have been an issue if the PAF needed a new engine for the Mirages.

In fact, our ties with South Africa were very good in the 1990s (major contributor to the H2/H4 and Ra'ad programs), so in all likelihood, the Mirages as a whole could have had the R-Darter BVRAAM, U-Darter WVRAAM and Denel Archer HMD/S too.

All that we are doing with the JF-17 today, we could have been doing with the Mirage F-1 in the 1990s, i.e. 15-20 years earlier. So all those lessons we are learning today, we will have learned by now, putting us at the middle of Project Azm instead of the start.

Sir. A modern aircraft is literally designed around the engine. The engine manufacturer literally gets involved in the design itself. And for design you need things like wind tunnels and CAD/CAM software along with supercomputing resources.

Please, what you are describing is a fairy tale of ifs, buts, and could have been. This IS NOT how you start an aerospace industry. This is exactly how you become like India, with too many suppliers, and too little quality control, with no sense of proper integration. We WOULD NOT be creating Azm today, we would be running a circus.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Sir. A modern aircraft is literally designed around the engine. The engine manufacturer literally gets involved in the design itself. And for design you need things like wind tunnels and CAD/CAM software along with supercomputing resources.

Please, what you are describing is a fairy tale of ifs, buts, and could have been. This IS NOT how you start an aerospace industry. This is exactly how you become like India, with too many suppliers, and too little quality control, with no sense of proper integration. We WOULD NOT be creating Azm today, we would be running a circus.

The SMR-95 was successfully integrated and tested from the Mirage F-1 and the Cheetah D2 in the 1990s, so an engine change on the F-1 platform was, in reality, completed.

Through the F-1, Pakistan could have learned the aircraft manufacturing process, integration and testing in the 1990s, perhaps in collaboration with Denel which was doing that work in that time period.

However, like it is currently understanding with the JF-17, the PAF will have sooner realized the need to raise industries to produce the inputs. Building competency in those inputs is a key aspect of Project Azm, running in parallel to the actual fighter design and development process. Sure, the F-1 wouldn't necessarily contribute to the Azm design process, that is another realm entirely, but I am referring to the work necessary to source the inputs feeding into Azm (or any fighter for that matter).

 

[CriticalThought]

The SMR-95 was successfully integrated and tested from the Mirage F-1 and the Cheetah D2 in the 1990s, so an engine change on the F-1 platform was, in reality, completed.

Through the F-1, Pakistan could have learned the aircraft manufacturing process, integration and testing in the 1990s, perhaps in collaboration with Denel which was doing that work in that time period.

However, like it is currently understanding with the JF-17, the PAF will have sooner realized the need to raise industries to produce the inputs. Building competency in those inputs is a key aspect of Project Azm, running in parallel to the actual fighter design and development process. Sure, the F-1 wouldn't necessarily contribute to the Azm design process, that is another realm entirely, but I am referring to the work necessary to source the inputs feeding into Azm (or any fighter for that matter).

The problem is that the Chinese have made it too easy for us.

Let me ask you a question. Do the South Africans have an indigenous fighter? Why not? Did the F-1 lead to an Azm like project there? Did the F-1 ever get an upgrade beyond SMR-95?

The things you are describing, the Chinese have done at a great financial cost and Chinese style hard work day and night. And they have given all of that on a golden platter.

Sir, an aerospace industry could theoretically be created by borrowing an airframe from here, an engine from there, and avionics from somewhere else, and learning from that endeavor. Forget resources, do we even have the dedication for that? Let me just say that Pakistanis are well known for being lazy b@$t@rd$. But what is even worse is an ungrateful lazy b@$t@rd. We are trivializing the help that the Chinese have given in the form of lessons in quality control, CNC machining, and even the electronics manufacturing at PAC. I remember reading somewhere that America was against Pakistan having that electronics facility and the Chinese ignored their pressure. Do you even realize what you have in the form of KLJ-7V2? A radar whose frequencies are your own highly classified secret? Instead of being grateful and moving forward with renewed vigor people are spreading dejection and lower morale based on could have been.

Do you realize what the Chinese would feel reading these posts? Our trouble is that our leaders have big mouths with which they destroy our vested interests. Like that enemy of Pakistan Khwaja Asif and his tweet about FATF. You are a well respected figure. Tell me WHAT do we get out of multiple pages of 'what could have been'? And what is disconcerting is if people in important places are talking about this and the talk reaches Chinese ears. People only have limited patience. Dont test other's patience so much. You think we could have been in the middle of Azm today? Well prove if by getting a fifth gen fighter off the ground in the next 20 years with ZERO Chinese input. Let's see how we fare.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

The problem is that the Chinese have made it too easy for us.

Let me ask you a question. Do the South Africans have an indigenous fighter? Why not? Did the F-1 lead to an Azm like project there? Did the F-1 ever get an upgrade beyond SMR-95?

The things you are describing, the Chinese have done at a great financial cost and Chinese style hard work day and night. And they have given all of that on a golden platter.

Sir, an aerospace industry could theoretically be created by borrowing an airframe from here, an engine from there, and avionics from somewhere else, and learning from that endeavor. Forget resources, do we even have the dedication for that? Let me just say that Pakistanis are well known for being lazy b@$t@rd$. But what is even worse is an ungrateful lazy b@$t@rd. We are trivializing the help that the Chinese have given in the form of lessons in quality control, CNC machining, and even the electronics manufacturing at PAC. I remember reading somewhere that America was against Pakistan having that electronics facility and the Chinese ignored their pressure. Do you even realize what you have in the form of KLJ-7V2? A radar whose frequencies are your own highly classified secret? Instead of being grateful and moving forward with renewed vigor people are spreading dejection and lower morale based on could have been.

Do you realize what the Chinese would feel reading these posts? Our trouble is that our leaders have big mouths with which they destroy our vested interests. Like that enemy of Pakistan Khwaja Asif and his tweet about FATF. You are a well respected figure. Tell me WHAT do we get out of multiple pages of 'what could have been'? And what is disconcerting is if people in important places are talking about this and the talk reaches Chinese ears. People only have limited patience. Dont test other's patience so much. You think we could have been in the middle of Azm today? Well prove if by getting a fifth gen fighter off the ground in the next 20 years with ZERO Chinese input. Let's see how we fare.

I'm not sure how you connected the possibility of PAC manufacturing aircraft earlier to disconnecting from the Chinese. My point is specific: manufacturing aircraft 1-2 decades sooner would have had Pakistan start the next-phase of the indigenization process sooner than it is today. Does any of that prevent Pakistan from pairing with the Chinese to design Azm? No, but it does mean working on the inputs necessary for Azm - such as aerostructure material, semi-conductors for electronics and other inputs - sooner (potentially with Chinese support, but others as well).

 

[CriticalThought]

I'm not sure how you connected the possibility of PAC manufacturing aircraft earlier to disconnecting from the Chinese. My point is specific: manufacturing aircraft 1-2 decades sooner would have had Pakistan start the next-phase of the indigenization process sooner than it is today. Does any of that prevent Pakistan from pairing with the Chinese to design Azm? No, but it does mean working on the inputs necessary for Azm - such as aerostructure material, semi-conductors for electronics and other inputs - sooner (potentially with Chinese support, but others as well).

What I am saying is that aircraft manufacturing is NOT about collecting disparate parts and tacking them together. To conclude that we would be in the middle of project Azm as a result is flawed logic.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

What I am saying is that aircraft manufacturing is NOT about collecting disparate parts and tacking them together. To conclude that we would be in the middle of project Azm as a result is flawed logic.

My point re: Project Azm is that part of it has to do with domestically building capacity for producing key inputs, such as materials necessary for the airframe, among others. The drive to deepen in the domestic chain occurred during ACM Sohail Aman's time, who strongly emphasized "not being reliant on others" (with some valuable hints to the effect by @messiach when she was around). My point is that this aspect of Azm could have begun sooner had we been learned the fighter manufacturing process earlier.

 

[CriticalThought]

My point re: Project Azm is that part of it has to do with domestically building capacity for producing key inputs, such as materials necessary for the airframe, among others. The drive to deepen in the domestic chain occurred during ACM Sohail Aman's time, who strongly emphasized "not being reliant on others" (with some valuable hints to the effect by @messiach when she was around). My point is that this aspect of Azm could have begun sooner had we been learned the fighter manufacturing process earlier.

This aspect should have been started regardless. You don't need an entire fighter project to start work on missiles and avionics. I have already stated that not starting indigenous work on electronics is treason on the part of our leaders. Electronics are needed by all branches so there should have been a combined effort.

 

[Tank131]

From my understanding, the French made the Mirage F-1 offer to the PAF in the 1980s because Dassault had moved on from the legacy Mirage platform (i.e. III/5 and F-1). In other words, no restrictions on how the fighters can be modified and used besides the inherent technical limitations of the design.

When the PAF was looking at producing its own fighter in the 1980s, the idea was that most of it would be manufactured in-house at PAC. Hence in the words of a well-known retired PAF Air Commodore, the F-1 was offered with ToT "lock, stock and barrel" - i.e. Pakistan would take over the manufacturing of the fighter.

Overall, it wouldn't have been much different from PAC co-producing the JF-17 today, i.e. manufacture 58% of the sub-assemblies, locally assemble the avionics and do final assembly. Based on what the old PAF guys were saying about the F-1, it seemed Dassault was fine with PAC doing almost all of the sub-assembly work. France offered to handover a stockpile of ATAR turbojet engines, but it was indifferent to what Pakistan could have done with the fighter. Some years later we saw South Africa modify the Mirage III and F-1 into the Cheetah and Super Mirage F-1, respectively.

However, whether it be JF-17 or the Mirage F-1, we are still referring to the manufacturing process. In other words, having ToT for either didn't mean that Pakistan would source the critical inputs (like steel, electronics, etc) indigenously. We simply don't have the base for either at this time. Even in the case of the JF-17, the core inputs are coming from other places. I suppose having the F-1 manufacturing through the 1990s might have pushed the PAF to consider it sooner (as opposed to now in the lead-up of Project Azm).

Basically, the Mirage F-1 would have been the JF-17 before the JF-17, and its successor in the PAF would have been Project Azm much earlier.

There you go. They would handover a stockpile of engines from the 80s era, and no guarantees of avionics.

What about engine repairs? What about new versions of engines? Like RD-93 now develops into RD-93 MA. What about avionics? Let's take a stroll down memory lane. When the Thunder was first revealed circa 2004, the internet was full of derisive comments like 'if we don't give them missiles it would be useless'. The only reason why today we can talk about the Spanish Indra is because our Chinese brothers have helped us develop a potent finished product and people are now forced to sit-up and take notice. They now realize there is business to be had that will otherwise go to the Chinese.

So far what we have seen, these other programs are sounding like a VERY BAD idea.

From what i understand it wasnt just the stockpiled engines, but the right to build the 09k-50 in house. Were they willong to set up a parts manufacturing facility, im not sure. Likely PAC would have had to pay for it but . That is the way it works. Even with JF-17, China didnt just set up laiths and tool manufacturing out of its good will. PAC invested in it. From what i hace read and heard from former PAF officers is that they were offered both MF1 and F-20 much like Turkey bought the Mangusta. You own the technical specs and right to do what you want woth the design, but what and how u make use of it is your problem.

Regarding re-export, i never read much about it. My guess is they would not be able to export the tech they acquired without consent, but whatever derivatives came of it probably would not be able to have been restricted.

 

[amardeep mishra]

And I can solidify my argument by giving the example of India. With billions more to spend, the Russians duped them with SU-30 MKI and the French are taking them along for a ride. Even the Americans are not willing to transfer all the tech for F-16. And even being the darling of the West, India still doesn't have an indigenous fighter that is not a joke.

It is the vision and forethought of our leaders that has allowed us to avoid the same fate as India and becoming another joke in the world.

Hi! @CriticalThought
I was casually going through this thread when I bumped in your remarks. And I feel that I must correct a few gigantic fallacies or your perception.
I believe, lack of any real scientific research(at least decent scientific research-- both publication in top notch journals and creation of intellectual property rights) coupled with sheer opaqueness in pakistani research establishment leads to a lot of jingoism and sometimes exaggerated claims. I wish to reiterate that ToT is a misnomer-- which is very poorly understood by many Pakistanis including those residing in west! There are various aspects of ToT and let me highlight some of those before pointing out as to why your remarks about India are not entirely true-
The entire ToT clause negotiated between two parties depend on what is on offer by the OEM. I repeat, no sane country would just hand over critical technologies to the purchasing party. That never happens in the real world. Besides, even if the ToT agreement has been signed, the assimilation of the technology depends a lot on the industrial maturity of the purchasing party-- for instance in the case of Agostas the french would have transfered the blueprint or design of sub to Pakistan, however various sub-system level components would still need to be sourced from France as Pakistan lacks the industry at home to even produce warship grade steel let alone special alloys for propellers or certain part of the submarine. This ToT exercise would have been far more fruitful if Pakistan really had some sort of industrial maturity. What I mean by Industrial maturity is the presence of both govt and private sector companies that can supply these sub-system level components(their own design) in any such venture.

As for India, you get to criticise because India happens to be much more transparent vis-a-vis Pakistan, if things were as transparent as they are in India--like every project getting audited by CAG and reported in public-- things would be very different. Yes it is true, that India spent billions of dollars in Su-30 program without getting any significant ToT-- but you need to understand the context of it, and that is these deals were negotiated in early-mid 90s, when the requirement was different and the emphasis on ToT was far lesser. Even then if you read CAG reports, India has indigenized a lot of sub-system level components in Su-30 program via her private industry. The extent of manufacturing taking place in India(for Su-30) is far greater than Pakistan(for JF-17). In India industry has matured to the level where it can support such a venture in at least sub-system level components-- this manifests in the form of avionics, landing gear, tyres, cabling to even engines to name a few. Not to mention the fact that AL-31 engine is also manufactured in India. And the level of indigenization achieved(In both aircraft and engine) can be read in numerous CAG reports.

India is inducting LCA in numbers, I dont know what made you think India doesnt have an indigenous fighter. Thankfully I have had opportunity to interact with test pilots and my own batch mates working in ADA, I know fair deal about the plane. A lot of reports that prop up in Indian media are planted to set up an atmosphere for imports. Kindly note that unlike Pakistan, India has the financial muscle to pay for the imports upfront and that attracts a lot of these companies. Sometimes these companies employ lesser than legal means to forward their case. As for the LCA, according to those who fly and those who have designed, the problems related to max AoA and STR have been long solved-- with max AoA being in excess of 26 degrees(as of 2014) and classified STR. We can surely have a nice elaborate discussion on the control design aspect of both LCA and JF-17 if you want. I have worked on nonlinear adaptive control and published papers in top notch aerospace journals.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Pffffffffffffft. @WebMaster Dear Sir, please create a new title called "Keyboard Warrior Clown" and grant it to @MastanKhan and @MUSTAKSHAF Thank you in advance for your expeditious resolution of the matter. With warm regards, @CriticalThought

LOLz!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When someone’s arguments take the form of personal attacks and name-calling it’s a pretty clear admission that they don’t have anything valid or worthwhile to say.

 

[CriticalThought]

Hi! @CriticalThought
I was casually going through this thread when I bumped in your remarks. And I feel that I must correct a few gigantic fallacies or your perception.
I believe, lack of any real scientific research(at least decent scientific research-- both publication in top notch journals and creation of intellectual property rights) coupled with sheer opaqueness in pakistani research establishment leads to a lot of jingoism and sometimes exaggerated claims. I wish to reiterate that ToT is a misnomer-- which is very poorly understood by many Pakistanis including those residing in west! There are various aspects of ToT and let me highlight some of those before pointing out as to why your remarks about India are not entirely true-
The entire ToT clause negotiated between two parties depend on what is on offer by the OEM. I repeat, no sane country would just hand over critical technologies to the purchasing party. That never happens in the real world. Besides, even if the ToT agreement has been signed, the assimilation of the technology depends a lot on the industrial maturity of the purchasing party-- for instance in the case of Agostas the french would have transfered the blueprint or design of sub to Pakistan, however various sub-system level components would still need to be sourced from France as Pakistan lacks the industry at home to even produce warship grade steel let alone special alloys for propellers or certain part of the submarine. This ToT exercise would have been far more fruitful if Pakistan really had some sort of industrial maturity. What I mean by Industrial maturity is the presence of both govt and private sector companies that can supply these sub-system level components(their own design) in any such venture.

As for India, you get to criticise because India happens to be much more transparent vis-a-vis Pakistan, if things were as transparent as they are in India--like every project getting audited by CAG and reported in public-- things would be very different. Yes it is true, that India spent billions of dollars in Su-30 program without getting any significant ToT-- but you need to understand the context of it, and that is these deals were negotiated in early-mid 90s, when the requirement was different and the emphasis on ToT was far lesser. Even then if you read CAG reports, India has indigenized a lot of sub-system level components in Su-30 program via her private industry. The extent of manufacturing taking place in India(for Su-30) is far greater than Pakistan(for JF-17). In India industry has matured to the level where it can support such a venture in at least sub-system level components-- this manifests in the form of avionics, landing gear, tyres, cabling to even engines to name a few. Not to mention the fact that AL-31 engine is also manufactured in India. And the level of indigenization achieved(In both aircraft and engine) can be read in numerous CAG reports.

India is inducting LCA in numbers, I dont know what made you think India doesnt have an indigenous fighter. Thankfully I have had opportunity to interact with test pilots and my own batch mates working in ADA, I know fair deal about the plane. A lot of reports that prop up in Indian media are planted to set up an atmosphere for imports. Kindly note that unlike Pakistan, India has the financial muscle to pay for the imports upfront and that attracts a lot of these companies. Sometimes these companies employ lesser than legal means to forward their case. As for the LCA, according to those who fly and those who have designed, the problems related to max AoA and STR have been long solved-- with max AoA being in excess of 26 degrees(as of 2014) and classified STR. We can surely have a nice elaborate discussion on the control design aspect of both LCA and JF-17 if you want. I have worked on nonlinear adaptive control and published papers in top notch aerospace journals.

You have simply reiterated all the deficiencies that I originally pointed out, only using so many words. So let me make it very simple and clear what I am implying: the ToT of SU-30 MKI - even though you are making sub-system level components as you say - didn't give you any advantages in designing LCA, whose engine is American, avionics and missiles are Israeli, and airfrace has French inputs. That is, it is NOT the case, that after having spent billions of dollars on SU-30 MKI, India was able to design its own fighter aircraft from scratch.

And this is what I am trying to explain to @Bilal Khan (Quwa) and other readers. Merely borrowing a design here, an engine there, some avionics from somewhere else, or in India's case from the same source (Russia), does not mean that we would be half way through on Project Azm. On the contrary, we would be in a royal mess, having to manage multiple international suppliers and their political agendas.

 

[Sine Nomine]

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) You are wasting your time man,that guy is a jingo.If we take into account the raw material sourced for JFT from outside,it would be lower then 58% on our part.
JFT is maturing in an era,where the best 4 Gen fighters are becoming absolute infront of 5th Gen.These guys have duty to support every ill will decision of men in uniform.