Bilal Khan (Quwa)
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2016
- Messages
- 7,004
- Reaction score
- 97
- Country
- Location
I agree.A post with random thoughts to keep the thread alive.
Some uncomfortable truths:
We here at defence.pk have made LCA the butt of many jokes and continue to do so. Of course the LCA program has had many many teething problems and a lot of the criticism is justified, albeit misdirected at the engineering prowess of the Indians. What we must understand now is that with Project Azm we are now embarking on a program that will have the same kind of hiccups and delays that India faced with LCA. It's not about who is better or "God-gifted" at aerospace engineering. It's just the learning curve that everyone must navigate. India has navigated that curve the past 3 decades. We have done some parts of it but most of it lies in front of us in the shape of Project Azm. We must ask ourselves: do we have the stomach to soldier on with Azm in the face of delays, cost overruns, and failures? Has the PAF accounted for these things in their planning or are they going to make the same mistake as the Indians by overestimating their own capabilities? Perhaps it is best to learn from the Indian experience than to repeat it.
Also, no matter what the patriotic bone in your body says, the Indian aerospace industry is technically more advanced than ours. I actually feel that it is my patriotic duty to point this out so we can do something about it. The Indians have been let down by poor project management (to put it succinctly). This means that we should not be surprised if we take more time to develop Azm than even the LCA. The Indian planners have made the strategic decision to not cancel LCA even though it looked like a failure at many instances. They could stomach this "loss" due to their large economy. I wonder if we have the stomach to make such a strategic decision for Azm. Make no mistake: Azm will require the same unwavering, decades-long "commitment to the cause" that the nuclear program required. That program had a national buy-in. Everyone was on board. I wonder if there is a similar national buy-in into Azm, or is it just PAF's pet-project that will be axed if/when the times get tough.
Silver linings:
I hate cliches but a journey of a thousand steps begin with the first. The mere fact that something like Azm is being pursed with such seriousness is revolutionary for Pakistan. As an aerospace engineer this gives me great hope. At least we are trying. Azm may have long-lasting effects on the economy and defense industry of Pakistan.
Some unsolicited advice:
These are just some things that should be done:
- Fund research in universities and hire from universities. I've heard of "industry-academia linkages" dramaybazi for a decade now but it needs to be turned into a reality for Azm. Firstly, AvRID needs some mechanism where it funds 3-5 years projects that can support 4-5 graduate students in universities. These projects should be things AvRID does not have expertise for, does not need expertise in immediately, and needs expertise in eventually. This might look like high-risk investment but it pays great dividends in the long-run. A lot of the experts you will train in universities will come and work for you. This may even give a much-needed boost in research in universities that is badly needed. Our universities are a great, untapped asset that most planners don't seem to appreciate. It will be unfortunate if Turkey and China appreciate our universities more than our own organizations and benefit from our tax-payer money used to run these universities.
- Have faith in civilian experts. There is a tendency to only trust armed-forces personnel. This has worked great for SPD organizations but this won't work for something like Azm. Our air-force has very limited and very lop-sided expertise that are a function of what they have been asked to do over the years. They've never designed an FGFA and they don't have the expertise for it. Nobody should be shocked by this. PAF is an air force, it is not Boeing or Lockheed Martin. They need to get the expertise in the shape of civilians that will know better. I know a lot of PAF babas personally that will get sick if they have to admit that a civilian expert is better than them or agree/listen to them. Pride is good. Arrogance is toxic.
- Once FGFA goes into production, establish a separate factory (AMF-2?) for it and don't just expand AMF at PAC. This is for two reasons: 1-Allows us to make JF-17 unhindered. 2- Distributes the risk of loss of production in case of attacks. The Azm factory could be nearby Attock for logistical reasons but keep it separate.
Moreover, the PAF doesn't need to bet the house on AZM.
The PAF can take a hybrid approach to its next-gen fighter plans by (1) rolling into a consortium with China (most realistic avenue) and (2) separately design and develop an experimental platform to build domestic R&D.
This doesn't free us from mistakes, delays, or even embarrassment on the indigenous side, but at least learning doesn't come at the cost of fulfilling requirements. Likewise, we may not even manufacture the demonstrator or experimental platform, but it'll build a real world basis to design and build a fighter indigenously.
We can have our cake and eat it too (literally the definition of halwa puri).
The issue with this avenue is that it takes a lot of patience. You can easily cull the tech demo because, well, the consortium fighter meets one's needs. This is the sort of patience and out of box thinking we generally squeeze out, sadly.