Quwa podcasts & articles | Latest content & discussions

[FuturePAF]

There are times when it seems Pakistan's military has a Ukrainian advisor -- and this is one of them. The approach of delegating small UAS work to the private sector comes straight from Ukraine's playbook.

If you notice, the private sector's work right now is all geared toward loitering munitions, i.e., from drone design to RATO to piston engines.

I think the recent defence budget likely allocates A LOT of money for these LMs and the Pak military (via MoDP) told the private sector they're getting a big chunk of these deals if they can meet the pricing requirements.

So now, all these companies are absorbing the upfront cost of facilities, R&D (or ToT), and so on because they know they've got huge domestic orders lined up. Once they all recoup those upfront overhead costs, I just can't imagine how cheap their pricing will be for export due to the PKR. I think Pak's setting up to be a lowkey killer in the loitering munitions market.

Good, let’s hope they make impressive, globally competitive products, and win bids in the GCC and beyond.

 

[FuturePAF]

The people sent to do these surveys will also be the lower mediocre variety who form the core of the rot so any survey they do will be utterly useless.

True, a catch 22. Perhaps the Shogun will find skilled people, not from the rot, but perhaps even people he knows from the cream of the crop to do this work. In the book on Meiji japan’s transformation, I’m not sure who, but whomever from Japan sent people abroad to identify foreign experts. Hopefully we have people who can identify the people best able to identify talent. People who can select the ultimate selectors, as it were.

 

[SBD-3]

Good, let’s hope they make impressive, globally competitive products, and win bids in the GCC and beyond.

I don't think loitering munitions (LMs) are likely to evolve into a globally competitive market in the way that fighter aircraft or advanced missile systems have. Instead, I see the market developing more like small arms production: many countries will be able to manufacture them domestically, often at relatively low cost and with a strong emphasis on affordability rather than technological exclusivity.

This is why we are already seeing limited diversification in design philosophy and a greater tendency to replicate proven concepts. Examples include the spread of designs inspired by the Shahed/Geran family and systems such as LUCAS, with countries adapting successful models to their own industrial and operational requirements. Pakistan's reported Shahed-inspired developments fit within this broader trend.

Cost considerations are also critical. Few militaries want to spend disproportionately large sums on a one-way attack drone when its primary value lies in being expendable. As a result, the focus tends to be on achieving acceptable performance at the lowest possible cost.

We are already seeing this dynamic in the Russia–Ukraine war, where both sides continuously improvise and modify platforms with locally available solutions—whether by integrating air-to-air missiles, adapting guidance systems, or experimenting with different payloads. The evolution of loitering munitions is therefore likely to remain highly localized, cost-driven, and iterative, emphasizing the imitation of proven concepts combined with indigenous adaptations rather than the pursuit of entirely new designs.

 

[Bilal]

to the first point

we initially thought maybe it was licensing, or tooling, etc etc, there had to be more to it

but unfortunately, we confirmed that not to be the case, and that this was accurate and there was no tot, licensing, etc.

it was the catalyst behind REK, the khaal utaarna

Bhai phir tau best hai. Humaray idaro ko tashreef hilanay pe majboor kerdia and that has lead to development of TJ version down the line.

Hamaray ahani dost ne jaan bhooj ke khaal utari ta kay hum yeh sabh ker pai…

 

[rafale]

I disagree but want to hear how you think vietnam’s system and China’s systems differ.

But Let’s move this discussion to a different thread and get back to the Quwa focus.

Hi, sorry for late reply, but Vietnam vs China, China realized by late 1990s and mid 2000s that they need to root out ground level corruption in military and bureaucracy if they want to unlock next level of industrial growth, above the standard textiles, cheap toys, appliances type economy. The went bezerk in rooting out corruption and the result is that China competes right at the top in almost all modern technologies, 5th Gen jets? They got it. Advanced chips to counter western ones? They got it. Complete social media networks and cyber space? They got it. Advanced Machine Learning and AI? They got it. Advanced ship building, materials, jet engines, cars? They got it.

Vietnam doesn't. It is still in the 1990s China stage, and ironically, that is also where India stands.

To unlock supercharged continuous growth at 8% per annum, you need to root out corrupt bureaucrats (in south asian lingo, the babus) and corrupt military men.

There is no other way to the top.

Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan did similar, except they had smaller nations and pretty much homogenous ethnic pools (similar to China). Which is why India will never become China even in next 30 years. Because what they call diversity is literally a hurdle at domestic level. People love to divide themselves up and group themselves. This ain't good if you need to supercharge economic development.

 

[SBD-3]

Bhai phir tau best hai. Humaray idaro ko tashreef hilanay pe majboor kerdia and that has lead to development of TJ version down the line.

Hamaray ahani dost ne jaan bhooj ke khaal utari ta kay hum yeh sabh ker pai…

I think another factor was the scale problem. Historically, the PLAAF operated a highly diverse fleet, with different aircraft optimized for specialized roles rather than an omni-role concept. Until the rise of the J-16, and to some extent the J-10C, distinct aircraft fleets performed distinct missions. Today, however, the PLAAF appears to be moving toward consolidation, with the J-10C largely replacing the J-7's role, while the J-16 takes on much of the remaining tactical workload. In the long run, I can see the PLAAF operating primarily around four core platforms: the J-10, J-16, J-20, and J-35.

The challenge with this transition is that these newer platforms tend to use their own dedicated weapon ecosystems. As a result, the investment made in the JF-17's weapon suite was always going to serve a relatively niche market. I don't think the PAF anticipated how rapidly the PLAAF would streamline its fleet structure. Had legacy aircraft such as the J-7 remained in widespread service, there would have been a stronger case for broader adoption of munitions like the LS-6. Even today, only a limited number of PLAAF platforms appear to employ it (primarily the J-10 and JH-7A, as far as I know).

Since these are not truly "joint" weapons used across the entire force, the expected economies of scale never fully materialized. In that sense, I think the PAF may have been wrong-footed by the direction of PLAAF modernization, which eventually constrained its options.

That said, I still wonder why the PAF did not pursue a larger-scale transition toward indigenous solutions such as the H-2 and H-4—both of which were already integrated on the Mirage fleet—instead of investing so heavily in the LS-6 family.

 

[Hopefully Pessimistic]

Hi, sorry for late reply, but Vietnam vs China, China realized by late 1990s and mid 2000s that they need to root out ground level corruption in military and bureaucracy if they want to unlock next level of industrial growth, above the standard textiles, cheap toys, appliances type economy. The went bezerk in rooting out corruption and the result is that China competes right at the top in almost all modern technologies, 5th Gen jets? They got it. Advanced chips to counter western ones? They got it. Complete social media networks and cyber space? They got it. Advanced Machine Learning and AI? They got it. Advanced ship building, materials, jet engines, cars? They got it.

Vietnam doesn't. It is still in the 1990s China stage, and ironically, that is also where India stands.

To unlock supercharged continuous growth at 8% per annum, you need to root out corrupt bureaucrats (in south asian lingo, the babus) and corrupt military men.

There is no other way to the top.

Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan did similar, except they had smaller nations and pretty much homogenous ethnic pools (similar to China). Which is why India will never become China even in next 30 years. Because what they call diversity is literally a hurdle at domestic level. People love to divide themselves up and group themselves. This ain't good if you need to supercharge economic development.

Attributing Chinese industrial success to merely anti corruption is wrong.

It was a comprehensive road map made of effective policies, protectionism, state patronage, and favourable trade deals and a whole load of hard work

 

[mythbuster]

Was just an example of the costs being frontloaded to the maximum extreme level. Basically meant it was built to standards it would have never needed to be. Just consider, taxiways are not cheap (you're probably talking 5/6million per meter for an a380 rated one!), same goes for runways, gates, and other infrastructure...etc. That cost then gets accepted by whatever shady cpec body there is, the funds get sent to the company directly and the bill goes to the Pakistani taxpayers. Like, Gwadar has a CAT 3B approach system when 99% of its traffic is barely certified for CAT II, its just overloading the costs. ICAO VEJH was probably a far better suited airport to Gwadar, costing 1/10th of what Gwadar did. Pak had to front 1/3rd the cost of Gwadar airport. Its sad.

Sure, but the issue is, we dont get that here, i raised many examples and so did bilal, but we dont see the partnerships or outsourced work to Pakistan. CPEC is a great example, very little outsourced to pak, more just imported labour, tech, supplies, etc to complete the projects.


It always has been, but it should also be a stark reminder that munitions were something we we're able to localise, just imagine the markups on stuff we cant build at home, what choice do we have but to pay it...?

At the end of the day, i love Pakistan more than anything, and all i want is what is best for the people and country. Unfortunately, time and time again, China has proven itself to not be that. For me its Pakistan first, above anything. Pakistan hamesha zindabad.

Gawadar airport development is paid for by china , it's a gift....

 

[mythbuster]

to the first point

we initially thought maybe it was licensing, or tooling, etc etc, there had to be more to it

but unfortunately, we confirmed that not to be the case, and that this was accurate and there was no tot, licensing, etc.

it was the catalyst behind REK, the khaal utaarna

I don't deny the predatory behaviour of Chinese , however this claim is preposterous , only a fool will believe it.

 

[Ak01]

I don't deny the predatory behaviour of Chinese , however this claim is preposterous , only a fool will believe it.

modp is lying, awc was lying, everyone was lying...but the chinese?

100 million for 100 units, the doc is in public to access

 

[mythbuster]

modp is lying, awc was lying, everyone was lying...but the chinese?

100 million for 100 units, the doc is in public to access

We are not oil rich Arabs who can afford to throw away money nilly willy .

 

[hasssanali8998]

We are not oil rich Arabs who can afford to throw away money nilly willy .

but we did

 

[Ak01]

We are not oil rich Arabs who can afford to throw away money nilly willy .

and yet, we did!

 

[Hopefully Pessimistic]

We are not oil rich Arabs who can afford to throw away money nilly willy .

yet you are stupid enough to do it anyway, who knows why? Probably the chinese added it as a demand for support in something else.

When you have no allies left but 1, you get rinsed dry

 

[mythbuster]

yet you are stupid enough to do it anyway, who knows why? Probably the chinese added it as a demand for support in something else.

When you have no allies left but 1, you get rinsed dry

Vast majority of Pakistanis hate Bajwa and I am not fond of him either , however I was impressed with his categorical policy statement in his address to defense university about our relationship with china and America... quote ! We want to have good relationship with both but we will not have relationship with one at the cost of the other..
After this statement our relationship with America improved leaps and bounds and China also realised that she can't take Pakistan for granted.