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

Hi, in my opinion, I think armored gunships are of limited use in a modern day war scenario. Pakistan can definitely use them on the Western front. However, deploying them against India would be a stretch.

 
That is too many. Doubt will get more than 60.
200 is good. We need this for major operation as drones does not have ammunation that is required to do major operations against ttp and bla.
 
For size of country which is Pakistan you need 40 Gunship for each province
Which is a quite modest figure, considering the SQ-KM coverage

You are covering all sides equally rather then focusing on keeping assets in one side

The added coverage will add better response time against incidents in remote areas

Supplemented with Drone Tech
 
There are some valid points re: limitations of helis in modern conventional warfare.

However, the helis are also adapting to new roles. For e.g. a good use case in the modern conventional scenario is for gunships in defensive role vs loitering munitions and drones. The gunship functions as a highly mobile AAA platform. As demonstrated in recent Israel-Iran war.
 
The Cobra fleet is partially retired already - only some of the airframes from the original 50 or so still fly. The rest were either too old (starting to become dangerous) or cannibalized for spares to keep the remaining flying. They do get deployed in the west from time to time as well, though are primarily stationed in the East.

Z-10MEs will not be replacing them 1-1 for now, and we might see them retire before 2030 as keeping them flying even in the west is going to become expensive and dangerous with how old they’re getting + they don’t have the kind of precision munitions like UCAVs or newer gunships do. Mi35s + Fennecs for CAS and UCAVs for strikes are enough in the west if deployed well (“if deployed well” is a big If - they have historically not been deployed well, though PA has definitely improved availability for them in recent years).

As for Z-10ME requirements, given the length of the border and PAs offensive-defense doctrine, even if PA only wants to deploy them to cover its limited offensive plans, at least 2 full squadrons (30~32 Helicopters) are required (that’s not the official requirement, but it is a realistic number given PAs doctrine) - first batch will obviously be smaller but if funds permit I think PA will try to hit that number.

As far as using UCAVs or Helo-UCAVs in their place is concerned - regular UCAVs cannot replace Gunships, especially when it comes to covering ground assaults, they can’t loiter/hover and provide cover fire. Helo UCAVs are a possibility but there is not a good enough one in existence with the payload, range and sensor capabilities of a full fledged gunship like the Z-10ME, and PA certainly can’t foot the bill to desing one, hence UCAVs are not viable replacements for gunships, especially not in a Pak-Ind scenario where SAMs are everywhere and air superiority is unlikely to be achieved by either side. If PA wants to get any good use out of these they absolutely have to be paired with new SHORADs that will advance with armored columns to cover these Helos.
UCAVs cannot replace gunships, why is this still a point of debate?
 
Times have changed. If your industry allows for mass development, fire a 1000 salvo of loitering munitions onto an incoming enemy column. I doubt an advancing column can take out 1000 FPV drones or Loitering munitions.

You just disabled an entire armored column for a few million dollars. That's the lethality you can get. Heli ops have become a thing of the 2000's warfare.

For Pakistan, having combat heli's in good number is needed because they've been running 70's Cobras! So a platform upgrade is needed. However, heli use has become much limited.
And who will handle the production, cost and logistics of several thousand (non-reusable) LMs. How will you launch and store them? How will their range impact performance? How will they be moved to desired locations? How will they provide Continued CAS? And what will they do when most of them are inevitably taken out by advancements in Local jamming, APS systems and Advanced AAA and SHORADs?

Armchair experts deliver such sweeping statements about technology but always forget that the first trial of any technology is logistical feasibility.
 
That is too many. Doubt will get more than 60.
Even 60 is too high. Especially for Short-Mid term. I don’t know where these people come up with numbers like “200” - Even China only has around 200 of them.

who’s going to foot that bill? Does PAA even have a quarter of the infrastructure, manpower and logistics required to run and host 200 gunships? (They don’t, because they don’t need it).
 
UCAVs cannot replace gunships, why is this still a point of debate?

Not today but they sure will replace it with many times more efficiency in near future.

Saying that UCAVs "cannot" replace may be was okay until 10 yrs ago. But saying it now? AI is here. Its just the beginning of the AI age. Its going to revolutionize every field and especially the battlefield. You will have the same functions of gunship, a VTOL machine with all of the same weaponry but you don't need the pilot cabin, you don't need all those controls and panels, you don't need pilot protection extra armor and all those stuff that's added just for the operator to be placed inside the machine. Whole that operator module will be safe somewhere in the ground. The remote operator won't even be flying the machine or targeting enemy tanks or infantry. The AI pilot is doing all that, Even with current tech its 100% possible, the AI can locate and destroy enemy positions far more accurately then human. Man simply cannot match the speed & accuracy. With advancements & perfections in large language models, the ground troops will have more confidence with having an AI UCAVs hovering above as they can communicate with it in any language or accent, it will assist them far more efficiently without tiring or making human errors or mistakes.

So, look at the future where its heading. Its not even like we are talking about 20 years in future. All the tech is available, its happening already. Japan and South Korea already ditching their manned-gunship acquisition programs. UCAVs are changing the battle space rapidly, I don't see much gunships in Ukraine, but I see whole lot of UCAVs. The armenia-azerbaijan war wasn't a perfect example where TB2 drones made a crap out of Armenian armor. But Ukraine-Russia war is a valid example. Something can be relatable, how intense ground wars will be fought with role of manned-gunships being reduced and UCAVs taking over and take a note, those are not even AI powered drones, those are all remotely controlled ones. So just add AI + UCAVs and you can see why on earth anyone would want to put a human and add all that cost, human cost, equipment cost due to placing human inside etc.

We still imagine battle scene is not evolving. UCAVs are here for few decades now, but with the arrival of AI, things are starting to change rapidly, its happening NOW! You can put all the inventions of human kind at one side and AI on the other side, its that revolutionary. Anything that needed human (especially for dedicated tasks like flying or targeting etc) are no more needed. Even the 6th gen F47 fighter jet is being designed as both manned and unmanned. Fighters jets are extremely expensive machines, so ideally you want to have an operator inside it because it can fly very fast, at extreme altitudes and ranges, so latency is a massive issue if you want to keep an oversight of what your AI machine is doing. These cannot be the concerns for slow moving, low altitude, and less pricey UCAVs or AI-unmanned-gunships. So if humanbeings are even stepping to make a 200 million dollar platform as unmanned, why we are still stuck that "gunships" can't be replaced with AI-unmanned-gunships?

Embrace the future!
Cheers.
 
Not today but they sure will replace it with many times more efficiency in near future.

Saying that UCAVs "cannot" replace may be was okay until 10 yrs ago. But saying it now? AI is here. Its just the beginning of the AI age. Its going to revolutionize every field and especially the battlefield. You will have the same functions of gunship, a VTOL machine with all of the same weaponry but you don't need the pilot cabin, you don't need all those controls and panels, you don't need pilot protection extra armor and all those stuff that's added just for the operator to be placed inside the machine. Whole that operator module will be safe somewhere in the ground. The remote operator won't even be flying the machine or targeting enemy tanks or infantry. The AI pilot is doing all that, Even with current tech its 100% possible, the AI can locate and destroy enemy positions far more accurately then human. Man simply cannot match the speed & accuracy. With advancements & perfections in large language models, the ground troops will have more confidence with having an AI UCAVs hovering above as they can communicate with it in any language or accent, it will assist them far more efficiently without tiring or making human errors or mistakes.

So, look at the future where its heading. Its not even like we are talking about 20 years in future. All the tech is available, its happening already. Japan and South Korea already ditching their manned-gunship acquisition programs. UCAVs are changing the battle space rapidly, I don't see much gunships in Ukraine, but I see whole lot of UCAVs. The armenia-azerbaijan war wasn't a perfect example where TB2 drones made a crap out of Armenian armor. But Ukraine-Russia war is a valid example. Something can be relatable, how intense ground wars will be fought with role of manned-gunships being reduced and UCAVs taking over and take a note, those are not even AI powered drones, those are all remotely controlled ones. So just add AI + UCAVs and you can see why on earth anyone would want to put a human and add all that cost, human cost, equipment cost due to placing human inside etc.

We still imagine battle scene is not evolving. UCAVs are here for few decades now, but with the arrival of AI, things are starting to change rapidly, its happening NOW! You can put all the inventions of human kind at one side and AI on the other side, its that revolutionary. Anything that needed human (especially for dedicated tasks like flying or targeting etc) are no more needed. Even the 6th gen F47 fighter jet is being designed as both manned and unmanned. Fighters jets are extremely expensive machines, so ideally you want to have an operator inside it because it can fly very fast, at extreme altitudes and ranges, so latency is a massive issue if you want to keep an oversight of what your AI machine is doing. These cannot be the concerns for slow moving, low altitude, and less pricey UCAVs or AI-unmanned-gunships. So if humanbeings are even stepping to make a 200 million dollar platform as unmanned, why we are still stuck that "gunships" can't be replaced with AI-unmanned-gunships?

Embrace the future!
Cheers.
Unfortunately for us Military grade tech does not scale that way, technology absolutely does, but not mainstream military tech, and given the acquisitions by both India and Pakistan, I think the leadership agrees.

As I mentioned before - in the military the first trial for any technology is logistics, everyone here, including you, is thinking about AI and UCAVs from a purely tech demonstrator perspective and giving examples of countries like Japan and South Korea with niche defense requirements and logistical capabilities that will allow for them to achieve this within the next decade (certainly not this one). None of this applies to Pakistan and our theatre at all.

Nobody is saying that UCAVs don’t have a place in the battlefield or that we shouldn’t be investing in them, if anything Pakistan has invested far more heavily in UCAVs and LMs than most peer militaries and you’ll see this in the coming years with the amount and type of platforms being inducted, but at the same time, the planners (thankfully) understand that no matter what social media shows, AI and automation is not ready to take over traditional combat roles in the south Asian theatre, not because we are limited by technological capabilities, I didn’t argue that at all, but because for the foreseeable future we are limited by logistical capabilities.

As a very small example - buying Z-10MEs to replace Cobras is a traditional military acquisition, and it will still come with massive logistical planning and execution to upgrade hangars, train pilots, maintenance crew, engineers, weapon techs etc etc etc.

Now imagine the requirements to shift this entire role from a manned gunship to a VTOL UCAV in our theatre, with our capabilities, our constraints (logistical and financial) and our doctrines (which have been in place and have been trained for 20 years) and then tell me wether you still think it is a worthwhile risk and investment to replace Manned gunships with UCAVs right now or anytime soon when a potential war over water is a high possibility within the next 5 years (as you say “near future”). Mind you an equivalent platform doesn’t even exist right now, it will have to be designed, tested and then be put on sale by an ally nation, and then we’ll have to test and evaluate it, and then we’ll have to buy it and implement it, if this takes till 2030, then what do we do till then?

There is a good border between using foreign conflicts and armies as examples to judge how our theatre will change, unfortunately everyone seems to be on the far side of the border where they consider that “because this is happening in X, Y and Z, it also applies to us”, it absolutely does to some extent, but not enough to risk it right now…it takes several years to plan and implement a major weapon acquisition and the required training and doctrinal changes with it, And we needed these gunships 10 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately for you Military grade tech does not scale that way, technology absolutely does, but not mainstream military tech, and given the acquisitions by both India and Pakistan, I think the leadership agrees.

As I mentioned before - in the military the first trial for any technology is logistics, everyone here, including you, is thinking about AI and UCAVs from a purely tech demonstrator perspective and giving examples of countries like Japan and South Korea with niche defense requirements and logistical capabilities that will allow for them to achieve this within the next decade (certainly not this one). None of this applies to Pakistan and our theatre at all.

Nobody is saying that UCAVs don’t have a place in the battlefield or that we shouldn’t be investing in them, if anything Pakistan has invested far more heavily in UCAVs and LMs than most peer militaries and you’ll see this in the coming years with the amount and type of platforms being inducted, but at the same time, the planners (thankfully) understand that no matter what social media shows, AI and automation is not ready to take over traditional combat roles in the south Asian theatre, not because we are limited by technological capabilities, I didn’t argue that at all, but because for the foreseeable future we are limited by logistical capabilities.

As a very small example - buying Z-10MEs to replace Cobras is a traditional military acquisition, and it will still come with massive logistical planning and execution to upgrade hangars, train pilots, maintenance crew, engineers, weapon techs etc etc etc.

Now imagine the requirements to shift this entire role from a manned gunship to a VTOL UCAV in our theatre, with our capabilities, our constraints (logistical and financial) and our doctrines (which have been in place and have been trained for 20 years) and then tell me wether you still think it is a worthwhile risk and investment to replace Manned gunships with UCAVs right now or anytime soon when a potential war over water is a high possibility within the next 5 years (as you say “near future”). Mind you an equivalent platform doesn’t even exist right now, it will have to be designed, tested and then be put on sale by an ally nation, and then we’ll have to test and evaluate it, and then we’ll have to buy it and implement it, if this takes till 2030, then what do we do till then?

There is a good border between using foreign conflicts and armies as examples to judge how our theatre will change, unfortunately everyone seems to be on the far side of the border where they consider that “because this is happening in X, Y and Z, it also applies to us”, it absolutely does to some extent, but not enough to risk it right now…it takes several years to plan and implement a major weapon acquisition and the required training and doctrinal changes with it, And we needed these gunships 10 years ago.
Also; Military tech scales gradually, entirely replacing a gunship with a VTOL UCAV? Maybe in 30 years. But buying a new Manned gunship with highly automated elements and the inclusion of advanced AIs which can reduce pilot workload? That’s already happening!

It’s not that I don’t believe UCAVs can never replace gunships, they absolutely Can and they will. I think literally half the weapons any military has will be taken over by Automation and AI-enabled machines in the coming years - but the scale will not be defined by technological capabilities, it will always be defined by logistics, even for the richest countries like the US and China.

Unlike the US or China, Pakistan is currently not in an economic state to have experimental forces in our military - notice how the US operates some of the most advanced AI enabled unmanned vehicles in the world, but also operates much greater numbers of more basic, decades old B52s and M113s which will serve for 50 years more. That’s because they understand the division between what is mainstream tech and what is small-scale experimental tech. Division like this allows the best parts of high-end tech to trickle down to the mainstream level where it can be used by the average soldier instead of a Highly trained specialist.

This brings up another important point however - when jobs in the military go from being low qualification grunt jobs like infantry to ones requiring high technical skill and training (drone pilots) - the pool of available manpower gets exponentially small, this is an issue we’re seeing with many first world militaries that are failing to meet manpower requirements despite massive pay hikes, how will this work in a low-income country like ours which invests heavily in its military, to a point where the military is almost comparable to a high-income countries’ - this might be another major limiting factor for the adoption of large scale automation in our theatre.​
 
Last edited:
How much life do the Cobras have left in them?
How many do we have left?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top