Pakistan UAVs News & Discussions

[Mohid Afzal]

We have Shahpar 2, which for all intents and purposes is a TB2.

TBH, this is what I always thought regarding TB2 as well, I really couldn't see the need to purchase it given the fact that we have Shahpar 2 Block 2.

We have Shahpar 3, which is kinda a weird mixup of high payload but relatively low endurance- like greater payload than a WL2 but slower and shorter endurance.

GIDS showed 2 variants of S3, 1 with 140 hp engine while the 2nd has 170 hp. I remeber seeing a poster which showed the difference in performance between the 2. Compared to the 140 hp variant, the 170 hp variant had much better endurance, over 40 hours ISR and over 30 hours when armed, why they decided to go for a lesser spec variant is something the know.

Then i recall seeing a twin engine config like Aksungur type UAV as a further development.

the Group 5 UCAV that got cancelled during design phase, again I don't understand the reason for cancelling. Money spent on Akinci could have been used for it's development

 

[JamD]

the Group 5 UCAV that got cancelled during design phase, again I don't understand the reason for cancelling. Money spent on Akinci could have been used for it's development

Reason is easy. No orders. When NESCOM can barely convince PAF to buy S2s, how will they plan to make a bigger UCAV and get PAF to buy that? You just don't need development, you also need production, and iterative improvement. Look at how many TB2s have been produced.

When it comes to UCAVs, PAF is quite like the IAF and Tejas.

 

[safriz]

tbh, in an ideal world we'd have not gone for either turkish or chinese drones and instead the PAF had tasked nescom to get the shahpar series up to scratch.

We have Shahpar 2, which for all intents and purposes is a TB2.

We have Shahpar 3, which is kinda a weird mixup of high payload but relatively low endurance- like greater payload than a WL2 but slower and shorter endurance.

Then i recall seeing a twin engine config like Aksungur type UAV as a further development.

But then, all of these could be used as an eventual offshoot to make the change to something turboprop powered for better performance, endurance, flexibility and lower maintenance costs.

Just so much money spent on financing others industry, while letting our own falter. Just imagine if we had spent the 500m-1bn at home and built something proper out of the products we already have...

Drones are cheaper than fighter jets, so at mix of foreign and local is affordable, and is being fielded.
Turkish drones and GIDS drones performed very well during May operation Bunyan ul Marsoos

 

[That_Guy]

PAF is literally such a shitshow:
Shahpar
Shahpar 2
TB2
Akinci
WL2
WL1
Falco

Why? Its drones, not fighter jets.

Different suppliers for drones are actually better, as they don't require as much maintenance, and in case of political or supply issues you have other options.

 

[JamD]

Why? Its drones, not fighter jets.

Different suppliers for drones are actually better, as they don't require as much maintenance, and in case of political or supply issues you have other options.

The statement that "drones don't require as much maintenance as fighter jets" is problematic in many ways.
Firstly, drones could mean DJI FPV or X-37. A drone of an FPV class has basically no maintenance requirement, while a drone like Akinci is basically an aircraft that is much more complex than even light aircraft like Cessna 172 or something. Remember, that the Akinci is running two turboprops, and has many many complex avionics. So its maintenance is not going to be cheap by any standard.
Secondly, comparing drone maintenance to fighter jet maintenance is kind of unfair. Jets operate for a few hours and are running turbofans. UCAVs like Akinci are running turboprops and operate for hours.
The maintenance for something like Akinci is likely closer to a private Beechcraft E90. Remember, you are also importing spares from Turkey.

Just wanted to pushback on the oft-repeated drones are cheap blanket statement a little.

 

[Oscar]

tbh, in an ideal world we'd have not gone for either turkish or chinese drones and instead the PAF had tasked nescom to get the shahpar series up to scratch.

We have Shahpar 2, which for all intents and purposes is a TB2.

We have Shahpar 3, which is kinda a weird mixup of high payload but relatively low endurance- like greater payload than a WL2 but slower and shorter endurance.

Then i recall seeing a twin engine config like Aksungur type UAV as a further development.

But then, all of these could be used as an eventual offshoot to make the change to something turboprop powered for better performance, endurance, flexibility and lower maintenance costs.

Just so much money spent on financing others industry, while letting our own falter. Just imagine if we had spent the 500m-1bn at home and built something proper out of the products we already have...

But then what about لاتیں واپس

 

[Oscar]

EXACTLY!

Pakistan such a big country, a security state where our number one focus, most budget and priorities are on defense (after personal wealths & ambitions). So we MUST have had massive number of in-house UAVs only. Why on earth we bought TB2s and likes is beyond my understanding. Its understandable that for 5th gen fighters or submarines that we have to buy from outside but why we buy off the shelf UAVs? We know our customized requirements most. We have massive organisations like NESCOM and yet we don't pour money in our own R&D but give that money to foreign vendors.

Also buying few examples of each drone type is a massive overhead. You'll need unique support/spares/updates separately for each of these.

I feel there is overwhelming focus on making personal PR videos and Someone might want to show every kind of drone in those. What I see is that 2 or 3 or few examples of each drone type is procured, and all the time they are being displayed together in group photos. I wonder airbase may have dedicated film crew, camera rolling and all that shit. Any psychologist seeing those recent PAF videos can see that there is personality cult developed. Person's decisions do effect when he purely believes that everything revolves around him.

The recent video was pretty clear how much personality worship and sycophancy now matters in the PAF and PA today.

There is only once place where that takes you - see next door for details

 

[hussain0216]

EXACTLY!

Pakistan such a big country, a security state where our number one focus, most budget and priorities are on defense (after personal wealths & ambitions). So we MUST have had massive number of in-house UAVs only. Why on earth we bought TB2s and likes is beyond my understanding. Its understandable that for 5th gen fighters or submarines that we have to buy from outside but why we buy off the shelf UAVs? We know our customized requirements most. We have massive organisations like NESCOM and yet we don't pour money in our own R&D but give that money to foreign vendors.

Also buying few examples of each drone type is a massive overhead. You'll need unique support/spares/updates separately for each of these.

I feel there is overwhelming focus on making personal PR videos and Someone might want to show every kind of drone in those. What I see is that 2 or 3 or few examples of each drone type is procured, and all the time they are being displayed together in group photos. I wonder airbase may have dedicated film crew, camera rolling and all that shit. Any psychologist seeing those recent PAF videos can see that there is personality cult developed. Person's decisions do effect when he purely believes that everything revolves around him.

Yeah, but have we bought massive numbers of these drones???

My understanding has always been that we would develop our own products gradually whilst having a limited number of Turkish or Chinese drones as a spear tip and a inducted platform we can compare and contrast our own product to

So eventually we would have a amada of home built products with only high end Turkish or Chinese drones in small numbers

 

[That_Guy]

View attachment 145544
The statement that "drones don't require as much maintenance as fighter jets" is problematic in many ways.
Firstly, drones could mean DJI FPV or X-37. A drone of an FPV class has basically no maintenance requirement, while a drone like Akinci is basically an aircraft that is much more complex than even light aircraft like Cessna 172 or something. Remember, that the Akinci is running two turboprops, and has many many complex avionics. So its maintenance is not going to be cheap by any standard.
Secondly, comparing drone maintenance to fighter jet maintenance is kind of unfair. Jets operate for a few hours and are running turbofans. UCAVs like Akinci are running turboprops and operate for hours.
The maintenance for something like Akinci is likely closer to a private Beechcraft E90. Remember, you are also importing spares from Turkey.

Just wanted to pushback on the oft-repeated drones are cheap blanket statement a little.

In this case, I don't think your criticism applies. We're clearly talking about the drones Pakistan has bought.

Outside of the Akinci, the rest are pretty attritible, considering that's literally what they were built for.

Akinci is the only high end drone that Pakistan operates, that's meant to have high levels of survivability.

 

[Ak01]

In this case, I don't think your criticism applies. We're clearly talking about the drones Pakistan has bought.

Outside of the Akinci, the rest are pretty attritible, considering that's literally what they were built for.

Akinci is the only high end drone that Pakistan operates, that's meant to have high levels of survivability.

What makes the akinci different to the WL2 in terms of attritability?
Or shahpar 2...or TB2? etc

Why are they designed to be used over, and over if attritable?

 

[JamD]

In this case, I don't think your criticism applies. We're clearly talking about the drones Pakistan has bought.

Outside of the Akinci, the rest are pretty attritible, considering that's literally what they were built for.

Akinci is the only high end drone that Pakistan operates, that's meant to have high levels of survivability.

It does. Akinci was just an example, we have Akinci, WL2, WL1, CH4, even TB2. TB2 is running a rotax and needs spare from Turkey. A lot of my arguments apply to most of the drones I talked about. Maybe not to YIHA. TB2 is a serious aircraft, not a toy.

 

[That_Guy]

What makes the akinci different to the WL2 in terms of attritability?
Or shahpar 2...or TB2? etc

Why are they designed to be used over, and over if attritable?

From my understanding, the level of sensors, weapons packages, as well as the fact that it flies at a higher altitude since it's a HALE drone, while the other's are MALE drones.

Attritable, doesn't mean one time use. It simply means that losing it isn't a massive loss. Their price tags are low for a reason.

 

[That_Guy]

It does. Akinci was just an example, we have Akinci, WL2, WL1, CH4, even TB2. TB2 is running a rotax and needs spare from Turkey. A lot of my arguments apply to most of the drones I talked about. Maybe not to YIHA. TB2 is a serious aircraft, not a toy.

Akinci is nowhere close to the others.

TB2 in particular is built as a cheap MALE drone, meant to be pumped out on mass.

WL1 and WL2 are not that sophisticated, compared to the Akinci, and that's on purpose. While they're impressive, the Akinci outperforms them in every regard (except payload capacity, I believe).

 

[JamD]

Akinci is nowhere close to the others.

TB2 in particular is built as a cheap MALE drone, meant to be pumped out on mass.

WL1 and WL2 are not that sophisticated, compared to the Akinci, and that's on purpose. While they're impressive, the Akinci outperforms them in every regard (except payload capacity, I believe).

5 million USD is cheap?

 

[JamD]

Akinci is nowhere close to the others.

TB2 in particular is built as a cheap MALE drone, meant to be pumped out on mass.

WL1 and WL2 are not that sophisticated, compared to the Akinci, and that's on purpose. While they're impressive, the Akinci outperforms them in every regard (except payload capacity, I believe).

My argument was not about sophistication. It was about complexity of maintenance because they are large serious aircraft (and not toys) with lots of electronics, avionics, and spare needs.