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

[Zarvan]

Our high level visited Belarus, we may get stuff via Belarus.
Our high level visited Belarus, we may get stuff via Belarus.

Belarus is being approached for optics. Belarus makes some really good Red dot sights and other Rifle Scopes.

 

[Yasser76]

Belarus is being approached for optics. Belarus makes some really good Red dot sights and other Rifle Scopes.

Not great optics buying stuff from Belarus. Sorry, could not resist!

 

[Fusuoy]

idk ask them, but i agree how do they sleep at night, we can easily make our own service rifle easily if we wanted to

Belarus is being approached for optics. Belarus makes some really good Red dot sights and other Rifle Scopes.

could you show eamples of belarus optics

 

[Zarvan]

idk ask them, but i agree how do they sleep at night, we can easily make our own service rifle easily if we wanted to

could you show eamples of belarus optics

@Sulman Badshah knows the companies of Belarus which make those optics.

 

[CriticalThought]

Alright my little contribution. How about we make a lot of these, and give them to India for free? War won, problem solved.

On a more serious note, we already have a production license for G3. Get an IP license, and start making modifications and patenting them to build a good portfolio of patents.

 

[Fusuoy]

ask me we shoudl replace type 56 with ak 103 but wait for the NGSW trials to be completed to see the preformance of those rounds as they might be a better choice then a new rifle in 308
as the rounds submitted are prettyh hight tech stuff with polymer casing

 

[TheDarkKnight]

Good to see people finally giving up and discussion Mi35 on the gun replacement thread, a project that was "deal is done, delivery start soon, we produce, we export, money no problem" five years ago.

When you see moderator APPRECIATING discussion about helicopters on a thread related to guns, you must understand how bad things actually are in relation to that gun discussion.

Why not discuss the assault-rifle that should be used by the new marine force (~10k) being raised by PN ?
I would say they should and will use G3.

 

[Arsalan]

Why not discuss the assault-rifle that should be used by the new marine force (~10k) being raised by PN ?
I would say they should and will use G3.

I dont think there will be a single standard issue gun for marines. The will most likely be usind a mix of two or three systems already being used by Army and G3 will a significant part of it. Dont see them inducting a new/separate gun via competition/tender!

 

[Fusuoy]

i say give them new weapons, not neccecarily exspensive weapons
like the ak 15 instead of type 56, a much better gun in all regards then the old type 56.
hell they might be the first to get new weapons Army has adopted
though i still stand by we should wait for the US trials to get over cause there new round might be very good for us, the type 56 should be replaced though with the newer AKs though for a whole bunch of reasons
one of them is the fact that the New russian AKs like ak 15 are identical internally to type 56 so no new training needed but has piccatiny rail and better stock aswell as better build quality
truth be told the 103 is already outdated by the ak 15
russia will sell them to us if we are willing to pay the price which wouldnt be as much as say buying scars
also AK 15 has suppressor ready barrel and also runs well with supprsors
ak 103 or ak 15 also use same exact magazine as type 56 which reduces cost to buy new ones

 

[Metal 0-1]

They are incompetent as hell. They can't even replace older G-3s with new light weight variants.

CZ deal was good but they decided not to.

They just need VT-4 and stuff even if infantrymen have to carry a musket or flintlock gun.

 

[Ghost 125]

They are incompetent as hell. They can't even replace older G-3s with new light weight variants.

CZ deal was good but they decided not to.

They just need VT-4 and stuff even if infantrymen have to carry a musket or flintlock gun.

thats a sweeping statement. they are not necessarily incompetent. they have a limited budget for a large army. so they have to prioritize according to threat perception.
G3 and Type 56 can still fight against AK203 and Sig 716... but can a T 59/69 match T 90 MS in battlefield..NO.

 

[That Guy]

They are incompetent as hell. They can't even replace older G-3s with new light weight variants.

CZ deal was good but they decided not to.

They just need VT-4 and stuff even if infantrymen have to carry a musket or flintlock gun.

Signing a contract for a few hundred fighter jets and tanks is much easier than a rifle.

With the rifle replacement, we're talking about potentially millions, with hundreds of thousands of soldiers that need to be retrained to use the new rifles. You also need to set up manufacturing facilities for the rifles and the ammunition, among a vast number of other things you need to do. Once all of this is accomplished, you have to spend a good decade to replace the existing stockpile of rifles. It took Israel literally 10 years to replace the regular infantry's old rifles with the Tavor, and that's not even counting reserve units, special forces...etc.

With tanks and fighters, you can buy them off the shelf, sign a few maintenance contracts with a trusted arms dealer, and still be fine. With rifles, it's much more complicated and time consuming.

The rifle is the life blood of the army. Even when the tanks are destroyed, even when the fighter jets are all shot down, the rifle can still be enough to fight back. Israel learned that lesson the hard way, when they went into Labanon, the US learned this in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Making a bad purchase of a rifle can be the biggest disaster to occur to an army, the UK learned this against the argentinians during the Falkland wars, where the UK had tech superiority, but their shittier single shot FALs were completely outclassed by the Argentinian FALs, to the point that the British soldiers literally started taking and using the rifles they got from dead Argentinian soldiers.

When the US invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq, US soldiers did the same, as their M-16/M-4s kept jamming due to the rough dusty environment, being forced to grab a back up AK rifle off of the bodies of militants.

During the height of militancy in Pakistan, Pakistani special forces literally had to switch from their m-4s and f-2000s to the Type-56s and similar AKs, because of similar problem that the US faced. The environment in places like Swat and Waziristan was too rough, and the heavily wooded areas were especially rough, as their 5.56 NATO rounds couldn't penetrate the thick trees, and the muddy environment kept jamming their weapons. They had to switch to the AK type rifles like the type-56, with its larger round to compensate for this problem.

Thankfully, a lot of modern rifles have compensated for this problem, so it's not as big of a deal. Still 1 put of a thousand verses 1 out of 10,000 rifles jamming can mean the life and death of a soldier, it can even make an entire battle unwinnable, leading to a large amount of deaths.

Tl;dr it's not incompetence, it's just difficult.

 

[Metal 0-1]

When the US invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq, US soldiers did the same, as their M-16/M-4s kept jamming due to the rough dusty environment, being forced to grab a back up AK rifle off of the bodies of militants.

As far as I remember US soldiers never had to ditch because their M-4s were jamming.
M-4 is a good platform. IT works in mud, snow at freezing point. Don't know why boomers think these fancy ARs aren't good enough to handle some dust. AKs have limitations too its just myth that AK is some kind of GOD gun which is so much powerful.

At start there ere problems with M-16 in Vietnam but quality rifles were issued in Gulf Shield and they are being issued since then.
Firefights in Afghanistan were mostly long range. Some patrol got ambushed or attack at heir firebase. So soldiers would run out in the open grab AK and get to their rest of team to return fire.

 

[Yasser76]

As far as I remember US soldiers never had to ditch because their M-4s were jamming.
M-4 is a good platform. IT works in mud, snow at freezing point. Don't know why boomers think these fancy ARs aren't good enough to handle some dust. AKs have limitations too its just myth that AK is some kind of GOD gun which is so much powerful.

At start there ere problems with M-16 in Vietnam but quality rifles were issued in Gulf Shield and they are being issued since then.
Firefights in Afghanistan were mostly long range. Some patrol got ambushed or attack at heir firebase. So soldiers would run out in the open grab AK and get to their rest of team to return fire.

M-4 is actually a decent weapon, issue is that it was essentially ideal for the urban combat/Terror wars that US has been fighting around the globe for last 20 years. It's lightweight, small size and ability to clean easily was ideal for this, and 5.56mm rounds were perfect.

Now that Pakistan is basically orientated towards a full scale conventional war with India (mainly), the requirements for a standard service rifle are very different. Our troops will not be firing from inside APCs or small squads busting down doors in cities.

Infantry will mainly do the old fashioned job of taking and holding ground in company/battalion level attacks, often in open fields/desert. As many on here know, these often start off at a distance of 300 meters during the day and around 200 meters at night. Here we will be fighting against dug troops often with body armour, not rebels in shirts. 7.62mm is the way to go here, with a rifle that can sustain long periods in the field so needs to be durable

 

[Metal 0-1]

During the height of militancy in Pakistan, Pakistani special forces literally had to switch from their m-4s and f-2000s to the Type-56s and similar AKs, because of similar problem that the US faced. The environment in places like Swat and Waziristan was too rough, and the heavily wooded areas were especially rough, as their 5.56 NATO rounds couldn't penetrate the thick trees, and the muddy environment kept jamming their weapons. They had to switch to the AK type rifles like the type-56, with its larger round to compensate for this problem.

And our Special forces are happy with their M-4s. I can give you pictures and operations which were fought with M-4s. F-2000 is one of the reliable bullpups. It is a closed system not water, mud or slit is going to damage it. F-2000 are used by SSW their mission in COIN was to jump in and call in CAS or air strikes on targets not for long range patrols.

Type-56 were only used by those units who are going to be behind enemy for a while because you can fin AK ammo easily.

Maybe you should read bullet ballistic data. 7.62x39 is not a good round for penetration but it has good punch and stopping power. Its heavy and slow. It is good in short to medium ranges. Maximum effective range it can travel is 500 yards.

Now, 5.56 is a good round for short to long ranges. It is fast lighter go through body armour easily. It is good round for engagements upto 600-700 yards depending upon optic, shooter and barrel should be 14 inch which is standard. Someone who says 5.56 cant kill give me or someone else to shoot them.

Most of the engagements which our troops and SF units have fought were at long ranges. So what do you want a slow,heavier and short ranged bullet or a faster, lighter and long ranged bullet.