What's new

Featured Project Azm: Pakistan's Ambitious Quest to Develop 5th Generation Military Technologies.

Where is that document?
Can you share it here plz?
I don’t have it and I don’t think it has been made public. It was spoken about in the inauguration ceremony and a picture of the cover page I believe was shown.

Also very high level (not much detail) of the 3 phased plan was shown.


From what I understood from half visible slide is:

- Phase 1 initial ground work, setup and software program development.

- Stage 2: sub-systems (Radar, comms, EW)

- Stage 3: Aircrafts and space solutions.
 
Last edited:
.
I don’t have it and I don’t think it has been made public. It was spoken about in the inauguration ceremony and a picture of the cover page I believe was shown.

Also very high level (not much detail) of the 3 phased plan was shown.


From what I understood from half visible slide is:

- Phase 1 initial ground work, setup and software program development.

- Stage 2: sub-systems (Radar, comms, EW)

- Stage 3: Aircrafts and space solutions.
The ground work which has been laid in terms of infrastructure and facilities is there, collaboration with more mature allied defence industries such as Turkey and China is also there.

We need to do two things to make sure it is a success from here:

1. The leadership and organisational structure should be based on merit, qualifications and experience, and have an accepting environment for all people working. Not toxic and abusive. But a nurturing conductive one.

We need intellectual and well-qualified minds like Abdus Salam running things, not babbu defence uncles which don't belong in the field.

2. Is a steady stream of funding to keep the research and development going.
 
Last edited:
.
I don’t have it and I don’t think it has been made public. It was spoken about in the inauguration ceremony and a picture of the cover page I believe was shown.

Also very high level (not much detail) of the 3 phased plan was shown.


From what I understood from half visible slide is:

- Phase 1 initial ground work, setup and software program development.

- Stage 2: sub-systems (Radar, comms, EW)

- Stage 3: Aircrafts and space solutions.
I was listening this commoder's speech:
This was funny:
"This is NASTP Alpha
Why Alpha
Because Allah starts with Alpha
First words of Urdu and Arabic alphabets start with alpha
And Alpha is very popular among technology companies "

I am really impressed by this doctor's intelligence level.😂😂😁😁
 
.
The ground work which has been laid in terms of infrastructure and facilities is there, collaboration with more mature allied defence industries such as Turkey and China is also there.

We need to do two things to make sure it is a success from here:

1. The leadership and organisational structure should be based on merit, qualifications and experience, and have an accepting environment for all people working. Not toxic and abusive. But a nurturing conductive one.

We need intellectual and well-qualified minds like Abdus Salam running things, not babbu defence uncles which don't belong in the field.

2. Is a steady stream of funding to keep the research and development going.
I would caution against looking for singular hero. We need a whole group of capable and dedicated people from top to bottom specially young blood. Not one savior and definitely not ex-military or babu uncles.
 
.
I would caution against looking for singular hero. We need a whole group of capable and dedicated people from top to bottom specially young blood. Not one savior and definitely not ex-military or babu uncles.
Yep that was just an example of how our leadership credentials should be, single hero never works, it's always a synchronised team effort.

Behind every hero is a team just as good imo
 
.
The ground work which has been laid in terms of infrastructure and facilities is there, collaboration with more mature allied defence industries such as Turkey and China is also there.

We need to do two things to make sure it is a success from here:

1. The leadership and organisational structure should be based on merit, qualifications and experience, and have an accepting environment for all people working. Not toxic and abusive. But a nurturing conductive one.

We need intellectual and well-qualified minds like Abdus Salam running things, not babbu defence uncles which don't belong in the field.

2. Is a steady stream of funding to keep the research and development going.

You clearly don't know how Pakistan treated Abdus Salam lol :)
 
. .
I don’t have it and I don’t think it has been made public. It was spoken about in the inauguration ceremony and a picture of the cover page I believe was shown.

Also very high level (not much detail) of the 3 phased plan was shown.


From what I understood from half visible slide is:

- Phase 1 initial ground work, setup and software program development.

- Stage 2: sub-systems (Radar, comms, EW)

- Stage 3: Aircrafts and space solutions.
okay but i fear that NASTP is isolated from the preexisting state organizations, i could be totally wrong but there seems to be a divide, i.e you guys go this way, and we go this way. PAC/AvRID/NUST all have experience with radar comms ew etc for example but from the surface it seems they are excluded from this all. If the PAF wanted homegrown radars for example, surely, calling upon those institutions who have expertise would make the most sense, in developing their designs. Just look we have both X band and S band in house TRM designs and an S band radar coming into service, all in house, will they call upon these or sink more time and money into reinventing the wheel all alone, just some more food for thought
 
.
okay but i fear that NASTP is isolated from the preexisting state organizations, i could be totally wrong but there seems to be a divide, i.e you guys go this way, and we go this way. PAC/AvRID/NUST all have experience with radar comms ew etc for example but from the surface it seems they are excluded from this all. If the PAF wanted homegrown radars for example, surely, calling upon those institutions who have expertise would make the most sense, in developing their designs. Just look we have both X band and S band in house TRM designs and an S band radar coming into service, all in house, will they call upon these or sink more time and money into reinventing the wheel all alone, just some more food for thought
100% agreed. There has to be synergy and not the repeat of the waste of KRL vs NDC of the 90s.

That “could” happen if there is a top body formed that owns all the IP and all organization can benefit from the pool to stop duplication, after approval of program ensure some added value and not just inter-organizational rivalry. Once new IP is created, it goes back to the same top level IP owner body. Just thinking out loud.
 
.
okay but i fear that NASTP is isolated from the preexisting state organizations, i could be totally wrong but there seems to be a divide, i.e you guys go this way, and we go this way. PAC/AvRID/NUST all have experience with radar comms ew etc for example but from the surface it seems they are excluded from this all. If the PAF wanted homegrown radars for example, surely, calling upon those institutions who have expertise would make the most sense, in developing their designs. Just look we have both X band and S band in house TRM designs and an S band radar coming into service, all in house, will they call upon these or sink more time and money into reinventing the wheel all alone, just some more food for thought
I think they are really putting some effort into aviation industry (fruits of interaction with turkish defence industry may be)
At this stage,they are inexperienced.
May be they can get some right direction some day
 
. .
not interested in this shit anymore.
easy
1691420928576.png


100% agreed. There has to be synergy and not the repeat of the waste of KRL vs NDC of the 90s.

That “could” happen if there is a top body formed that owns all the IP and all organization can benefit from the pool to stop duplication, after approval of program ensure some added value and not just inter-organizational rivalry. Once new IP is created, it goes back to the same top level IP owner body. Just thinking out loud.

agree, or something like this would be nice too:
Have 3/4 bodies under the MoD, each focusing on sea, air, and land, then a fourth interdomain body that would oversee the allocation of budgets and projects within each body, who would then decide whether pooling expertise of the bodies would be possible. I.e we have a SAM project but the land body has a high mobility vehicle project, at which point the body could decide to merge the projects meaning the SAM project now has a launch vehicle for example (just a random, not very well thought out example off the top of my head lol). The fourth overseeing body also could allocate workshares to each branch, once again if we're looking at a ship design for example, the land branch has decided to develop its own ESM systems, said the body could ask that branch to pool its expertise with the sea branch to then come up with a tailored shipborne system to work alongside the other sensors produced by the trio of design houses. But it would need to be an independent body, which is where the difficulty would lie
 
Last edited:
.
I think they are really putting some effort into aviation industry (fruits of interaction with turkish defence industry may be)
At this stage,they are inexperienced.
May be they can get some right direction some day
Yeah but like we already have some things available, I.e TRM's, some airborne x band radar dev, surface radar development, esm systems, etc etc etc, so if we already have these basic fundamentals, the logical step would be seeing if they can be improved as opposed to reinvent, as then otherwise we are wasting time and funds if were starting from scratch to end up somewhere similar. There needs to be inter-service and organisation communication
 
.
easyView attachment 944299



agree, or something like this would be nice too:
Have 3/4 bodies under the MoD, each focusing on sea, air, and land, then a fourth interdomain body that would oversee the allocation of budgets and projects within each body, who would then decide whether pooling expertise of the bodies would be possible. I.e we have a SAM project but the land body has a high mobility vehicle project, at which point the body could decide to merge the projects meaning the SAM project now has a launch vehicle for example (just a random, not very well thought out example off the top of my head lol). The fourth overseeing body also could allocate workshares to each branch, once again if we're looking at a ship design for example, the land branch has decided to develop its own ESM systems, said the body could ask that branch to pool its expertise with the sea branch to then come up with a tailored shipborne system to work alongside the other sensors produced by the trio of design houses. But it would need to be an independent body, which is where the difficulty would lie
So we agree. The solution is an oversight independent body. Let’s wait another 40 years for professionalism to trump vested interests and egos. Maybe😂
 
. .

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom