Z-10 ME/P deliveries Updates: Pakistan Army Aviation.

[Hussain]

There won't be a difference if a pilot of Z-10ME helicopter is not sitting inside it but in a safe location. So that heli is now a UCAV.

When all pilots are sitting together with battle managers / Generals, seeing the whole tactical & strategic position of the battlefield then you get battle efficiency 10 times more. You can direct resources where needed on real time. Once a UCAV gunship is shot down, Same human pilot can quickly be assigned to another gunship UCAV. Advantages of remote piloting are immense. You are protecting the most valueable resources, no fear of them becoming POWs, or being injured or killed. You can reduce the cost of equipment by taking away so much from the gunships that is solely present to defend the pilot.

@Zarvan

True! As shown in various platforms, UCAV's can perform a lot of task autonomously, therefore reducing workload, as well as operator training required.

The only obstacle, as of now, which will eventually be addressed, is the lag in communication. The other one is, operating in a dense EW environment.

 

[Zarvan]

Why do you think pilot is necessary in a gunship? If you are so focused on gunship heli, then I give you example of gunship heli. Just remove the pilot & cockpit from Z-10ME. Same pilot of Z-10ME can be stationed at ground location and flying the heli just like the way he'd have done while physically present in heli. That's a UCAV for you. now you can drastically reduce the armor & weight of the heli (UCAV), improve its design.

Similarly, same thing with tanks. However, in the later phases even the role of remote pilots will start diminishing as AI controlled drones will go more and more autonomous. That's in a long term but what we can see in near future is existing machines with remote piloting, that's exactly what UCAV means

I am not saying the role of tanks / gunships will be diminished anytime soon. Their role will be just taken over by Unmanned systems controlled by operators sitting in bunkers or any place deep inside in friendly territory, you can use them for multiple machines. If one UCAV goes down, same pilot will switch to another one.

Yes, because the kind of observation a pilot can have of its surroundings and situation the ground a drone pilot can never get it. Yes, there would be still 75 % to 100 % difference. I mean Drone pilot at best can be 75 % aware in ideal situation and a helicopter pilot can be 100 %. Even helicopter style drones as big as Apache or Z-10 won't be replacement of pilot in the helicopter. And it would be the case for decades to come.

 

[Zarvan]

True! As shown in various platforms, UCAV's can perform a lot of task autonomously, therefore reducing workload, as well as operator training required.

The only obstacle, as of now, which will eventually be addressed, is the lag in communication. The other one is, operating in a dense EW environment.

UCAV can do a lot but still not that much. UCAV are still not anywhere close to being replacement of attack helicopters.

 

[Hussain]

UCAV can do a lot but still not that much. UCAV are still not anywhere close to being replacement of attack helicopters.

F16's can turn into QF-16's, but attack helos cant turn into ucav's?

Oh ok, whatever floats your boat, stay safe.....

 

[Zarvan]

F16's can turn into QF-16's, but attack helos cant turn into ucav's?

Oh ok, whatever floats your boat, stay safe.....

UCAV can't do the job even if it's F 16 a human pilot can study, evaluate and decide things which your robot can't. It's science and basic biology which you clearly never studied

 

[Awwad]

Yes, because the kind of observation a pilot can have of its surroundings and situation the ground a drone pilot can never get it. Yes, there would be still 75 % to 100 % difference. I mean Drone pilot at best can be 75 % aware in ideal situation and a helicopter pilot can be 100 %. Even helicopter style drones as big as Apache or Z-10 won't be replacement of pilot in the helicopter. And it would be the case for decades to come.

With today's sensor fusion capabilities that's not an issue any more.


If the pilot is sitting remotely and a Unmanned heli / UCAV is destroyed then its not a total loss. You still have a cockpit panel and most importantly the pilot, who then can connect with another UCAV and get into battle instanty. That's not possible if the pilot gets killed, injured or taken as POW.

Learning by experience and using critical information:
Secondly, imagine the critical information. The pilot will learn that what was his mistake the first time that he got killed, where was the enemy that shot him down the first time. He will come second time with experience. Just like in video games, when you get second chances. A legacy gunship pilot can never use this critical information or experience as he do not get's second chances. He's shot that means he's dead or out of action. Also how valuable is that you and other pilots are controlling anti-tank UCAVs in a single room, where a middle large screen is displaying the whole battlefield picture and your commander standing behind you is guiding you. Plus the operators don't get tired or disoriented, because if one operator is tired, you can quickly switch him with the fresh one. That's where the future is. If PA would have bought gunships 10 years ago then I would say that was not a bad decision but now its too late, PA must invest in future and embrace it. Its inevitable. Any benefits that physical presence of pilot within machine provides are outweighed by vast benefits of separating the pilot from the machine.

Real examples:
So many armenian tanks / infantry vehicles and group of infantry men were destroyed / killed by Azeri UCAVs even though those UCAVs weren't really the true successor of gunship helis. Secondly, the traditional gunship helis are very vulnerable because of advancements in SAMs / shoulder fired solutions. Israel got so many Apaches but I have never seen one in Gaza, they know their vulnerabilities. In the wars of 80s or 90s, the gunship helis were important part. Today, its already change. In Ukraine - Russia war, we are seeing more drones then gunships. The infantry units are taking along their own drones, some can carry few bombs, some are suicide drones, we are really not seeing infantry or tanks being taken out by gunship helis. We are actually seeing is UCAVs taking out infantry and Tanks. This is already happening and its not future.

Hope I have given you enough benefits and real life examples to convince you that age of traditional gunships are coming to an end. Why to invest in a dying technology. Invest in future!

 

[MastanKhan]

UCAV are coming but PAF and Pakistan Army don't consider them alternate to attack helicopters. Both Tanks and Attack Helicopters are going nowhere.

Hi,

When you have an enemy the size of india---you just cannot rely on the ucav's---.

You need a full compliment of battle regalia---.

 

[Oscar]

With today's sensor fusion capabilities that's not an issue any more.


If the pilot is sitting remotely and a Unmanned heli / UCAV is destroyed then its not a total loss. You still have a cockpit panel and most importantly the pilot, who then can connect with another UCAV and get into battle instanty. That's not possible if the pilot gets killed, injured or taken as POW.

Learning by experience and using critical information:
Secondly, imagine the critical information. The pilot will learn that what was his mistake the first time that he got killed, where was the enemy that shot him down the first time. He will come second time with experience. Just like in video games, when you get second chances. A legacy gunship pilot can never use this critical information or experience as he do not get's second chances. He's shot that means he's dead or out of action. Also how valuable is that you and other pilots are controlling anti-tank UCAVs in a single room, where a middle large screen is displaying the whole battlefield picture and your commander standing behind you is guiding you. Plus the operators don't get tired or disoriented, because if one operator is tired, you can quickly switch him with the fresh one. That's where the future is. If PA would have bought gunships 10 years ago then I would say that was not a bad decision but now its too late, PA must invest in future and embrace it. Its inevitable. Any benefits that physical presence of pilot within machine provides are outweighed by vast benefits of separating the pilot from the machine.

Real examples:
So many armenian tanks / infantry vehicles and group of infantry men were destroyed / killed by Azeri UCAVs even though those UCAVs weren't really the true successor of gunship helis. Secondly, the traditional gunship helis are very vulnerable because of advancements in SAMs / shoulder fired solutions. Israel got so many Apaches but I have never seen one in Gaza, they know their vulnerabilities. In the wars of 80s or 90s, the gunship helis were important part. Today, its already change. In Ukraine - Russia war, we are seeing more drones then gunships. The infantry units are taking along their own drones, some can carry few bombs, some are suicide drones, we are really not seeing infantry or tanks being taken out by gunship helis. We are actually seeing is UCAVs taking out infantry and Tanks. This is already happening and its not future.

Hope I have given you enough benefits and real life examples to convince you that age of traditional gunships are coming to an end. Why to invest in a dying technology. Invest in future!

Problem is not sensor fusion or weapons load or otherwise - it is communication being susceptible to EW.
Unless you have a robust enough datalink that can survive jamming - and some of it expected from the east is pretty scary in levels of noise equaling what the Russians are doing or more. If that goes live you'll have all comms either dead or plain unusable(except maybe the SDRs) just because of the amount of noise coming in on every band(and it will hit them too because it is all over).

What you need is something like the Growler's anti interference system built in but then your UCAV gets heavier and heavier.

 

[Zarvan]

F16's can turn into QF-16's, but attack helos cant turn into ucav's?

Oh ok, whatever floats your boat, stay safe.....

UCAV can't do the job even if it's F 16 a human pilot can study, evaluate and decide things which your robot can't. It's science and basic biology which you clearly never studied

With today's sensor fusion capabilities that's not an issue any more.


If the pilot is sitting remotely and a Unmanned heli / UCAV is destroyed then its not a total loss. You still have a cockpit panel and most importantly the pilot, who then can connect with another UCAV and get into battle instanty. That's not possible if the pilot gets killed, injured or taken as POW.

Learning by experience and using critical information:
Secondly, imagine the critical information. The pilot will learn that what was his mistake the first time that he got killed, where was the enemy that shot him down the first time. He will come second time with experience. Just like in video games, when you get second chances. A legacy gunship pilot can never use this critical information or experience as he do not get's second chances. He's shot that means he's dead or out of action. Also how valuable is that you and other pilots are controlling anti-tank UCAVs in a single room, where a middle large screen is displaying the whole battlefield picture and your commander standing behind you is guiding you. Plus the operators don't get tired or disoriented, because if one operator is tired, you can quickly switch him with the fresh one. That's where the future is. If PA would have bought gunships 10 years ago then I would say that was not a bad decision but now its too late, PA must invest in future and embrace it. Its inevitable. Any benefits that physical presence of pilot within machine provides are outweighed by vast benefits of separating the pilot from the machine.

Real examples:
So many armenian tanks / infantry vehicles and group of infantry men were destroyed / killed by Azeri UCAVs even though those UCAVs weren't really the true successor of gunship helis. Secondly, the traditional gunship helis are very vulnerable because of advancements in SAMs / shoulder fired solutions. Israel got so many Apaches but I have never seen one in Gaza, they know their vulnerabilities. In the wars of 80s or 90s, the gunship helis were important part. Today, its already change. In Ukraine - Russia war, we are seeing more drones then gunships. The infantry units are taking along their own drones, some can carry few bombs, some are suicide drones, we are really not seeing infantry or tanks being taken out by gunship helis. We are actually seeing is UCAVs taking out infantry and Tanks. This is already happening and its not future.

Hope I have given you enough benefits and real life examples to convince you that age of traditional gunships are coming to an end. Why to invest in a dying technology. Invest in future!

Even with today's sensors it's still a major issue

 

[Awwad]

Problem is not sensor fusion or weapons load or otherwise - it is communication being susceptible to EW.
Unless you have a robust enough datalink that can survive jamming - and some of it expected from the east is pretty scary in levels of noise equaling what the Russians are doing or more. If that goes live you'll have all comms either dead or plain unusable(except maybe the SDRs) just because of the amount of noise coming in on every band(and it will hit them too because it is all over).

What you need is something like the Growler's anti interference system built in but then your UCAV gets heavier and heavier.

True, EW is definitely going to be the biggest factor in battlefields of 21st century and counter interference systems have to be built accordingly. But we can't hold back because of it, we have to make counter systems and more Autonomous features, so that even if comms are jammed the modules that are hardcoded in the UCAVs can takeover and manage.

UCAVs can be programmed according to the mission parameters, as what to do if comms are jammed. With friend or foe identification system, should the autonomous system takeover and continue tracking hostile targets and engaging OR fall back to nearest friendly forces ground station OR do xyz in xyz circumstances. Basically for every scenario set of instructions can be fed and this is not an AI based UCAV. An AI controlled one (future versions) will decide on its own what to do in a given circumstances and will be far meaner and efficient hunting machine.

The Challenge of EW & comms jamming is real, but if we fully commit to future warfare technologies then we'll also be leading ones to counter these in time. That's why I argue that every penny should be spent on emerging technologies and not the legacy ones.

 

[Hussain]

UCAV can't do the job even if it's F 16 a human pilot can study, evaluate and decide things which your robot can't. It's science and basic biology which you clearly never studied

Robots? You're smokin the real deal, what is it?'

 

[Areesh]

So this Z10 acquisition is dead or what??

 

[Hussain]

So this Z10 acquisition is dead or what??

You want the real version, or the Zarvan InShaAllah version?

 

[Zarvan]

So this Z10 acquisition is dead or what??

They are coming

 

[ghazi52]