Quwa podcasts & articles | Latest content & discussions

[rafale]

This is why so many civilians want a change to the design of the system; to give a better feedback mechanism, that ultimately benefits all in the long run. Alas.

If you think civilians are better, just look at how procurement and decisions are done in the state owned enterprises.....or even the provincial and federal governments as well.

Civilians in corporate/private do a better job because there are, usually, systems and balances in place to make sure you are getting the best bang for buck.

But hoping civilians can do better from a bureaucracy that is outright corrupt is like living in a fantasy land.

 

[puttputt]

If you think civilians are better, just look at how procurement and decisions are done in the state owned enterprises.....or even the provincial and federal governments as well.

Civilians in corporate/private do a better job because there are, usually, systems and balances in place to make sure you are getting the best bang for buck.

But hoping civilians can do better from a bureaucracy that is outright corrupt is like living in a fantasy land.

Do tell me what the P&Ls are at SOEs like HIT, PAC, POF, etc. They're as subsidized and inefficient as PIA, PSML, etc, because the basic problem is the same... WE ARE NOT LETTING QUALIFIED PEOPLE RUN THE INSTITUTIONS.

It's not a military thing. It's not a civilian thing. It's rather, our political and military elites have divided fiefdoms using publicly funded SOEs and are not running them efficiently because the ones WHO DO KNOW, WHO DO HAVE EXPERTISE, WHO DO ASK QUESTIONS, have been cut out.

That's the issue here.

PS: PAEC is a SOE too. Is it run by a general? Which general? Who runs NESCOM? Why is it that our nuclear program, biggest drones, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, SSMs, etc., are all, I don't know, led by civilians?

 

[Princeps]

Ok but the Kornet being >1m is just as bad if not worse. Can't rule out internal corruption.

 

[Ak01]

Ok but the Kornet being >1m is just as bad if not worse. Can't rule out internal corruption.

fwiw, these numbers may be launchers only, and not missiles alone.

 

[FuturePAF]

If you think civilians are better, just look at how procurement and decisions are done in the state owned enterprises.....or even the provincial and federal governments as well.

Civilians in corporate/private do a better job because there are, usually, systems and balances in place to make sure you are getting the best bang for buck.

But hoping civilians can do better from a bureaucracy that is outright corrupt is like living in a fantasy land.

It’s about the caliber of the civilians. Most high ranking current CCP officials in China are engineers. In our case if we don’t put subject matter experts, even from the military, we can’t expect top results of oversight from a technical point of view. Regardless of military or civilian. Now, it’s more likely a person in the civilian world, with decades of training in their field is better able to manage highly specialized industrial projects, over retired military officers, assigned to manage a task, they may have only gotten months of training on.

This is why China had the 1000 talents program. Top subject matter experts leading and overseeing programs. The result was 7000 of the world’s best talents from across all ethnic Chinese populations, at home or abroad came and lead programs and made sure they worked. Was there incompetence, probably not more than any other technical staff could do. Was there corruption, perhaps, but programs were done quickly and probably within a budget.

This is why I recommend the book on Japan’s “MITI”, laying out how Japan, with their warrior/post-warrior led society, incorporated their best trained talent, to modernize.

Finally, this is not about political party, but technocrats that work regardless of which party is in government or whether the government is civilian or military or hybrid. But these top talented people, by and large want a system that works to provide stability and longevity, so that what they invest in the system, endures and if a better choice of place to lay down roots, for them and their families.

Pakistan should ask China to survey some of their 1000 talents people, and learn what brings people to contribute, even when the country is a one party state. Learn from East Asian societies, but also learn from Nordic countries, that built themselves up like Sweden. See the book Riding the wave about how Sweden developed over the last 200 years, from farming backwater to one that punches above what its demographic weight would make you believe.

 

[rafale]

It’s about the caliber of the civilians. Most high ranking current CCP officials in China are engineers. In our case if we don’t put subject matter experts, even from the military, we can’t expect top results of oversight from a technical point of view. Regardless of military or civilian. Now, it’s more likely a person in the civilian world, with decades of training in their field is better able to manage highly specialized industrial projects, over retired military officers, assigned to manage a task, they may have only gotten months of training on.

This is why China had the 1000 talents program. Top subject matter experts leading and overseeing programs. The result was 7000 of the world’s best talents from across all ethnic Chinese populations, at home or abroad came and lead programs and made sure they worked. Was there incompetence, probably not more than any other technical staff could do. Was there corruption, perhaps, but programs were done quickly and probably within a budget.

This is why I recommend the book on Japan’s “MITI”, laying out how Japan, with their warrior/post-warrior led society, incorporated their best trained talent, to modernize.

Finally, this is not about political party, but technocrats that work regardless of which party is in government or whether the government is civilian or military or hybrid. But these top talented people, by and large want a system that works to provide stability and longevity, so that what they invest in the system, endures and if a better choice of place to lay down roots, for them and their families.

Pakistan should ask China to survey some of their 1000 talents people, and learn what brings people to contribute, even when the country is a one party state. Learn from East Asian societies, but also learn from Nordic countries, that built themselves up like Sweden. See the book Riding the wave about how Sweden developed over the last 200 years, from farming backwater to one that punches above what its demographic weight would make you believe.

In its current form, Pakistan cannot apply Chinese methodology, it can at best adopt what Vietnam did to super charge its economy. Once you have a thriving economy can you do what China did or singapore did.

Vietnam too has corruption at all levels, it just doesn't stop the country from doing whats best for itself.

 

[FuturePAF]

In its current form, Pakistan cannot apply Chinese methodology, it can at best adopt what Vietnam did to super charge its economy. Once you have a thriving economy can you do what China did or singapore did.

Vietnam too has corruption at all levels, it just doesn't stop the country from doing whats best for itself.

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.

 

[Fatman17]

Why Pakistan Is Turning to Private Firms to Build Its Drones - Quwa

Pakistan's military is turning to private firms – not just state plants – to build loitering munitions, and a new Alsons UAV engine signals a push for scale.

share.google

 

[puttputt]

It’s about the caliber of the civilians. Most high ranking current CCP officials in China are engineers. In our case if we don’t put subject matter experts, even from the military, we can’t expect top results of oversight from a technical point of view. Regardless of military or civilian. Now, it’s more likely a person in the civilian world, with decades of training in their field is better able to manage highly specialized industrial projects, over retired military officers, assigned to manage a task, they may have only gotten months of training on.

This is why China had the 1000 talents program. Top subject matter experts leading and overseeing programs. The result was 7000 of the world’s best talents from across all ethnic Chinese populations, at home or abroad came and lead programs and made sure they worked. Was there incompetence, probably not more than any other technical staff could do. Was there corruption, perhaps, but programs were done quickly and probably within a budget.

This is why I recommend the book on Japan’s “MITI”, laying out how Japan, with their warrior/post-warrior led society, incorporated their best trained talent, to modernize.

Finally, this is not about political party, but technocrats that work regardless of which party is in government or whether the government is civilian or military or hybrid. But these top talented people, by and large want a system that works to provide stability and longevity, so that what they invest in the system, endures and if a better choice of place to lay down roots, for them and their families.

Pakistan should ask China to survey some of their 1000 talents people, and learn what brings people to contribute, even when the country is a one party state. Learn from East Asian societies, but also learn from Nordic countries, that built themselves up like Sweden. See the book Riding the wave about how Sweden developed over the last 200 years, from farming backwater to one that punches above what its demographic weight would make you believe.

Indeed. There are many ways around the "bloody civilians" issue, such as:

1. Designating ALL science and engineering staff in defence SOEs as Commissioned Officers. Now, they (i.e., the scientific experts) become part of the chain of command. Then, from there, appoint a program auditor (i.e, a designated one-star or two-star).

2. The GHQ, AHQ, NHQ, etc., can themselves go and appoint whichever civilian expert they want, provided the person has the qualifications and expertise. The armed forces can even set up and co-chair accountability and comptroller committees.

 

[SaltFlats]

Indeed. There are many ways around the "bloody civilians" issue, such as:

1. Designating ALL science and engineering staff in defence SOEs as Commissioned Officers. Now, they (i.e., the scientific experts) become part of the chain of command. Then, from there, appoint a program auditor (i.e, a designated one-star or two-star).

2. The GHQ, AHQ, NHQ, etc., can themselves go and appoint whichever civilian expert they want, provided the person has the qualifications and expertise. The armed forces can even set up and co-chair accountability and comptroller committees.

The US Army is following an interesting model here. They've directly commissioned tech executives as lieutenant colonels.

US Army commissions second cohort of tech executives into innovation unit

This week, the Army added three more technology executives to Detachment 201, a unit intended to bridge the gap between the commercial sector and military.

www.militarytimes.com

 

[FuturePAF]

Indeed. There are many ways around the "bloody civilians" issue, such as:

1. Designating ALL science and engineering staff in defence SOEs as Commissioned Officers. Now, they (i.e., the scientific experts) become part of the chain of command. Then, from there, appoint a program auditor (i.e, a designated one-star or two-star).

2. The GHQ, AHQ, NHQ, etc., can themselves go and appoint whichever civilian expert they want, provided the person has the qualifications and expertise. The armed forces can even set up and co-chair accountability and comptroller committees.

There are civilians that wish to remain apolitical (including not wanting to being “commissioned”) and frankly besides just doing there job, outside of the limelight, want to run companies to make money. If they feel they can’t do it domestically, they will try to go abroad; brain drain. The market for many fields is in exports. If not allowed to even compete domestically, for open contracts, on a level playing field, why would many bother.

Building up domestic SMEs, in defense but all other sectors, only happens if there companies are allowed to compete, with full protections for their products, from established, and frankly well connected, companies.

P.s. we are talking about the top few thousands or tens of thousands of talented Pakistani professional/cutting edge experts in their fields. Most don’t want to be burned by the political games of a system that looks to use and discard figures within 5 years at most.

Empowering entrepreneurs, to produce and compete to make the best for the local market but also abroad, also creates the economy, that prevent policy makers from among Faustian bargains to sustain the nation. They are what can help ensure its defense through products but also economic independence.

Remember the words of regret of AQ Khan, and think how different things would be if he were not motivated to serve the national interests. I shudder to think it. May Allah bless AQ Khan and those who worked as him, for the love of the nation, and were protected from political issues most of their careers.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I’ll clarify something to bring it more into focus, in the world the way it is, for many top scientists, even in seemingly innocuous field, but especially in the defense sector, especially post this year’s US-Iran war and Pakistan’s foray into Middle East politics, the risk of scientist being assimilated by hostile powers goes up. What is being asked of top talent while what is being offered has to be looked at with a sympathetic eye towards the talent.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[FuturePAF]

Why Pakistan Is Turning to Private Firms to Build Its Drones - Quwa

Pakistan's military is turning to private firms – not just state plants – to build loitering munitions, and a new Alsons UAV engine signals a push for scale.

share.google

Private firms have a profit motive to do things faster and cheaper, while meeting specs, so they can earn a profit. Perhaps re-investing those profits into more projects to move up and capture more of the defense business.

IMHO, Government firms would probably best be used to be the production facilities for whichever private engineering firms win competition and just make what those private firms come up with.