Pakistan wants to create a self-reliant, self-sustained defense industry

[Path-Finder]

first how about stopping any talent from leaving! There are people who work abroad that would love to work in Pakistan BUT there is noting in place for them to use their skills and knowledge.

 

[Ali_Baba]

the problem is Pakistan procurement budget is not enough to sustain private industry. The IDS example shows the inconsistency of the decision making process aswell.

 

[Morag]

Ok for argument sake lets say Iran does possess it, its capability and capacity is not even close to other nations that i listed previously. So why would we look to be like Iran and not the other countries?

I suggest you read this article over at the express.co.uk
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1158229/iran-news-uk-oil-tanker-seizure-stena-impero-latest-ww3

UK's Express view differs from yours. According to them Iran's capability is a lot closer than you imagine. In fact it surpasses the UK in many ways.

 

[denel]

We can't stop mad Indians form barking no matter what we do.

The strategy is for the armed forces to coordinate all government defense expenditure if the civilians want government funding and who better to distribute and monitor the money than PA? It will ensure that only the key projects are focused on and funded and in the context of the strategic needs of PA. It will eliminate duplication, cut out civilian corruption , ensure accountability and transparency to the military. This will create a mean and lean military development machine.



Small minds think in small ways, these so called "morons' by you sidelined the need for G3 rifle by focusing on strategic projects but your small mind is set in small ways to be able to see this.

Pal I am sorry that you cannot see the biggger picture overall that i am leading to. this is just an example I am quoting.

If you cannot do something simple like this, forget about larger projects. you just dont leap you have to start small steps; what about anti personnel, communications arena etc, the list goes on; there is no initiative.

 

[guest9999]

Pal I am sorry that you cannot see the biggger picture overall that i am leading to. this is just an example I am quoting.

If you cannot do something simple like this, forget about larger projects. you just dont leap you have to start small steps; what about anti personnel, communications arena etc, the list goes on; there is no initiative.

I've only felt G3 rifle in video games, even then it sucked so badly. When I found out Pakistan Army uses it and "loves it", I was shocked. I don't know why Pakistan Army would use such a gun.

 

[Jinn Baba]

ID has had notable export success, including with U.S. Border Patrol. It is most renowned though for developing the Shahpar UAV, later developed into the Burraq armed drone. China weaponized the drone, further developing and successfully exporting it as the CH-3/5 series, for which Pakistan appears to receive nothing.

 

[araz]

The problem I see is stagnant leadership at the top of these industries who has no incentive to innovate or drive new thoughts - put wrong people at top/middle leadership - this will continue.

A few thoughts to bounce around.
Re: POF there is demand for ordinance across the world so development in this sphere to increase production to cater for demand is a sensible approach.There was talk of modernizing POF with an induction of newer machinery worth 250 million dollars and provided the machinery is avaialble the cost can be offset against production increase and as such this would be a good investment.
Electronics: I see only one way for electronics to progeress in Paklands and that is incorporation of dual use tech for the purposes of production of items. My reasoning is there is not enough demand for electrical items for purely defence related items for there to be a defence related industry. So incorporation of defnece related industry along the lines of dual use tech might be a much better bet . The produce can find partners locally to begin with and as the products become competitive they can be sold in their own rights.
Mechanical engineering: Here again I see trucks and other engines for local buses/trucks being produced along with tank engines. Where bigger engines are required can we look into train engines for local consumption?
It is interesting to note that we currently dont even produce motor cycle engines in spite of huge demand. I dont think we should allow any car that does not manufacture engines and parts locally to be sold in the market
A

 

[MIRauf]

This is sad, Private Industry should have had the strategic thinking to make small engines in house. As for ID to complain about Chinese taking their UAV and improving, modifying converting it to C-3/5 etc, what where they doing during that time ? You have to continue to improve your product, heck in meantime that could have been developing consumer drones like DJI Phantom etc.

 

[araz]

This is sad, Private Industry should have had the strategic thinking to make small engines in house. As for ID to complain about Chinese taking their UAV and improving, modifying converting it to C-3/5 etc, what where they doing during that time ? You have to continue to improve your product, heck in meantime that could have been developing consumer drones like DJI Phantom etc.

I think private sector is so small and generally world over they are selfish in looking for profits first rather than country. The army also has not played ball by getting private enterprises involved in things that can subsequently be sold for profit ehich would help both. So in this case the Govtt and its enterprises should be held accountable. Once people see profit in a venture they will come out of the woodworks and leech off the main provider.
ID is a case in point. I think what he is conveniently forgetting is that he did not have the skill set to get PAF what it wanted.
A

 

[Sine Nomine]

G3 replacement has nothing to do with innovation but budget constraints . replacing the primary weapon for an army of 625,000 Active soldiers is not a piece of cake for a Country like Pakistan who's economy is in shambles .

He is saying that a state which isn't capable of designing a Rifle,talks about self-reliant, self-sustained defense industry sounds like a joke.

 

[denel]

A few thoughts to bounce around.
Re: POF there is demand for ordinance across the world so development in this sphere to increase production to cater for demand is a sensible approach.There was talk of modernizing POF with an induction of newer machinery worth 250 million dollars and provided the machinery is avaialble the cost can be offset against production increase and as such this would be a good investment.
Electronics: I see only one way for electronics to progeress in Paklands and that is incorporation of dual use tech for the purposes of production of items. My reasoning is there is not enough demand for electrical items for purely defence related items for there to be a defence related industry. So incorporation of defnece related industry along the lines of dual use tech might be a much better bet . The produce can find partners locally to begin with and as the products become competitive they can be sold in their own rights.
Mechanical engineering: Here again I see trucks and other engines for local buses/trucks being produced along with tank engines. Where bigger engines are required can we look into train engines for local consumption?
It is interesting to note that we currently dont even produce motor cycle engines in spite of huge demand. I dont think we should allow any car that does not manufacture engines and parts locally to be sold in the market
A

Narrating our experience was on similar track. All vehicles we developed were based off what was available on civilian/heavy duty use; then replatformed to take full use of various economies of efficiencies and engineering capabilities e.g Casspir, Buffel etc are off the Benz Unimog chassis mated with different engines which were being built (not assembled) locally; similarly we have a very long standing industry in electronics devoted to mining sector and various industries which also forayed into radio comms etc - there was always the culture of pointing the finger at outsiders and innovating on our own. From the 60's there was a very strict order to impose tarrifs if the car or truck was not locally contented. That was a strategic decision which made huge dividends in the end.
Same needs to happen in Pak; everything is possible but it is like we are seeing in our country hyenas fatcats who are siphoning and sapping away institutions - plus of course at the hands of mother kak load of indians Guptas who still cannot be brought to justice.

 

[gambit]

Electronics: I see only one way for electronics to progeress in Paklands and that is incorporation of dual use tech for the purposes of production of items. My reasoning is there is not enough demand for electrical items for purely defence related items for there to be a defence related industry. So incorporation of defnece related industry along the lines of dual use tech might be a much better bet .

When I was active duty and going thru the usual Professional Military Education (PME), in one session, we had a 1/2 hr long debate (competitive discussion) on the concept of dual role technology. Half of the class was assigned 'pro' and the other half 'against'.

To be 'pro' means to be supportive. The opposites of 'pro' are 'con' and 'against'. How could this be? Are not 'con' and 'against' the same? No, it is not. The 'con' is to simply list the negative aspects of an issue, if you know the positive and negative attributes, you could still buy the item and make adjustments in usage, but to be 'against' is to be antagonistic, meaning hostile altogether. You do not want it.

My half of the class was to be 'against'. I and three other students were tasked to research on the negative aspects of adapting civilian technologies to military uses and the group would formulate an argument hostile to the idea. In other words, the military should finance technologies that are -- FROM CONCEPTION -- unique for military missions.

The idea is not as absurd as one might think -- low radar observability, aka 'stealth'.

When you think about it, 'stealth' is antagonistic to everything we know of radar usage. Is not radar supposed to be convenient and even life saving at times? So why are we working to evade radar?

Another example -- the aircraft carrier.

There is no civilian application of the concept. The aircraft carrier and in-flight refueling are purely military applications. How many civilians would be willing to suffer many hrs in a Boeing 737 with in-flight refueling?

The exercise was eye opening. The point is that one must incorporate national security issues and goals into the debate. It does not matter the size of the country as much as the scope of its national security issues and goals. Germany is much smaller than the US but had expansive national goals and the result was WW II. Same for Japan of the same era.

Why was it that the Soviet Union was always behind the US, and Western allies, in terms of technologies (plural) during the Cold War yrs? Because there were little to no civilian opportunities in relevant fields of STEM. If everything has to go thru military review -- and everything must -- then what incentives are there for me to innovate? On the other hand, the Soviets beat US to space with the first artificial satellite -- Sputnik -- and long duration human zero gravity knowledge with their space stations.

Quite often, adapting a civilian technology for military usage comes with additional cost that in hindsight, the military would have been better off developing the technology itself. Global Positioning System (GPS) was a hybrid of civilian and military ideas.

Dual role technologies are not bad in ideas and execution. The problem for the military lies in adaptations. You cannot stop the progress of the civilian sectors of STEM. But you must be vigilant on that progress in order to quickly adapt just that one point in that progress for military use.

 

[925boy]

First of all Iran doesn't have a self reliant or self-sustained defence industry. However Americans, Russians, French, German & Chinese do.

Relatively speaking and for a middle income + developing country, Iran does. The last country to know or validate or accept this is one that depends on imports mainly for national defense.

 

[Imad.Khan]

Relatively speaking and for a middle income + developing country, Iran does. The last country to know or validate or accept this is one that depends on imports mainly for national defense.

You mean India?

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

The only way you make money in Defence sector is by producing , cutting edge new tech