Pakistan UAVs News & Discussions

[Michael]

Is there really no Chinese engine available that fits the bill?

China's current export product database includes engines of all grades and applications.

These include electric UAV propulsion systems, turbojet engines, turbofan engines, rocket engines, hydrogen-powered engines, and various grades of engines.

Turbofan engines.
The smallest micro turbofan engines are sold directly on e-commerce platforms without any approval. Russia has purchased large quantities of this type of engine from China for its UAVs.
Small, medium, and heavy turbofan engines are also available for sale.

Currently, most of the UAVs of various classes on the Russian-Ukrainian battlefield are complete sets of components from the Chinese market, while a small portion are finished products directly imported from China.

 

[CSAW]

View attachment 159762

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

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

 

[Tank131]

Leonardo of Italy will be joining the Kizilelma project.

This is the loyal wingman PAF/PN beed to look at. For Pakistan, this could be the merging of a beautiful partnership because it has close ties to Turkieye and Italy on defense, is a good customer of both and can help in the production and employment of this revolutionary aircraft. Pakistan should be looking to join this project. For PN especially, i dont really see carriers in the traditional sense any time in our lifetime but a drone carrier armed with Kizilelma B/C providing air cover and naval strike while you get Akinci/Shahpar 3 and TB2/shahpar 2 for anti sub and ground strikes. A 27K ton ship like TCG Anadolu could carry 50 UCAV giving PN a real punch against IN surface and subsurface fleets. 25-30 low visibility Kizilelma C would be a nightmare for an IN carrier group to deal with when equipped with Murad 110 AESA radar with over 200km range picking off Rafale and Mig 29 at over 150km with Gokhan and attacking ships with Cakir swarm capable cruise missiles (150km) or SOM-J (275km) or any further hypersonic missile of Pakistans creation.

This partnership between Turkiey and Italy also bodes well for PN in the diplomatic possibility of CAMM-ER and MDAS/MILDAS integration.

 

[Metal 0-1]

This is an Ai picture. Do we really have this exercise going on?

Real as hell

 

[Toxic]

Real as hell

"Real as hell Saar"

 

[hnn]

Yep, and just to reiterate, a loyal wingman would be more of an evolution of our target drone and cruise missile technology, which we already understand fairly well, technologically speaking.

Yes, that's the familiar and natural development curve...

Yes, it's a much steeper curve, developmentally speaking, but at least it draws on an existing basis. OTOH, we went into AZB without a single indigenous basis for manned fighter development.

But hasn't the focus of Azm recently realigned towards a 4.5+ Gen based on JFT instead of the initial highly ambitious FGFA?

 

[JamD]

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

Uh yeah. When I had seen that GIDS graphic I had thought this was an AI generated picture because who in their right mind would design something like this. And then yesterday I saw that picture.

Why this design looks like AI-designed horsepoop:
1. Electric Ducted Fans (EDF) have ONE purpose ONLY and that is to make a propeller look like a jet engine for hobby model aircraft. They are ALWAYS inefficient compared to an open prop if you use the same motor.
2. Putting your propulsive unit at the end of the wings is a super weird decision. It puts a huge amount of load on the wing. The only example I know of is the V-22 and that has very good reasons to put its engines at the wing tips and its wings are short. This skydog crap has put 4 engines at the ends of its long wings. You could easily move them near your fuselage, especially since you've made the stupid decision of using EDFs (see 1).


The fact that something like this has made to physical form tells me:
1. The brain drain within SPD orgs has become really bad that crap like this has made through so many (alleged) filters
2. There was no design review or if there was it was basically a sycophantic decision based on personal relationships.

I like to say that China has too much production problem but even China hasn't produced something this stupid. Pakistan actually has the opposite problem so we should be choosing our designs EXTREMELY carefully.

 

[farooqbhai]

Uh yeah. When I had seen that GIDS graphic I had thought this was an AI generated picture because who in their right mind would design something like this. And then yesterday I saw that picture.

Why this design looks like AI-designed horsepoop:
1. Electric Ducted Fans (EDF) have ONE purpose ONLY and that is to make a propeller look like a jet engine for hobby model aircraft. They are ALWAYS inefficient compared to an open prop if you use the same motor.
2. Putting your propulsive unit at the end of the wings is a super weird decision. It puts a huge amount of load on the wing. The only example I know of is the V-22 and that has very good reasons to put its engines at the wing tips and its wings are short. This skydog crap has put 4 engines at the ends of its long wings. You could easily move them near your fuselage, especially since you've made the stupid decision of using EDFs (see 1).


The fact that something like this has made to physical form tells me:
1. The brain drain within SPD orgs has become really bad that crap like this has made through so many (alleged) filters
2. There was no design review or if there was it was basically a sycophantic decision based on personal relationships.

I like to say that China has too much production problem but even China hasn't produced something this stupid. Pakistan actually has the opposite problem so we should be choosing our designs EXTREMELY carefully.

Babus just copied Israeli ROC-X

 

[Asfandyar Bhittani]

Babus just copied Israeli ROC-X

We don't have the luxury of reinventing the wheel. So, If it works, it works. The only bottleneck i see here is the level of integration needed and availability of these squad based UAVs throughout the infantry. I don't see enough training schools for these other than one division.

In an ideal scenario every section would have recon drone operator for ISR and one or two operators sending in these loitering munitions or FPVs. With rest of the squad receiving enough training to operate the kit too if not specialist on the system.

The role of the sniper, machine Gunner and mortar crews will be less and less relevant if we can scale as Ukraine/Russia did. (Not saying completely replaceable but UAVs can do their work more effectively and at greater range).

 

[Toxic]

We don't have the luxury of reinventing the wheel. So, If it works, it works. The only bottleneck i see here is the level of integration needed and availability of these squad based UAVs throughout the infantry. I don't see enough training schools for these other than one division.

In an ideal scenario every section would have recon drone operator for ISR and one or two operators sending in these loitering munitions or FPVs. With rest of the squad receiving enough training to operate the kit too if not specialist on the system.

The role of the sniper, machine Gunner and mortar crews will be less and less relevant if we can scale as Ukraine/Russia did. (Not saying completely replaceable but UAVs can do their work more effectively and at greater range).

FPVs and recon drones should be organized at the platoon level as a support section maybe recon assets can be moved to section if there are large 12 men sections also I don't think there is a section marksman in Pakistani infantry doctrine there are 7 riflemen and a 3 man MG group there is also no grenadier.

Man I just realized there is no thread about discussing infantry doctrine, I found this its from 2006 so maybe changes have been made since then

 

[hasssanali8998]

Man I just realized there is no thread about discussing infantry doctrine

you should make one

 

[Toxic]

you should make one

Way too lazy

 

[Asfandyar Bhittani]

FPVs and recon drones should be organized at the platoon level as a support section maybe recon assets can be moved to section if there are large 12 men sections also I don't think there is a section marksman in Pakistani infantry doctrine there are 7 riflemen and a 3 man MG group there is also no grenadier.

Man I just realized there is no thread about discussing infantry doctrine, I found this its from 2006 so maybe changes have been made since then

Section or platoon will depend on the kind of formation I guess.

For example Paramilitary usually deploys a section to a border post, atleast along the afghan border. Each such base possessing its own ISR/LM strike capability would make sense rather than asking for rear support. I mean many have 2-3 mortars pits so we have already concluded each checkpost need to pack an effective punch.

While in strike corps who operate in concentration, this responsibility can fall to Platoons.

In Special forces again, it should be and probably is already delegated to the smaller unit.

Integration means right tool for the right job. So instead of a blanket model for all formations and units, all of whom have different objectives, different tiers of UAV delegation would be better.

 

[Toxic]

Section or platoon will depend on the formation. For example Paramilitary usually deploys a section to a border post, atleast along the afghan border. Each such base possessing its own ISR/LM strike capability would make sense rather than asking for rear support. I mean many have 2-3 mortars pits so we have already concluded each checkpost need to pack an effective punch.

While in strike corps who operate in concentration, this responsibility can fall to Platoons.

In Special forces again, it should be and probably is already delegated to the smaller unit.

Integration means right tool for the right job. So instead of a blanket model for all formations and units, all of whom have different objectives, different tiers of UAV delegation would be better.

I am talking about sections and platoons during IOBs and conventional combat where they are not at posts, of course having ISR assets and fpvs at stationary posts makes sense but across the board they should be platoon level, IMO having posts manned by just sections is a problem in it itself its why terrorists can gather and easily overwhelm them.

On the topic UAVs isn't that already how it's done? Larger ISR VTOL drones are at the battalion level obviously you can't delegate something like a Shahpar or TB2 to any particular infantry unit since they require fixed runways to take off

 

[Asfandyar Bhittani]

I am talking about sections and platoons during IOBs and conventional combat where they are not at posts, of course having ISR assets and fpvs at stationary posts makes sense but across the board they should be platoon level, IMO having posts manned by just sections is a problem in it itself its why terrorists can gather and easily overwhelm them.

95% of the time the military and para military units are stationary. And the first wave of enemy's conventional force will meet stationary Para military units in case of actual war. When wars enter slog fest trench warfare, it's again one stationary positions fighting another.

So as I said, it would depend on formation and it's posture and role.

I wouldn't get into force concentration on border posts debate, it's beyond the scope of this thread and our knowledge on availability of infantry for western front is limited. But I would say that more UAVs support would make up for less troops being deployed there.

On the topic UAVs isn't that already how it's done? Larger ISR VTOL drones are at the battalion level obviously you can't delegate something like a Shahpar or TB2 to any particular infantry unit since they require fixed runways to take off

That's different ball game. Those are not tactical drones, i.e for section/platoon level operations.

But FPVs, this hand launched LM, they can be easily deletegated to as far down as sections, especially those units in fixed positions.

This is why I think each formation (most of whom have different roles) will have to figure out which tier works for them instead of just copy pasting it across the entire military. As long as integration is across the military regardless of tier.