Pakistan's Service Rifle (G-3, Type-56) Replacement Competition 2016.

[CriticalThought]

So if it’s problematic to export in starting phase because you are sourcing some materials, you would rather import rifles worth a billion rather than produce it using sourced parts. Also there are no EUCs for barrel blanks, you can stock them and there are multiple sources.

Salami slicing brother. You are already talking about export issues while we were discussing making rifle for our needs.

I am telling you the traitors on top will never let you become independent. Otherwise I am the first person who supports power projection and indigenization. Your aims for indigenization are being monitored by enemies who have their puppets in influential places, understand this.

 

[Bilal.]

I am telling you the traitors on top will never let you become independent. Otherwise I am the first person who supports power projection and indigenization. Your aims for indigenization are being monitored by enemies who have their puppets in influential places, understand this.

So we agree technically and financially it’s very much doable with relative ease

 

[WinterFangs]

Why doesn’t Pakistan try to develop and make a bullpup rifle, could take a long time to perfect it but could be eventually worth it.

 

[Bilal.]

Why doesn’t Pakistan try to develop and make a bullpup rifle, could take a long time to perfect it but could be eventually worth it.

Bullpups are not preferred by most end users. Mag change is harder and too much gas on the face.

 

[CriticalThought]

So we agree technically and financially it’s very much doable with relative ease

If the aim is to import machinery and materials and design a rifle, yes. Btw, you haven't discussed the testing machines which will test the finished product. You haven't discussed the carbon polymers and which friendly countries would be supplying those. And finally, once you have imported everything and designed around that, you have no local capacity to improve upon it. Can you invent a new polymer, or an entirely new material for the gun casing? Can you invent new techniques to observe your weapon in slow motion and at microscopic levels, so you can make mathematical models of stress and defects, and then improve upon it? If not, you have achieved a pyrrhic victory. It is a feel good thing.

 

[CriticalThought]

@Bilal. and others on this thread. Here is food for thought. From 2008-2015 Pakistan was on the FATF blacklist. During this period, we all know that very few Al-Khalid tanks were produced. Do you see a correlation here? Why would anyone want to buy Al-Khalid from us? When you can't export, the project makes less financial sense. In the end, you import VT-4s from China. Do you see how this works? @Bilal Khan (Quwa)

 

[TsAr]

They are not of good quality either.... Barrels expand after firing few rounds, accuracy deteriorates, cone of fire expands, feeding problems, get too hot to handle...

are we making the barrels of G3 ourselves or are we importing them?

 

[Bilal.]

If the aim is to import machinery and materials and design a rifle, yes. Btw, you haven't discussed the testing machines which will test the finished product. You haven't discussed the carbon polymers and which friendly countries would be supplying those. And finally, once you have imported everything and designed around that, you have no local capacity to improve upon it. Can you invent a new polymer, or an entirely new material for the gun casing? Can you invent new techniques to observe your weapon in slow motion and at microscopic levels, so you can make mathematical models of stress and defects, and then improve upon it? If not, you have achieved a pyrrhic victory. It is a feel good thing.

@Bilal. and others on this thread. Here is food for thought. From 2008-2015 Pakistan was on the FATF blacklist. During this period, we all know that very few Al-Khalid tanks were produced. Do you see a correlation here? Why would anyone want to buy Al-Khalid from us? When you can't export, the project makes less financial sense. In the end, you import VT-4s from China. Do you see how this works? @Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Buddy your arguments are all over the place. Traitors at the top, export issue, machine spares, carbon polymers?, design validation, FATF.

It’s an extreme case of analysis paralysis...

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

@Bilal. and others on this thread. Here is food for thought. From 2008-2015 Pakistan was on the FATF blacklist. During this period, we all know that very few Al-Khalid tanks were produced. Do you see a correlation here? Why would anyone want to buy Al-Khalid from us? When you can't export, the project makes less financial sense. In the end, you import VT-4s from China. Do you see how this works? @Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Possibly, but I suspect the COIN/CT ops during that time took a lot of the armed forces' fiscal resources.

In 2016, it had seemed like we fell into a 'peace dividend' (funds freeing up) and, in turn, initiated the Haider MBT (i.e., VT4), attack helicopter (T129), additional Erieye AEW&C, new assault rifle, and naval programs.

The issue is why go for the VT4 when we already had the al-Khalid? Why not force HIT to once again manufacture the al-Khalid at full capacity (50 tanks per year)? Though modest, the al-Khalid still draws on the local economy in various ways (albeit mostly with labour and some parts), but we could've expanded that with targeted R&D for more sub-systems and components.

Yes, exporting helps build a direct ROI for the facility, but the macroeconomic ROI is the savings you accrue in hard-currency by reducing imports. Moreover, you create a stimulus for the domestic economy, incentivize R&D in the private sector (i.e., growth and investment), and other positive factors. For example, Pakistan may have been able to indigenize more of the al-Khalid's key inputs, and while it can't sell the whole tank, it might have an easier time exporting those inputs to other places.

Our planners didn't think about this because they aren't economists, they're fauj -- there's a limit to what they know, and we're seeing it. Overall, I'm fine with the Army owning HIT, POF, et. al, but they need to delegate the day-to-day management to actual professionals in engineering, finance, corporate management, etc. Moreover, they need to rope in economic and trade experts in their negotiations for foreign arms so that we can drill offsets, ToT, etc, at a more effective level.

I like Turkey's model of running TAI. Their equivalent to Fauji Foundation basically serves as the Board of Directors, but the entire corporate management aspect is run by professionals in those fields. Their equivalent to the MoDP -- i.e., the SSB -- is also run by an engineer / scientist, and exerts a lot of authority over the MS-SOEs to ensure synergy, horizontal IP sharing, etc.

 

[CriticalThought]

Buddy your arguments are all over the place. Traitors at the top, export issue, machine spares, carbon polymers?, design validation, FATF.

It’s an extreme case of analysis paralysis...

Or, you are tying yourself into knots getting a handle on a complex issue. Let me sort this out for you.

1. You can definitely import everything and design something locally.
2. Then you try to improve upon it. Do you have the materials science and mechanical engineering knowledge, and the equipment needed to gather data and mathematically analyze the performance of your weapon? No. You are now limited by what you can import. Decades may pass, and you are stuck with one weapon. Does somebody remember G3?
3. Your suppliers see that you have rolled out the weapon to a large number of your soldiers. Now they jack up the prices of key spares and materials. What do you do?
4. When you try to export the weapon, your clients are astute enough to analyze points 1-3 above and they deem you a risky manufacturer.
5. In order to sort this mess, you need investment into core engineering and technology which traitorous leaders will not allow.
6. Adding to the problems above are the sharks in international markets who are guarding their turf by hook and by crook, and they will add to the woes in 1-5 any way they can. FATF, spares, or anything else.

Does this make more sense to you?

 

[Bilal.]

Or, you are tying yourself into knots getting a handle on a complex issue. Let me sort this out for you.

1. You can definitely import everything and design something locally.
2. Then you try to improve upon it. Do you have the materials science and mechanical engineering knowledge, and the equipment needed to gather data and mathematically analyze the performance of your weapon? No. You are now limited by what you can import. Decades may pass, and you are stuck with one weapon. Does somebody remember G3?
3. Your suppliers see that you have rolled out the weapon to a large number of your soldiers. Now they jack up the prices of key spares and materials. What do you do?
4. When you try to export the weapon, your clients are astute enough to analyze points 1-3 above and they deem you a risky manufacturer.
5. In order to sort this mess, you need investment into core engineering and technology which traitorous leaders will not allow.
6. Adding to the problems above are the sharks in international markets who are guarding their turf by hook and by crook, and they will add to the woes in 1-5 any way they can. FATF, spares, or anything else.

Does this make more sense to you?

yes it makes perfect sense:

1.If I get up in the morning I might get dizzy and fall an hurt my self
2. If not I can get into an accident while driving to work
3. My boss may not be in a good mood and fire me
4. Or I can slip on office floor and break a bone

All possible but hypothetical and a “risk” everyone takes on daily basis

 

[CriticalThought]

Possibly, but I suspect the COIN/CT ops during that time took a lot of the armed forces' fiscal resources.

In 2016, it had seemed like we fell into a 'peace dividend' (funds freeing up) and, in turn, initiated the Haider MBT (i.e., VT4), attack helicopter (T129), additional Erieye AEW&C, new assault rifle, and naval programs.

The issue is why go for the VT4 when we already had the al-Khalid? Why not force HIT to once again manufacture the al-Khalid at full capacity (50 tanks per year)? Though modest, the al-Khalid still draws on the local economy in various ways (albeit mostly with labour and some parts), but we could've expanded that with targeted R&D for more sub-systems and components.

Yes, exporting helps build a direct ROI for the facility, but the macroeconomic ROI is the savings you accrue in hard-currency by reducing imports. Moreover, you create a stimulus for the domestic economy, incentivize R&D in the private sector (i.e., growth and investment), and other positive factors. Our planners didn't think about this because they aren't economists, they're fauj -- there's a limit to what they know, and we're seeing it.

The spanner in the works are they key components that you need to import. Engine being one of them. The right grade of steel alloys being another. Electronics is another. The world doesn't want you to become a military power. Why will the world give you an easy and reliable supply of key components at cheap prices? The world has wares of its own to peddle. Why wouldn't they try their very best to engineer a situation where you are forced to buy from them?

That war on terror was orchestrated by America. The training, the tactics, even the camouflage uniforms reek of America. You were supplying the manpower. Even if your generals orchestrated attacks, their planning is reminiscent of American tactics in Afghanistan. So don't discount the effect of FATF blacklist on your indigenous programs.

yes it makes perfect sense:

1.If I get up in the morning I might get dizzy and fall an hurt my self
2. If not I can get into an accident while driving to work
3. My boss may not be in a good mood and fire me
4. Or I can slip on office floor and break a bone

All possible but hypothetical and a “risk” everyone takes on daily basis

If you want to be non-serious, I can't help you. But for anyone interested, I have laid down the serious and realistic problems that are a hurdle to our indigenous efforts.

 

[Bilal.]

If you want to be non-serious, I can't help you. But for anyone interested, I have laid down the serious and realistic problems that are a hurdle to our indigenous efforts.

Not being non-serious. Just saying everyone attempting anything faces potential risks of varying probability and impact (risk management 101). But that does not stop things from being undertaken.

 

[CriticalThought]

Not being non-serious. Just saying everyone attempting anything faces potential risks of varying probability and impact (risk management 101). But that does not stop things from being undertaken.

But in our case, they are being stopped. Why?

 

[Bilal.]

But in our case, they are being stopped. Why?

What’s being stopped? The discussion was actually about possible solutions to resolve technical issues being faced on local products barrel.