Pretty much.
To be clear, when I say "UCAV" in Pakistan's context, I'm referring to a 2-3-ton (at most 4-ton) design that straddles between an ALCM and a 'Loyal Wingman.'
A system that's fundamentally expendable, but when used at scale, can be a good offensive strike asset (see the Spirit Mosquito below as a reference).
View attachment 65793
Think of something the PAF can send into high-risk environments knowing that it will lose some (or many), but with the benefit of depleting Indian SAMs, developing real-time awareness of Indian deployments (with UCAVs acting as recon drones as they approach their targets), and striking some targets successfully.
I'd rather orient Pakistan's state-owned and private sector aviation industries towards building such UCAVs at scale. In fact, imagine building a level of redundancy where a loss can be replaced within a week.
And to be clear, this should be the upper end of our industry in wartime; the bulk should focus on guided munitions, like medium-to-long-range SAMs, cheap loitering munitions, guided surface-to-surface ballistic missiles, low-cost cruise missiles, etc.
The "premier" or "marquee" assets - such as fighter aircraft and submarines - should be treated as permanent attrition. Meaning, as you wouldn't be able to replace them during a war (due to the reliance on foreign inputs, lack of industrial capacity, etc), you aim to replace them after the war.
These premier assets have a role, for sure, but IMO they shouldn't be the workhorse or drive the bulk of wartime operations. Rather, they should be strategic assets meant for very specific missions.
I agree with you on UCAVs. Here is a paper on UCAVs and how it could benefit PAF:
drive.google.com
The paper above is a bit dated, I think the concept can be improved further given the current knowledge base. The main problem is the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the Pak MIC, which cannot be rectified without serious reform, only possible if PTI comes to power.
The elephant in the room is that the core industry needed for industrialization and meaningful military production - coal-steel is not there. In this regard, if the money for Kaan or the next super weapon can be spent to start that, I think the ROI would be 100x more.
Contrary to popular belief, Pakistan both has steel-grade coal and iron-ore. The plan is gathering dust in some shelf in some ministry, was from the 1960s. I learned about it from the late Dr. Zafar Altaf, former secretary of agriculture, and manager of Pakistan cricket team. I was his student and later employee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zafar_Altaf
The deposits were found and the plan was laid in detail to build a short railway line between the steel-grade coal production spot and the iron-ore production spot.
Steel mills were being negotiated to be bought, 2 of them from (then) West Germany, one to be located in the iron-ore area and the other in the steel-grade coal area.
However, after 1971, when Bhutto came to power, he shelved it, and instead got an already outdated steel mill near Karachi, that to this day is a burden on the Pakistani exchequer.
Back to the present - such a plan could be executed instead of a Kaan Fighter, or VT-4 purchase, or the next major Naval purchase. Any one of them would do. This would then allow Pakistan to actually have the metallurgy to build real weapons of war. Wouldn't that be better?
I think the PAF needs to indigenize the JF-17, which is what the PFX variant should be about. that would make it a fighter good enough to defend airspace.
There are yet more ways to multiply PAF's effectiveness without a major wunder-weapon purchase -
1. Cut airbases into mountains (like Iran)
2. Make a ton of non-flyable fighter decoys to park at all air bases
3. Make a JF-17 "lite" to be a low-cost wing-man that data links to a real JF-17, fires BVRs and scoots. This would not need a radar, or structural strength to pull high Gs. Just data-links and a form-factor that makes it indistinguishable from other JFTs.
Ultimately, you've hit the most important factor on the head - UCAVs, UAVs, UGVs, UUVs. There needs to be a think-tank level thought of what such drones would do and the strategic, tactical, and micro levels at which they would operate. Currently the Ukraine war is seeing nearly inorganized forms of drones appearing, but if time were available, the best and most successful UAVs would need to be rethought in line with the needs of Pakistan, potential war plans, and the different levels.
After all, a UCAV can be a simple drone that drops a grenade, or an FPV drone, or a giant drone that flies across the glob. Without categorizing the needs, and then specifying the range and payload needs, it would not be an effective brainstorming of ideas.
My last thought is the difference and boundary between a drone and a missile. Where does that boundary meet?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F_zkdQ8OmmNY9a69CTLOMnsjcb1WIVic/view?usp=sharing