What's new

Featured Pakistan's Shahpar II UAV Unveiled

sparten

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2006
1,883
3
1,353
@Bilal Khan (Quwa)
Is the reduction in the endurance of the armed version an MTCR thing? It could also be just the replacement of the armament weight with internal fuel weight. Or both.
One thought which crossed my mind, context, do the numbers mean mission duration (wheel up wheels down) or only time on station…. Excluding transit time.
One would think “endurance” means the former, but that would suggest a large, short range aircraft…which is oxymoronic.
If the number are written to exclude the transit times and for the sake of argument, let’s say it’s at max range, 1000 km.
Cruise speed is 200 Kmh. That’s 5 hours in and 5 out.
That gives numbers at 24 for unarmed and 17 for armed. Which sounds reasonable.
But, just don’t know.
 

ARMalik

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 7, 2017
4,832
5
8,842
Country
Australia
Location
Australia
Pakistan is NOT a signatory country to MTCR , nor has it 'Volunteered" for MTCR like China for example , so I am not sure why Pakistan is kept being dragged into MTCR discussion.
 

Bilal.

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 9, 2013
5,196
9
7,342
Pakistan is NOT a signatory country to MTCR , nor has it 'Volunteered" for MTCR like China for example , so I am not sure why Pakistan is kept being dragged into MTCR discussion.
Even the non signatories adhere to it so as not to upset the international community. Case in point, look at all the export versions of Chinese missiles. All of them are restricted by MTCR restrictions.
 

ARMalik

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 7, 2017
4,832
5
8,842
Country
Australia
Location
Australia
Our potential export targets....**are** and **do**.
Highly unlikely as there are only 35 Signatories to MTCR and most of them are in EU.
Even the non signatories adhere to it so as not to upset the international community. Case in point, look at all the export versions of Chinese missiles. All of them are restricted by MTCR restrictions.
NOT TRUE AT ALL because going by that Logic Pakistan would then had to adhere to "Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty", and give up its nukes.
 

Bilal.

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 9, 2013
5,196
9
7,342
NOT TRUE AT ALL because going by that Logic Pakistan would then had to adhere to "Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty", and give up its nukes.
Not true at all? Here is an exercise. Check the range specs for all the export versions of Chinese surface to surface and air to surface missiles and tell us why all of them are restricted just below 300km range?

And do you see us trying to export our SRBMs or Babur?
 
Last edited:

sparten

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2006
1,883
3
1,353
NOT TRUE AT ALL because going by that Logic Pakistan would then had to adhere to "Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty", and give up its nukes.
Well we don’t intend to sell nukes so the analogy fails.
We do actually adhere to it in lots of ways for instance there are export restrictions on certain types of machinery and components to non NPT5 countries. This was one of the claims made against us when the Marshall Islands sued us at the ICJ.
 

Pandora

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 15, 2013
7,539
7
11,734
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
Pakistan is NOT a signatory country to MTCR , nor has it 'Volunteered" for MTCR like China for example , so I am not sure why Pakistan is kept being dragged into MTCR discussion.
Same reason we adhere to NSG guideline which is to not get sanctioned. MTCR is also another pressure group made up of all big economies just like FATF. Our participation in their regulated framework is voluntary or more like forced to volunteer.
 
Last edited:

JamD

FULL MEMBER
Mar 26, 2015
1,872
80
6,584
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
One thought which crossed my mind, context, do the numbers mean mission duration (wheel up wheels down) or only time on station…. Excluding transit time.
One would think “endurance” means the former, but that would suggest a large, short range aircraft…which is oxymoronic.
If the number are written to exclude the transit times and for the sake of argument, let’s say it’s at max range, 1000 km.
Cruise speed is 200 Kmh. That’s 5 hours in and 5 out.
That gives numbers at 24 for unarmed and 17 for armed. Which sounds reasonable.
But, just don’t know.
I am pretty sure that endurance figures are between wheels up/wheels down. Time on station would require you to state or assume how far away the station is. As far as I know, this is not done.


...do the numbers mean mission duration (wheel up wheels down) ..., but that would suggest a large, short range aircraft…which is oxymoronic.
Did I parse your statement correctly? If so, I don't quite follow why an endurance metric from takeoff to landing would suggest a large, short-range aircraft. Perhaps, you can paraphrase your statement.
 

Moon

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 27, 2014
2,504
2
3,067
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Agreed except its closer to a Reaper than a Predator, being a MALE and all.


The service ceiling is 20,000 feet, bit high for a piston, especially one of this size. A Cessna 172 is 14,000 feet, this is nearly 50% more. It would be the most advanced piston.
On the other hand its perfectly within the range of an okay Turboprop.
18,000 feet is pretty good, but other drones in same category can cross upto 27,000 feet (Tb-2, in their official website).
Mind you, these drones are more sleek and streamlined than a Cessna, which can't even retract it's landing gear.
And perhaps lighter as well.
 

sparten

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2006
1,883
3
1,353
I am pretty sure that endurance figures are between wheels up/wheels down. Time on station would require you to state or assume how far away the station is. As far as I know, this is not done.



Did I parse your statement correctly? If so, I don't quite follow why an endurance metric from takeoff to landing would suggest a large, short-range aircraft. Perhaps, you can paraphrase your statement.
Generally bigger aircraft have bigger range since the increase in volume gives space for more fuel and
powerful propulsion.
Shahpar 2 has numbers not much greater than a Burraq, despite being much bigger.
So, I postulate that the released numbers are either flat wrong or missing context.
Am analogy might be drawn with the Shaheen III whose states range is convinietly 50 KM less than the distance to Israel and Moscow despite official apogee numbers giving it a much greater range.
 

JamD

FULL MEMBER
Mar 26, 2015
1,872
80
6,584
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
It shouldn't be an issue. IIRC the MTCR focuses on range and payload.
Hmmm...so cruising at 80 kts for 5 hrs (taking 2 hrs off for takeoff, climb, descent, and landing) you can travel almost 800 km, and half of that is 400 km, which is 100 km more than the MTCR number right?

The line-of-sight data link range is 300 km though. I suppose that's how Shahpar-II conforms to MTCR.
Generally bigger aircraft have bigger range since the increase in volume gives space for more fuel and
powerful propulsion.
Shahpar 2 has numbers not much greater than a Burraq, despite being much bigger.
So, I postulate that the released numbers are either flat wrong or missing context.
Am analogy might be drawn with the Shaheen III whose states range is convinietly 50 KM less than the distance to Israel and Moscow despite official apogee numbers giving it a much greater range.
Ah ok I get your point now.

That is probably true on some level. Like all things in aerospace, there is a limitation: You can't keep adding fuel to increase range all you want. You may not be limited by internal volume, but by the engine power being able to lift all of that fuel weight off the ground.


Shahpar 2 has numbers not much greater than a Burraq, despite being much bigger.
Agreed. And this is the reason for my original post as well. I believe your position is that the specifications are being understated for strategic reasons. My position is that the specifications are correct and that Shahpar-II is currently underpowered and actually designed with a more powerful engine in mind. Those are two valid conclusions that can be made based on the currently revealed information. No way to know which one (or both) are correct, unless new information comes to light. But I see the merits in your point.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom