Pakistan Armed Forces - News & Discussions

[_Anonymous_]

Pakistan is a Military sinkhole so no money Shortage for arms purchase they will gladly accept anything thrown at them. Their own selected PM Niazi accepted that.

But this arms Race with dog shit Economy is unsustainable.

That's precisely my point. China will subsidize them to prop them up whereas they can negotiate easy credit terms with Turkey. The rest they purchase with hard cash which won't be much given their limited budget & other constraints.

However , whatever they get even if it's not cutting edge , state of the art stuff is enough to damage us whether significantly or not is a different matter.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1487257099310665733

2 Il78 repair contract for PAF.
T80UD repair contract. Engines for Type 59 and MBT2000.

 

[randomradio]

@randomradio seems like bat munchers are really irked and want to keep us distracted. Since Their frustration will only increase in coming yrs so I guess this free loading is just a starting.

What do u think will porkis be able to maintain these weapons without putting further strain on their Economy.

The Chinese will fund Pak military, no doubt about it. Maintenance is easy, even that will come free. It's not even a lot. Like the Rafale costs $2.5M a year in terms of spares. Those 250 JF-17s and J-10s will cost no more than $250M in terms of spares in total every year, it's nothing to the Chinese.

 

[Chain Smoker]

The Chinese will fund Pak military, no doubt about it. Maintenance is easy, even that will come free. It's not even a lot. Like the Rafale costs $2.5M a year in terms of spares. Those 250 JF-17s and J-10s will cost no more than $250M in terms of spares in total every year, it's nothing to the Chinese.

Then Pakistan is the new north Korea with gutter Economy but no Shortage of shiny Chinese toys.

 

[randomradio]

Then Pakistan is the new north Korea with gutter Economy but no Shortage of shiny Chinese toys.

Pretty much. If the Chinese drop a billion or two every year as aid into Pak's military and provide them with subsidised equipment, they can easily match us in conventional capabilities, particularly the army; VT-4, SH-15, HQ-9 etc. Since their overall requirement is half ours, every billion they spend is equal to 2B of ours. Meaning, every billion they spend on us, we need to spend a billion on them and on China. These are numbers we can outmatch only with economic growth and indigenisation. They can add in other areas too, like transferring 2 older destroyers post MLU, 2 more submarines, a second J-10C squadron, a comm satellite and so on.

Sugar daddy's got a lot of money after all. And they have the ability to keep Pak's economy afloat if they want to. Even if the Pakistanis don't do well, they can still survive and continue to remain a thorn in our sides.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

Pretty much. If the Chinese drop a billion or two every year as aid into Pak's military and provide them with subsidised equipment, they can easily match us in conventional capabilities, particularly the army; VT-4, SH-15, HQ-9 etc. Since their overall requirement is half ours, every billion they spend is equal to 2B of ours. Meaning, every billion they spend on us, we need to spend a billion on them and on China. These are numbers we can outmatch only with economic growth and indigenisation. They can add in other areas too, like transferring 2 older destroyers post MLU, 2 more submarines, a second J-10C squadron, a comm satellite and so on.

Sugar daddy's got a lot of money after all. And they have the ability to keep Pak's economy afloat if they want to. Even if the Pakistanis don't do well, they can still survive and continue to remain a thorn in our sides.

Only option for us is to be as self reliant as possible. France may not be as close to Pakistan today, doesn't mean they will be same say 15 years down the line.

Self reliance is what will win us a conflict.
Plus pakistan has a youth population which thinks Taliban is good, from their hearts. Before it was a small number. Now everyone who cannot afford it, is a madarsa chap aka warrior of Islam.

Hopefully this problem will slow them down. And give us breathing space in the interim.

 

[randomradio]

Only option for us is to be as self reliant as possible. France may not be as close to Pakistan today, doesn't mean they will be same say 15 years down the line.

Self reliance is what will win us a conflict.
Plus pakistan has a youth population which thinks Taliban is good, from their hearts. Before it was a small number. Now everyone who cannot afford it, is a madarsa chap aka warrior of Islam.

Hopefully this problem will slow them down. And give us breathing space in the interim.

That's not how it works though. Self-reliance is needed for the majority of the stuff for affordability and self-reliance. But your most advanced stuff is what wins you wars, regardless of whether it's indigenous or not.

Consider a ratio of 25-75, where 25 is cutting edge, 75 is your workhorse. So, regardless of whether the 25% is indigenous or not, if it's not capable of facing the enemy, then the remaining 75% is useless.

The criteria by rank for 25% is:
1. Capability
2. Affordability
3. Self-reliance

The criteria by rank for 75% is:
1. Affordability
2. Capability
3. Self-reliance

So self-reliance is the least important anyway. There's no point in having indigenous equipment if the first 2 criteria are not met in either category. For example, the T-90 meets all three criteria, whereas the Arjun doesn't meet affordability or self-reliance criteria.

Anyway, against Pakistan, self-reliance is largely irrelevant during war, it's a peacetime problem. The war won't last long enough for it to matter. And it's a peacetime problem, because, as a poor country, we can't afford imports in such large volumes in order to equip and maintain a very large army. But if your indigenous solution is more expensive than the import, then there's no point.

The main goal of self-reliance is affordability. Capability is a bonus. If you get both, only then can your entire military be indigenous.

 

[STEPHEN COHEN]

That's not how it works though. Self-reliance is needed for the majority of the stuff for affordability and self-reliance. But your most advanced stuff is what wins you wars, regardless of whether it's indigenous or not.

Consider a ratio of 25-75, where 25 is cutting edge, 75 is your workhorse. So, regardless of whether the 25% is indigenous or not, if it's not capable of facing the enemy, then the remaining 75% is useless.

The criteria by rank for 25% is:
1. Capability
2. Affordability
3. Self-reliance

The criteria by rank for 75% is:
1. Affordability
2. Capability
3. Self-reliance

So self-reliance is the least important anyway. There's no point in having indigenous equipment if the first 2 criteria are not met in either category. For example, the T-90 meets all three criteria, whereas the Arjun doesn't meet affordability or self-reliance criteria.

Anyway, against Pakistan, self-reliance is largely irrelevant during war, it's a peacetime problem. The war won't last long enough for it to matter. And it's a peacetime problem, because, as a poor country, we can't afford imports in such large volumes in order to equip and maintain a very large army. But if your indigenous solution is more expensive than the import, then there's no point.

The main goal of self-reliance is affordability. Capability is a bonus. If you get both, only then can your entire military be indigenous.

The Solution of Pakistan is
Very large number of SAAW and Cheap platforms like HAWK and LCA

SAAW is cheaper than Rocket Artillery

If we can induct a large number of SAAW rapidly then Entire Pakistan Artillery And Armour force can be destroyed

 

[randomradio]

The Solution of Pakistan is
Very large number of SAAW and Cheap platforms like HAWK and LCA

SAAW is cheaper than Rocket Artillery

If we can induct a large number of SAAW rapidly then Entire Pakistan Artillery And Armour force can be destroyed

That's not how it works. SAAW is way more expensive than artillery. And it needs individual targeting. So you need to go close enough to find these vehicles to kill them. SANT is more useful here.

 

[STEPHEN COHEN]

That's not how it works. SAAW is way more expensive than artillery. And it needs individual targeting. So you need to go close enough to find these vehicles to kill them. SANT is more useful here.

Guided glide bomb has high precision: DRDO chief

The Smart Anti Airfield Weapon (SAAW) guided bomb that India successfully test-fired on November 3 has higher precision and is much cheaper compared to missiles, DRDO Chief S. Christopher said on November 5.<br> <br> The SAAW glide bomb, which is guided by an on board navigation system, was

www.theweek.in

SAAW is cheaper than Rockets

SANT has very small range ie 10 KM

 

[Valhalla]

ratio of 25-75

IMHO it would be best to focus on the 75% and make it iteratively better. Our lust for the 25% is the real problem. It distorts our vision of reality- which is the state of our own MIC. Foreign products which have gotten to where they have after 100+ years of progress & result in unrealistic GSQRs & decades of unending testing. A classic chicken and egg problem- we need to rid ourselves of these crutches with a self-imposed blockade, you could call it Atmanirbharta.

When there's war, there's war- there will be attrition, man & machine & industry will be tested to the hilt. It will be a question of how many assets we can deploy at the right place at the right time. And how soon they can be replaced upon loss, which banks on the resilience of our industry.

That is how China built it's military muscle. That's the better route India should adopt too.

 

[STEPHEN COHEN]

IMHO it would be best to focus on the 75% and make it iteratively better. Our lust for the 25% is the real problem. It distorts our vision of reality- which is the state of our own MIC. Foreign products which have gotten to where they have after 100+ years of progress & result in unrealistic GSQRs & decades of unending testing. A classic chicken and egg problem- we need to rid ourselves of these crutches with a self-imposed blockade, you could call it Atmanirbharta.

When there's war, there's war- there will be attrition, man & machine & industry will be tested to the hilt. It will be a question of how many assets we can deploy at the right place at the right time. And how soon they can be replaced upon loss, which banks on the resilience of our industry.

That is how China built it's military muscle. That's the better route India should adopt too.

So that effectively means identifying the Cheapest Weapons and The Platforms which will give us " More Bang For the Buck " -- as the saying goes

And as there is a rapid increase of the number and Type of Stand Off Weapons , we have to match this aspect also

I read an interview of Army Chief
Where he said that REAR AREAS would be targetted by the Enemies
BEFORE the Front line Troops come into a Contact Battles

 

[Valhalla]

So that effectively means identifying the Cheapest Weapons and The Platforms which will give us " More Bang For the Buck " -- as the saying goes

Not necessarily cheapest- but the best that we could do against the clock & then improve on it in fixed time. There are a few aspects here:

- It has to be the best our DPSUs/private companies can deliver in a certain time. Time is the most important here.
- We can aim for a star wars *SQR but accept tranche-1 with all its flaws. Then iterate improvements progressively building better in tranche-2,3,4,5...
- Given the ridiculously low number of items we sometimes order, they may or may not be the cheapest. It may not even compare favourably with American weaponry on cost which enjoys tremendous economies of scale.

Our forces have to back & encourage our indigenous capability- but what we have are unspent budgets while DPSUs wait on orders forever. Even after completing arduous trials (LCH etc).

While costly imported stuff for a short sharp war may be good for Pakistan. We cannot hope to win against China which has a seemingly endless supply of war machinery. That's good for our own indigenization- pushes both the industry and forces to work together. China may be the best thing to have happened to Indian MIC in forever.

 

[randomradio]

Guided glide bomb has high precision: DRDO chief

The Smart Anti Airfield Weapon (SAAW) guided bomb that India successfully test-fired on November 3 has higher precision and is much cheaper compared to missiles, DRDO Chief S. Christopher said on November 5.<br> <br> The SAAW glide bomb, which is guided by an on board navigation system, was

www.theweek.in

SAAW is cheaper than Rockets

SANT has very small range ie 10 KM

It's referring to static targets, not moving targets. To get the kind of precision you need to attack a moving target, it's gonna be very expensive.

 

[randomradio]

IMHO it would be best to focus on the 75% and make it iteratively better. Our lust for the 25% is the real problem. It distorts our vision of reality- which is the state of our own MIC. Foreign products which have gotten to where they have after 100+ years of progress & result in unrealistic GSQRs & decades of unending testing. A classic chicken and egg problem- we need to rid ourselves of these crutches with a self-imposed blockade, you could call it Atmanirbharta.

When there's war, there's war- there will be attrition, man & machine & industry will be tested to the hilt. It will be a question of how many assets we can deploy at the right place at the right time. And how soon they can be replaced upon loss, which banks on the resilience of our industry.

That is how China built it's military muscle. That's the better route India should adopt too.

In India's case, we are aiming for 25% for indigenisation. With the army, the 25% of the previous generation becomes the new 75%, with numbers added to it over the many years it's in service. So, in the 2000s, our 25% was the first set of 650-950 T-90s, whereas 2500 T-72s were our 75%. 15 years from now, some 600-900 FRCV will be our 25% and the 2000+ T-90s will be our 75%. And so on. Someday the FRCV's gonna be in the 75%.

With the navy, we are indigenising the 25% (destroyers, SSNs, carriers) and importing the 75% (frigates, SSKs, LHDs).

The IAF is the closest to what you said today. We are importing (Rafale/MRFA) the 25%, while developing the 75% (LCA, MKI/Jaguar upgrade, drones etc). AMCA will give us our indigenous 25%. It's more accurate to say the IAF has 2 25%s and 1 50%. The 2 25%s give us our high end, while older high ends become the 50%. The IAF is largely a high end force.

China's way isn't good for us, or anybody else. They did it using a hardcore evolutionary method with very slow returns that is neither efficient nor affordable. We are doing it much more holistically and finding greater success with minimum investment.

The IN is a good example of the China model. They have followed it quite religiously, minus the level of investment. The end result is the IA and IAF will indigenise faster than the IN because the IA and IAF have focused so much on license production that the industry is able to meet their demands for indigenous tech more reliably. In the float category, the IN have followed the Chinese system and have managed to find success. In the firepower category, they are reaping benefits from the IA/IAF's programs. But in the propulsion category, they are way behind since we barely have any capability here. All we do is license assemble some LM2500s today.

 

[randomradio]

- It has to be the best our DPSUs/private companies can deliver in a certain time. Time is the most important here.

Minimum capabilities are still desirable. Can't throw money at lemons.

- We can aim for a star wars *SQR but accept tranche-1 with all its flaws. Then iterate improvements progressively building better in tranche-2,3,4,5...

We have a history of doing that. Arjun Mk1, LCA Mk1, Godavari class, Dhruv Mk1, Pinaka etc.

- Given the ridiculously low number of items we sometimes order, they may or may not be the cheapest. It may not even compare favourably with American weaponry on cost which enjoys tremendous economies of scale.

Very little stuff we make is more expensive than American stuff. The real price competitor is Russia.

We cannot hope to win against China which has a seemingly endless supply of war machinery.

The Himalayas are a great equalizer. A lot of stuff we are developing can barely be used against China. It's actually our imports that make the difference today. Rafale, Chinook, Apache, C-17, T-90, modern small arms, MRSAM, SPYDER, M777, Phalcon, P-8I etc are the stuff that's giving us the advantage in Ladakh. Their endless supply of self-reliant equipment are largely useless against the above. It's really important to focus on capability first.

China may be the best thing to have happened to Indian MIC in forever.

For the industry, China isn't the main factor though, Russia is. Russia is both the best thing and the worst thing. Soviet pressure and incompetence have been both boon and bane. Plus the bulk of our military has been arrayed against Pakistan rather than China.

 

[thinkingcap81]

I think that there's no point bothering about Chinese funded Pak army's capability expansion beyond making noise in the geopolitical arena. We may get irritated but that's all we can do. Cutting off their access to western platforms and know-how should be our goal. Our focus should be towards achieving a respectable quantum of worthy indigenous capability and improving our economy. This should be sufficient to deter Pakistan from even supporting the Kashmiri anti-India elements.

We are seeing that Russia is trying to pressurise NATO even though both sides are nuke capable. Not one worthy commentator is talking about nukes (granted that it's not actually a Russia vs NATO scenario). What is happening is a very good thing for us to the extent of military posture vis-a-vis Pakistan. It'll become common knowledge, beyond the intelligentsia, that there is sufficient space for conventional military muscle. Once we have sufficient deterrence via our economy and military capability, Pak's guns will fall silent. In fact let their military become stronger on paper, drain their economy, let the Chinese fund them and get irritated. The Chinese will be milked by the Pak generals and their economy will not grow so much that they will fund BRI and a also a big country like Pakistan.

 

[STEPHEN COHEN]

It's referring to static targets, not moving targets. To get the kind of precision you need to attack a moving target, it's gonna be very expensive.

How many times they are going to Move Artillery Guns

And you can use SAAW again and again

The best advantage of SAAW is its range , that means even slow moving aircraft like HAWK with a large Ferry Range can be very useful

For example a Hawk can cover entire border from Punjab to Jammu

All it needs is precise information about Enemy Artillery

During War , they will bring the Artillery to at least 30 KM away from Border

And SAAW with a range of 100 KM can be very useful

Otherwise you have to use PINAKA Or SMERCH

 

[Valhalla]

Minimum capabilities are still desirable. Can't throw money at lemons.

But the problem with the services is they never target "minimum capabilities". If their perspective could be changed that's eminently desirable. For long we have suffered from brochure driven requirements.

Once you have something, you can work on it to make it better, otherwise nothing would have moved out of the garage or lab stage in this world.

We have a history of doing that. Arjun Mk1, LCA Mk1, Godavari class, Dhruv Mk1, Pinaka etc.

We have an even bigger history of not doing it.
IA: INSAS
IAF: Marut (Tejas Mk1 would have also gone the same way with a full stop at 40 if not for the 1A variant)
IN: Type 209 (SoKo incidentally offering us their take on the same via KSS-III for P75I), Scorpenes
.. and on and on and on

Among the quoted examples
Arjun- DOA even though conforming to IA GSQR, 118 Mk1A is nothing but a consolation prize
LCA Mk1- almost died
Pinaka- iterated rather slowly otherwise there should not have been room for a Smerch import into IA

The Himalayas are a great equalizer. A lot of stuff we are developing can barely be used against China. It's actually our imports that make the difference today. Rafale, Chinook, Apache, C-17, T-90, modern small arms, MRSAM, SPYDER, M777, Phalcon, P-8I etc are the stuff that's giving us the advantage in Ladakh. Their endless supply of self-reliant equipment are largely useless against the above. It's really important to focus on capability first.

That is just a lucky happenstance- probably also the reason for the oft repeated "the two great civilizations never fought a war in many millennia". But there's 1962 & it did not go well for us. All the fancy shpanzy hardware is fine- but China is not Pakistan and since we don't have settled borders there is always chance for a conflagration. Given their deep strength in manufacturing they can take our blows and keep coming back- can't say the same for us.

For the industry, China isn't the main factor though, Russia is. Russia is both the best thing and the worst thing. Soviet pressure and incompetence have been both boon and bane. Plus the bulk of our military has been arrayed against Pakistan rather than China.

I was talking from the PoV of MoD and the services who have to plan for defending against China. We will have to match their MIC- no amount of imports even cheap imports from Russia can prepare us against them.

 

[STEPHEN COHEN]

I was talking from the PoV of MoD and the services who have to plan for defending against China. We will have to match their MIC- no amount of imports even cheap imports from Russia can prepare us against them.

We need both Mass ie Quantum of Firepower and High Technology assets -- ALL this has to be fitted within the Budget

Redirect Notice