Here is a story dating from 1998:

Pakistanis Say They Are Studying U.S. Missile
Tomahawk Reportedly Was Recovered After Raid on Camps in Afghanistan

By Kamran Khan
Special to The Washington Post
Friday, August 28, 1998

KARACHI, Pakistan, Aug. 27—Pakistani scientists and weapons experts are studying components salvaged from an American cruise missile that landed last week in southern Pakistan, security sources said today. They expressed optimism that they could unlock technological secrets that will advance Pakistan’s missile program.

Officials said experts associated with Pakistan’s civilian and military missile programs were inspecting the guidance system, onboard computer and propulsion system of the Tomahawk missile, which was fired Aug. 20 in the U.S. attack on camps in Afghanistan but apparently fell short of its target.

Some sources indicated that information obtained by examining the missile might be shared with China, Pakistan’s ally, but officials refused to comment on that possibility.

A Pakistani official speaking on condition of anonymity said the find was “a jackpot” that included the satellite global positioning system and other technological improvements made to Tomahawks since the 1991 Persian Gulf War. “We have missile experts who would most certainly demonstrate a remarkable job of reverse engineering” and develop technological know-how that Pakistan lacks, the official said.

Pakistan reported earlier this week that it had recovered the missile Saturday near Kharan, about 370 miles south of the targeted camps in Afghanistan. Pentagon officials have declined to confirm that a missile landed in Pakistan or to comment on the implications for Pakistan and China which hope to acquire cruise missiles.

The Pakistani sources noted with some surprise that the missile was largely intact when it was discovered. Sources in Washington said the Tomahawk might not have detonated because the arming mechanism is not activated until minutes before the missile reaches its target.

Retired Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney said he doubted the Pakistani claims. When cruise missiles crash, he said, “its like dropping a Waterford crystal glass. They are designed to do a lot of things, but they aren’t designed to bounce. They are very fragile.” What did not break apart on impact would probably have been burned by the missile’s fuel which would ignite on impact, he said.

U.S. defense officials also scoffed at the notion that the Pakistanis had gained an intelligence windfall [I bet they’re having to eat their own words now ], suggesting that the Tomahawk’s technology already is widely available and noting that the loss of several such missiles during the Persian Gulf War is not known to have produced any breakthroughs for Iraq.

But a ranking security official in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital, pointed out that restrictions on technological transfers between the United States and Pakistan have been in effect for nearly a decade. Since 1990, when Washington cut military aid because it believed Pakistan had developed a nuclear bomb, information that the Pentagon might readily provide to another nation would have been harder to come by here, he said.

“It is a gift from the God,” the official said. “The country that had denied us all sorts of economic and military assistance has suddenly gifted us the weapon of choice from its arsenal.”

He voiced a note of caution, however, saying: “This will definitely enhance our knowledge about the latest missile technology, but how much — it is too early to predict.”

Other sources also acknowledged that they were unlikely to extract enough information from the Tomahawk components to be able to reproduce such a missile. They said, however, that their need for the kind of advanced weaponry found in U.S. arsenals is limited, and that they would be happy for even limited gains in missile technology.

“Pakistan is not the global player,” one official said, adding that its defense needs are geared more toward dealing with “its arch-rival that lives next door.”

Tensions between Pakistan and neighboring India, with which it has fought three wars in the last 51 years, have been high since both nations tested nuclear devices in May. While their nuclear programs have been the focus of world attention since the tests, the rivals’ competition to develop more advanced, longer-range missiles has been almost as intense.

Officials declined to comment on whether Pakistan might share any discoveries with China, a close ally that the United States has repeatedly accused of helping Pakistan with its missile program.

Gen. Jehangir Karamat, the Pakistani army’s chief of staff who heads the joint chiefs of staff, is currently touring China. A senior official at army headquarters said today that Karamat has been briefed on the initial reports from Pakistani scientists on the Tomahawk missile. “In view of extremely close ties between the two military services,” the official said, he would be surprised if the findings were not discussed with Chinese officials.

U.S. government and private cruise missile experts said that while an intact Tomahawk would be of limited benefit to the Pakistanis, it could be of significant help to the more advanced Chinese military.

Of most immediate concern, said K. Scott McMahon, a national security expert with Pacific-Sierra Research Corp., an Arlington-based defense consultant firm, would be the ability of the Chinese to incorporate the missile’s radar image into the air defense systems it sells to such nations as Albania, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan. “It would enable the Chinese to enhance their air defense system against what is arguably the most serious missile threat out there,” he said. “The air defense implications for the Chinese are something we have to be seriously concerned about.”

Experts said the Chinese have the technological know-how to study and to eventually copy the missile’s guidance system, which matches photographic images of a target and surrounding terrain against the actual terrain it flies over. It also incorporates a satellite-based global positioning system.

The Chinese also could gain useful knowledge from studying the missile’s airframe material, electronics, warhead and turbo-fan engine, experts said.

Staff writers Dana Priest and Bradley Graham in Washington contributed to this report.

© Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company

It would take at least a 1000 headcount to even make airframes for 20 fighters a year.

is that just assembling airframe from supplied parts or does it include machining airframe structures such as wing spars from solid aluminium billets?

i now PAC has got some experience of machining airframe structural parts for K8 – PAC can manufacture 45% of the airframe for K8. They were hoping to for 100% airframe capability for K8 but since PAF wants to order K8s in small batches rather than in one go it wasn’t considered economic to set up a line for 100% manufacture and only use it occasionaly. but i think PAC and PAF really want to make go of JF-17.

The Chinese were reluctant to go ahead with JF17 project. The only reason they went ahead was at PAFs insistance. The PAF could quite easily have gone for the off the shelf design like F-7MF but they insisted on JF-17 becuz they wanted to gain experience of designing and manufacturing an aircraft. Having a limited budget they couldn’t spent billions on re-inventing the wheel on their own so they did a shrewd thing and let the Chinese design the aircraft to satisfy PAF needs whilst the PAC personnel watched and learnt.

Similar thing happened during the design of K8. With K8 i know PAC personnel had design input. For insistance the Chinese wanted Ft-5 style engine bay – but the PAC wanted western type engine bay (BAe hawk style) for easy access to engine for maintainance – in the end PAC view prevailed.

Pakistan Pins High Hopes on New Chinese Fighter Jet
By TAHIR IKRAM, REUTERS, KAMRA, Pakistan

Pakistan, which has been seeking high technology aircraft for the last two decades, said May 9 it hoped to start joint production with China from 2007 of multi-role fighter jets.

The first four JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft are expected to be introduced into the air force some time in 2006, said Air Vice Marshal Shahid Latif, project director for JF-17 planes.

The medium-technology aircraft matches the Mirage in performance but has better avionics and weapons, Latif told a news conference at the Kamra Aeronautical complex, 80 km (50 miles) west of Islamabad.

It would replace the aging fleet of Mirage 3 and 5, A-5 and F-7 aircraft, he said.

Latif said the JF-17 could achieve a speed of 1.6 Mach, altitude of 55,000 feet (16,760 meters) and carry weapons of modern warfare.

“The project is not only of strategic importance to the air force but it has far-reaching implications both for the national defense and economic prosperity of Pakistan,” he said.

Latif said the performance of prototypes of the JF-17 had far exceeded expectations and China wanted 250 aircraft to be added to its fleet while Pakistan was looking to acquire 150.

According to the agreement between China and Pakistan, once full production starts, half the plane would be produced in China and half in Pakistan, the officials added.

Chengu Aircraft Design Institute designed the aircraft, and the prototypes were manufactured by Chengdu Aircraft Industry Company — both based in China’s Sichuan province, officials said.

Pakistan was also equipping the manufacturing facility to cater for exports. “We already have some export orders,” Latif said, but did not give details.

Pakistan is also planning to introduce more state-of-the art F-16 fighter jets after the United States agreed to sell them to Islamabad in March after two decades of refusal.

Pakistan bought 40 F-16s in the early 1980s when the country was serving as a base for the U.S.-backed resistance against the former Soviet Union’s occupation of Afghanistan.

But another order for the purchase of 70 F-16s in the late 1980s failed to materialize because the United States imposed sanctions on the country for its clandestine nuclear program.

After almost a decade, Pakistan got its money back, having paid for the planes in advance.

i’ve just seen a report on ARY television regarding JF-17. According to the report by 2008 pakistan wants a capacity to produce 20 JF-17 a year at Kamra.

What is single crystal blade technology?

What’s so special about it?

A thrust that a given engine can produce is limited by the Turbine Entry Temperature (TET). TET in turn is limited by the strength of turbine blades at high temperatures (all metals lose strength at high temperature).

The turbine blades have to transmit large sideways bending load whilst at the same time being subjected to severe centrifugal stress caused by high rotational speeds . All this happen whilst the blades are surrounded by hot and high speed gases which can reach temperatures (TET) of 1700 degrees kelvin (K) and speeds of over 1700mph. The tip of the blades can be travelling at 1000mph.

All of the above conditions mean that even cost is a secondary consideration when it comes to choosing material and processes for turbine blades.

Blades for early engines in 1940s and 50s were cast in wrought iron alloys and their TET was limited to about 1000-1150K. In the 1960s cast alloys were developed which increased the TET to 1400K. In the 1970-80s Directional Solidification (DS) techniques were used to increase TET to 1600k. Single Crystal (SC) blades 1st appeared in the 1980s and can withststand TET of 1730K (Rolls Royce Trent engine).

Over the last 20 years TET has increased by an average of 8K a year through material technology and cooling techniques. The life of turbine blades is limited by creep and thermal fatigue. For a given blade material and cooling method creep life is halfed for each 10k rise in temperature – therefore persuit of new materials and techniques to increase TET whilst maintaining creep and fatigues resistance has to be relentless.

What’s so special about it?

becuz they don’t have crystal grain boundaries they are stronger than conventional blades. They can withstand the highest TET and therefore for a given engine, using SC blades is the way to achieve the highest thrust possible for that size of engine.

interesting article appearing Pakistani Newspaper. I think the author also writes for Janes Defence.

Military managers are not strong on comprehending the sensitivities of international arms transfers. There is also the possibility that the president might have been led astray by the pro-Grippen lobby in Pakistan. Reportedly, the Grippen representative in the country is a gentleman from Gujrat who has also promised to arrange for credit to meet the financial gap once these aircraft are selected. This means that if and when any deal is finalised, stories about kickbacks are likely to float around.

New Pakistani prime minister is also from Gujrat (not the indian state of Gujrat but a small town in Pakistani province of Punjab).

In the mid 90s a price was agreed with the French for mirage2K but the Bhutto goverment pulled out after rumours of kickback – which in the case of submarine purchase from france turned out to be true.

interesting article appearing Pakistani Newspaper. I think the author also writes for Janes Defence.

PAF’s shopping in the next seven years would cost Islamabad about US$11 billion

PAF and the Swedish JAS-39 Grippen

Dr Ayesha Siddiqa

President Pervez Musharraf was in Sweden last week primarily to procure Swedish military technology for the Pakistan Air Force. Two items were on the agenda: the JAS-39 Grippen fighter aircraft and Ericsson’s airborne early warning technology. For the time being at least, the Swedish Parliament’s refusal to agree to the sale of both has dashed Islamabad’s hopes for an early deal.

The refusal does not necessarily mean that Stockholm has firmly shut the door on Islamabad or there are no other options available to the PAF. But the important point in this case is that the officials do not seem to have done their homework before asking the president to discuss the matter with the head of state of the supplier country. Those enthusiastic about obtaining the technology failed to brief the president about the politics of military-technology transfer. But there is more.

The news about the PAF seriously considering the Swedish aircraft was almost like a bolt from the blue. The PAF first considered Grippen in the early- and mid-1990s along with the French Mirage 2000-5, the American F-16s and the Russian MiG-29s and SU-27s. Since PAF could not get a replacement for its F-16s or fill the quantity and quality gap through procurement of additional F-16s, it was forced to consider other options.

The Russian aircraft were not a favourite because of Moscow’s unwillingness to sell to Islamabad. But the Grippen was also not considered due to equally serious political problems. The JAS-39 uses an American power plant and other systems that Sweden could not sell to Pakistan without the US’s approval. Washington, which was unwilling to sell F-16s to Pakistan, was unlikely to allow the sale of another system that relied heavily on American technology. The result: the PAF was inclined to go for the French Mirage 2000-5. But the Mirage deal could not be clinched because of the high cost of acquisition and rumours of kickbacks.

The fact is that the policymaking environment in the 1990s was too unstable for the PAF to have cut a deal. The air force as a service has always benefited when the policymaking system is clearly controlled and dominated by a single entity represented by an individual or an organisation. For instance, it benefited when the elder Bhutto was clearly in better control of defence policymaking and had firm political control of the country. Again, the PAF seems to be the main beneficiary whenever the army is at the helm of affairs. Bogged down in routine governance, the army becomes increasingly dependent on the PAF to strengthen defences against the adversary.

This does not happen when the political environment is fuzzy and there is lack of clarity about the roles of various actors, civilian and military.

The PAF of course has been eagerly looking for fighter aircraft, UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) and an AWAC system.

General Pervez Musharraf realises the significance of modernising PAF, the mainstay of national defence. The JAS-39 Grippen can certainly compete with other quality fighter aircraft like SU-27s, F-16s and Mirage 2000-5. Grippen is a 4th generation fighter aircraft. It is a multi-role, swing-role supersonic aircraft with a digitally controlled fly-by-wire flight-control system, an advanced BVR (beyond-visual-range) capability, a suite of electronic warfare aids, pulse-doppler radar and other dynamic sub-systems. Other than the Swedish air force, Grippens are used by South African, Czech and Hungarian air forces. Also, the JAS-39 is less costly than the Mirage. While a deal for 60-plus Grippens might cost Pakistan about US$3 billion, an equal number of Mirages would cost approximately US$4.5 billion.

The problem, however, is not Grippen’s technology but its logistics and politics. The purchase would add another type of fighter in the PAF’s inventory and raise the overall cost of maintenance. The aircraft is fitted with American components, the supply of which could be as easily embargoed as of a fighter completely built in the US. Since none of these factors has substantially changed since the Grippen was first considered and rejected, it is surprising that the PAF should change tack from the French Mirage and make an aggressive move to buy the JAS-39.

It would be extremely unwise to close doors on the French option just because Paris is cosying up to India. Contrary to the impression generated by some in the service that the French are not willing to sell the BVR capability, a package has not been completely negotiated with Paris. Once a formal request is made, the French might be willing to see the Mirage 2000-9, a more updated version of this category of aircraft. Needless to say, the French aircraft are financially costly on maintenance but that disadvantage is offset by the lesser political constraints linked with a French buy.

One is still not sure if the Swedish Parliament will clear the sale. The Swedish government has not formally received a request from Islamabad though some segments of the bureaucracy have full knowledge of Pakistan’s interest. It must be mentioned that the government means the political arm and not the bureaucracy. One also wonders if President Musharraf was warned on this score. It is possible that the military would have thought, as has happened in the past as well, that the Swedes or even the Europeans would be falling over each other to sell technology to Pakistan if it could pay cash. Given Shaukat Aziz’s good economic macro-management, Islamabad might have been confident about the prospects of arms transfers from Europe.

Military managers are not strong on comprehending the sensitivities of international arms transfers. There is also the possibility that the president might have been led astray by the pro-Grippen lobby in Pakistan. Reportedly, the Grippen representative in the country is a gentleman from Gujrat who has also promised to arrange for credit to meet the financial gap once these aircraft are selected. This means that if and when any deal is finalised, stories about kickbacks are likely to float around.

In the past two decades, every PAF purchase has been mired in stories of corruption. The only way to avoid this is to make the procurement system more transparent with active involvement of the sub-committees of the Cabinet Committee for Defence (DCC) to deliberate on the issue.

Transparency is also necessary to keep the president on track on negotiations for the possible purchase of Ericson’s airborne-early-warning Erieye radar. While the system is comparable with its American and Israeli competitors and would allow Islamabad the capability to snoop across the border more affectively, one is not certain at all if the European Union and the US would allow the sale of such an advanced system to Pakistan.

This is not the first time Islamabad has been keen to buy the Erieye. It was evaluated in the 1990s as well with positive reports given by the evaluating team. The other thing that is extremely confusing relates to the lack of a plan regarding the platform on which the radar would be installed. The two options are a Swedish and a Brazilian aircraft. While the Swedish have rejected their own aircraft as a possible platform for this system, the Brazilian option would require independent negotiation with the Brazilian manufacturer, Embarer. It would also mean much greater cost. So far, the Swedish inspectorate for strategic products has given approval for the sale.

One wonders if the DCC has been taken into confidence at all about the future plans of the PAF and other services. If Islamabad manages the two deals, the PAF’s shopping in the next seven years would cost Islamabad about US$11 billion. This includes, in addition to the AWACS and Grippen purchases, the JF-17 Thunder, the joint fighter being developed with China.

Considering the price-tag, clearly Pakistan must be very careful about how it must spend the money and where. The government must also negotiate the cost with all stakeholders, including the political players. Although one can sympathise with the PAF’s urgency to modernise its fleet or of other services to get new equipment, a strategic review based on a clear enunciation of political objectives is a necessity. This is essential to reap optimum benefits from the shopping.

Clarification

I would like to clarify that the Swedish Air Force has purchased Saab 340 which is a variation of the Saab 2000. However, the production of these aircraft was initially discontinued in 1999. But what is more important is the Erieye radar rather than the aircraft that would be used as a platform. If cleared by the Swedish government, the radar would be a good buy. The Saab 2000, in any case, is more modern than the 340 version.

–Dr Ayesha Siddiqa