A DIY Drone / CAS Aircraft for the PAA - Concept

[Armchair]

With US shutting out AH-1Z purchases, and the chronic lack of armed drones, PAA is facing a challenge in meeting contemporary capability needs. A handful of drones imported from abroad and some others that aren't able to be armed meaningfully leaves, the Pakistan Army Aviation can be revamped and its capabilities multiplied with a locally produced drone and CAS aircraft.

The problem however is costs. The cost of an attack helicopter is between 25 million to 40 million USD. CAS aircraft such as the Super Tucano are about 10 million USD. JF-17s are precious, and @Signalian suggests F-7Ps being relegated to PAA to meet this dire need.

However, while the suggestion has its merits, the downside is F-7Ps are too fast to provide meaningful CAS and are hard to maintain, costly to keep and their build quality is poor meaning they are near the end of their lives.

I am proposing here a simple yet radical solution that does not follow conventional Western doctrine. The biggest cost of building a local CAS aircraft / Drone are in its:
1. Engine
2. Electronics
3. Armaments
4. Airframe

Engines are expensive to import, even if Kamra now has the ability to fabricate airframes, and some level of capability exists for armament.

Turboprop engines are expensive and difficult to build, in capability areas not available in Pakistan, and available only in a handful of countries. Instead, I am proposing one uses a two-stroke engine combined with a pulse jet.

Both of these are simple to make (can be made in a garage by hobbyists), and yet, when combined they are effective.

Advantages and disadvantages of a two-stroke engine: Simple to build and providing reasonable thrust to weight ratio, two-stroke engines' weakness is its relatively poor fuel efficiency - a good part of the fuel flows out unused.

Yet, this unburnt fuel can be channeled to a pulse jet engine which can then use the same to generate thrust.

Advantages and disadvantages of a pulse jet engine: Poor fuel consumption (as with all jet engines) and less durability. Advantage: simple to build and when combined with a two-stroke, the combined system gives greater efficiency of thrust than either system alone.

Here is an example of a two-stroke engine used in rc planes

This particular model can be sand-casted easily at any basic facility. It generates 13 HP
If one enlarges the same, it could be made to generate 50 HP.

Here is how to build pulse jets, originally used by Nazi Germany, including to make night intercept fighters at one point in the war. http://www.pulse-jets.com/
They are often built in home garages by hobbyists. Modern designs such as using a petal arrangement and using roofing paint for combustion interior, increases the reliability and effectiveness of pulse jets.

If in a hybrid arrangement, 33% of the thrust is generated by the two-stroke engine and 66% by the pulse jet, one can come up with an aircraft / drone that will:

1. cost pennies to the dollar. Even CAS aircraft costing as little as 100,000 USD
2. Allow Pakistan to build an aircraft / drone 100% at home
3. Allow mass production so Pakistan can build drones / CAS aircraft in a hurry during a war.

With the latest result from Turkish drones in Idlib, the effectiveness of CAS and drones become clear and a pressing need. Being able to produce large numbers of them would allow Pakistan to easily overwhelm a larger enemy.

Opportunities come for those who are willing to see them.

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Signalian @Bilal Khan 777 @MastanKhan @FuturePAF @messiach

FAQs

But why no other countries are doing it?
Ans: Most countries follow the West in whatever they do. The West (and other major powers such as China) does not need a low cost solution that cannot give them long range and technological superiority. This is why both two-stroke aircraft engines and pulse jets where abandoned in favor of jet engines and turbofans. However, since these latter technologies are outside Pak's reach, this solution suits Pakistan's needs.
Following the crowd and taking the West as our tech god is not a methodology to success always.

Your cost estimates are so low. How is that possible? Modern engines cost a lot more than this.
Ans. Precisely. "modern" engines do, of the type that falls under jets, turbofans, turboprops and even four-stroke gasoline engines. These two engines given are the simplest, easiest to build engines in the world. Pulse jets largely a Nazi technology, while two-stroke aircraft engines were last put on a fighter by the UK. No one apparently thought yet of bringing them together. No one thought how such a simple solution does not require the materials, metallurgy and mechanical complexity of today's engines. Not because they are dumb, but because they walked down a different road suitable for their country's benefit (power projection, high MTBF, best fuel economy).

Have you built these yourself? Do you have a proof of concept?
Ans. No I don't. But if you look around online you can find these done by hobbyists worldwide. Including a fellow in New Zealand who says his pulse jets can be turned into cruise missiles at a fraction of the cost.

How much do you estimate a CAS aircraft to cost? A drone?
Ans. Anywhere between 100,000 to 1 million USD, depending on what exactly the spec requirement is. As for drones, anywhere from 5,000 to 50,000 USD, again depending on specs.

The engine size in the Aliexpress rc model is pretty small. How can one enlarge it?
Ans. Making anything small is a lot harder than making them bigger. Simply taking the engine and making a bigger version is one way. Another way adopted by DLE and other engine manufacturers is to increase the number of cylinders. The example shown is for a two cylinder model. There are models with 4 cylinders. In theory, we could thus not only increase the size but increase the number of cylinders. Such engines are not new, but existed in aircraft before the jet age, although most (not all) were four-stroke engines back then.

 

[nomi007]

CAS aircraft are value for money
but PAA needs an attack helo nor airplane which have its own benefits, I think PAA has to select AH-1Z instead of T-129. its the only way through which may be the USA will deliver 12 of stored AH-1Z.
downside of T-129 is that they have no alternative engine option

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

With US shutting out AH-1Z purchases, and the chronic lack of armed drones, PAA is facing a challenge in meeting contemporary capability needs. A handful of drones imported from abroad and some others that aren't able to be armed meaningfully leaves, the Pakistan Army Aviation can be revamped and its capabilities multiplied with a locally produced drone and CAS aircraft.

The problem however is costs. The cost of an attack helicopter is between 25 million to 40 million USD. CAS aircraft such as the Super Tucano are about 10 million USD. JF-17s are precious, and @Signalian suggests F-7Ps being relegated to PAA to meet this dire need.

However, while the suggestion has its merits, the downside is F-7Ps are too fast to provide meaningful CAS and are hard to maintain, costly to keep and their build quality is poor meaning they are near the end of their lives.

I am proposing here a simple yet radical solution that does not follow conventional Western doctrine. The biggest cost of building a local CAS aircraft / Drone are in its:
1. Engine
2. Electronics
3. Armaments
4. Airframe

Engines are expensive to import, even if Kamra now has the ability to fabricate airframes, and some level of capability exists for armament.

Turboprop engines are expensive and difficult to build, in capability areas not available in Pakistan, and available only in a handful of countries. Instead, I am proposing one uses a two-stroke engine combined with a pulse jet.

Both of these are simple to make (can be made in a garage by hobbyists), and yet, when combined they are effective.

Advantages and disadvantages of a two-stroke engine: Simple to build and providing reasonable thrust to weight ratio, two-stroke engines' weakness is its relatively poor fuel efficiency - a good part of the fuel flows out unused.

Yet, this unburnt fuel can be channeled to a pulse jet engine which can then use the same to generate thrust.

Advantages and disadvantages of a pulse jet engine: Poor fuel consumption (as with all jet engines) and less durability. Advantage: simple to build and when combined with a two-stroke, the combined system gives greater efficiency of thrust than either system alone.

Here is an example of a two-stroke engine used in rc planes

This particular model can be sand-casted easily at any basic facility. It generates 13 HP
If one enlarges the same, it could be made to generate 50 HP.

Here is how to build pulse jets, originally used by Nazi Germany, including to make night intercept fighters at one point in the war. http://www.pulse-jets.com/
They are often built in home garages by hobbyists. Modern designs such as using a petal arrangement and using roofing paint for combustion interior, increases the reliability and effectiveness of pulse jets.

If in a hybrid arrangement, 33% of the thrust is generated by the two-stroke engine and 66% by the pulse jet, one can come up with an aircraft / drone that will:

1. cost pennies to the dollar. Even CAS aircraft costing as little as 100,000 USD
2. Allow Pakistan to build an aircraft / drone 100% at home
3. Allow mass production so Pakistan can build drones / CAS aircraft in a hurry during a war.

With the latest result from Turkish drones in Idlib, the effectiveness of CAS and drones become clear and a pressing need. Being able to produce large numbers of them would allow Pakistan to easily overwhelm a larger enemy.

Opportunities come for those who are willing to see them.

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Signalian @Bilal Khan 777 @MastanKhan @FuturePAF @messiach

FAQs

But why no other countries are doing it?
Ans: Most countries follow the West in whatever they do. The West (and other major powers such as China) does not need a low cost solution that cannot give them long range and technological superiority. This is why both two-stroke aircraft engines and pulse jets where abandoned in favor of jet engines and turbofans. However, since these latter technologies are outside Pak's reach, this solution suits Pakistan's needs.
Following the crowd and taking the West as our tech god is not a methodology to success always.

Your cost estimates are so low. How is that possible? Modern engines cost a lot more than this.
Ans. Precisely. "modern" engines do, of the type that falls under jets, turbofans, turboprops and even four-stroke gasoline engines. These two engines given are the simplest, easiest to build engines in the world. Pulse jets largely a Nazi technology, while two-stroke aircraft engines were last put on a fighter by the UK. No one apparently thought yet of bringing them together. No one thought how such a simple solution does not require the materials, metallurgy and mechanical complexity of today's engines. Not because they are dumb, but because they walked down a different road suitable for their country's benefit (power projection, high MTBF, best fuel economy).

Have you built these yourself? Do you have a proof of concept?
Ans. No I don't. But if you look around online you can find these done by hobbyists worldwide. Including a fellow in New Zealand who says his pulse jets can be turned into cruise missiles at a fraction of the cost.

How much do you estimate a CAS aircraft to cost? A drone?
Ans. Anywhere between 100,000 to 1 million USD, depending on what exactly the spec requirement is. As for drones, anywhere from 5,000 to 50,000 USD, again depending on specs.

The engine size in the Aliexpress rc model is pretty small. How can one enlarge it?
Ans. Making anything small is a lot harder than making them bigger. Simply taking the engine and making a bigger version is one way. Another way adopted by DLE and other engine manufacturers is to increase the number of cylinders. The example shown is for a two cylinder model. There are models with 4 cylinders. In theory, we could thus not only increase the size but increase the number of cylinders. Such engines are not new, but existed in aircraft before the jet age, although most (not all) were four-stroke engines back then.

This is an interesting idea, but is Pakistan's real 'problem' actually lack of fiscal resources?

Yes, money is a major constraint, but is that alone keeping us away from developing one common gas turbine solution for miniature turboprop, turboshaft and turbofan engines?

I like the approach Ukraine's Motor Sich took -- a common platform for:

• MS-500V turboshaft (for 3.5-ton to 6-ton VTOL)
  
• MS-500V turboprop (for MALE UAV)
• MS-400 miniature turbofan (for LACM/ASCM)

I'm sure we can generate sufficient economies-of-scale through the long-term to justify the development of a common gas turbine platform (e.g., drones, cruise missiles, etc).

Seriously, can you imagine developing a VTOL UAV using our own equivalent of the MS-500V ... and arming it with AGMs, PGBs, LGBs, and even small ASCM/LACM? The Army could have 8x8 trucks serving as launch pads and support vehicles for these VTOL UAVs. Likewise, the Navy could have these VTOL UAVs (or small manned helicopters) serve as near-range ASW and AShW assets from corvettes and fast attack crafts.

In fact, when I read of engines such as the MS-500V, I wonder, how -- if we had the will -- far would we be from designing our own lightweight (MTOW: 4-5-ton) utility helicopter? We can use such a design as a mainstay utility/SAR/ASW/scout helicopter (like the Ansat), and then develop a tandem-seat light-attack/scout variant (e.g., OH-1). Through the latter build, we can then develop a VTOL UAV.

 

[Armchair]

This is an interesting idea, but is Pakistan's real 'problem' actually lack of fiscal resources?

Yes, money is a major constraint, but is that alone keeping us away from developing one common gas turbine solution for miniature turboprop, turboshaft and turbofan engines?

I like the approach Ukraine's Motor Sich took -- a common platform for:

• MS-500V turboshaft (for 3.5-ton to 6-ton VTOL)
  
• MS-500V turboprop (for MALE UAV)
• MS-400 miniature turbofan (for LACM/ASCM)

I'm sure we can generate sufficient economies-of-scale through the long-term to justify the development of a common gas turbine platform (e.g., drones, cruise missiles, etc).

Seriously, can you imagine developing a VTOL UAV using our own equivalent of the MS-500V ... and arming it with AGMs, PGBs, LGBs, and even small ASCM/LACM? The Army could have 8x8 trucks serving as launch pads and support vehicles for these VTOL UAVs. Likewise, the Navy could have these VTOL UAVs (or small manned helicopters) serve as near-range ASW and AShW assets from corvettes and fast attack crafts.

In fact, when I read of engines such as the MS-500V, I wonder, how -- if we had the will -- far would we be from designing our own lightweight (MTOW: 4-5-ton) utility helicopter? We can use such a design as a mainstay utility/SAR/ASW/scout helicopter (like the Ansat), and then develop a tandem-seat light-attack/scout variant (e.g., OH-1). Through the latter build, we can then develop a VTOL UAV.

I totally agree and I know this was what @messiach had in mind. I would however suggest Pak also invests in a common deisel engine starting with a base 250 hp model. This could power a lot of things.

Imagine the capability of being able to churn out 100 units of UAVs or CAS aircraft per month. That would really be a game changer. In a long war of attrition, it would be decisive.

 

[Armchair]

@Mirage Battle Commander This is the combination of engine I have in mind. It is for a generally low flying close air support aircraft. Imagine a smaller A-10 type but designed to fly tree top at speed. Pops up, unload weapons, scoots.

Now, if the propeller is rated for the piston engine, but 66 percent of the thrust is being provided by the pulse jet engine, my gut tells me the pitch rating and length rating of the propeller needs to be different than if the jet engine is not there.

The aircraft is likely to have 4 sets of engines, each set a combination of the 2 stroke piston and pulse jet. The sets are to be distributed, say, one on each wing and two in the position of the A-10 engines, just aft.

 

[Armchair]

To keep it simple, we are imagining it to be fixed pitch propellers as variable pitch propellers would add to complexity.

 

[The Accountant]

This is an interesting idea, but is Pakistan's real 'problem' actually lack of fiscal resources?

Yes, money is a major constraint, but is that alone keeping us away from developing one common gas turbine solution for miniature turboprop, turboshaft and turbofan engines?

I like the approach Ukraine's Motor Sich took -- a common platform for:

• MS-500V turboshaft (for 3.5-ton to 6-ton VTOL)
  
• MS-500V turboprop (for MALE UAV)
• MS-400 miniature turbofan (for LACM/ASCM)

I'm sure we can generate sufficient economies-of-scale through the long-term to justify the development of a common gas turbine platform (e.g., drones, cruise missiles, etc).

Seriously, can you imagine developing a VTOL UAV using our own equivalent of the MS-500V ... and arming it with AGMs, PGBs, LGBs, and even small ASCM/LACM? The Army could have 8x8 trucks serving as launch pads and support vehicles for these VTOL UAVs. Likewise, the Navy could have these VTOL UAVs (or small manned helicopters) serve as near-range ASW and AShW assets from corvettes and fast attack crafts.

In fact, when I read of engines such as the MS-500V, I wonder, how -- if we had the will -- far would we be from designing our own lightweight (MTOW: 4-5-ton) utility helicopter? We can use such a design as a mainstay utility/SAR/ASW/scout helicopter (like the Ansat), and then develop a tandem-seat light-attack/scout variant (e.g., OH-1). Through the latter build, we can then develop a VTOL UAV.

Why not to purchase such an engine with transfer of technology? Ukraine needs customers and have a history of transfer of technology. What do you think how much could be cost of such an engine manufacturing facility with transfer of technology?

 

[Basel]

With US shutting out AH-1Z purchases, and the chronic lack of armed drones, PAA is facing a challenge in meeting contemporary capability needs. A handful of drones imported from abroad and some others that aren't able to be armed meaningfully leaves, the Pakistan Army Aviation can be revamped and its capabilities multiplied with a locally produced drone and CAS aircraft.

The problem however is costs. The cost of an attack helicopter is between 25 million to 40 million USD. CAS aircraft such as the Super Tucano are about 10 million USD. JF-17s are precious, and @Signalian suggests F-7Ps being relegated to PAA to meet this dire need.

However, while the suggestion has its merits, the downside is F-7Ps are too fast to provide meaningful CAS and are hard to maintain, costly to keep and their build quality is poor meaning they are near the end of their lives.

I am proposing here a simple yet radical solution that does not follow conventional Western doctrine. The biggest cost of building a local CAS aircraft / Drone are in its:
1. Engine
2. Electronics
3. Armaments
4. Airframe

Engines are expensive to import, even if Kamra now has the ability to fabricate airframes, and some level of capability exists for armament.

Turboprop engines are expensive and difficult to build, in capability areas not available in Pakistan, and available only in a handful of countries. Instead, I am proposing one uses a two-stroke engine combined with a pulse jet.

Both of these are simple to make (can be made in a garage by hobbyists), and yet, when combined they are effective.

Advantages and disadvantages of a two-stroke engine: Simple to build and providing reasonable thrust to weight ratio, two-stroke engines' weakness is its relatively poor fuel efficiency - a good part of the fuel flows out unused.

Yet, this unburnt fuel can be channeled to a pulse jet engine which can then use the same to generate thrust.

Advantages and disadvantages of a pulse jet engine: Poor fuel consumption (as with all jet engines) and less durability. Advantage: simple to build and when combined with a two-stroke, the combined system gives greater efficiency of thrust than either system alone.

Here is an example of a two-stroke engine used in rc planes

This particular model can be sand-casted easily at any basic facility. It generates 13 HP
If one enlarges the same, it could be made to generate 50 HP.

Here is how to build pulse jets, originally used by Nazi Germany, including to make night intercept fighters at one point in the war. http://www.pulse-jets.com/
They are often built in home garages by hobbyists. Modern designs such as using a petal arrangement and using roofing paint for combustion interior, increases the reliability and effectiveness of pulse jets.

If in a hybrid arrangement, 33% of the thrust is generated by the two-stroke engine and 66% by the pulse jet, one can come up with an aircraft / drone that will:

1. cost pennies to the dollar. Even CAS aircraft costing as little as 100,000 USD
2. Allow Pakistan to build an aircraft / drone 100% at home
3. Allow mass production so Pakistan can build drones / CAS aircraft in a hurry during a war.

With the latest result from Turkish drones in Idlib, the effectiveness of CAS and drones become clear and a pressing need. Being able to produce large numbers of them would allow Pakistan to easily overwhelm a larger enemy.

Opportunities come for those who are willing to see them.

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Signalian @Bilal Khan 777 @MastanKhan @FuturePAF @messiach

FAQs

But why no other countries are doing it?
Ans: Most countries follow the West in whatever they do. The West (and other major powers such as China) does not need a low cost solution that cannot give them long range and technological superiority. This is why both two-stroke aircraft engines and pulse jets where abandoned in favor of jet engines and turbofans. However, since these latter technologies are outside Pak's reach, this solution suits Pakistan's needs.
Following the crowd and taking the West as our tech god is not a methodology to success always.

Your cost estimates are so low. How is that possible? Modern engines cost a lot more than this.
Ans. Precisely. "modern" engines do, of the type that falls under jets, turbofans, turboprops and even four-stroke gasoline engines. These two engines given are the simplest, easiest to build engines in the world. Pulse jets largely a Nazi technology, while two-stroke aircraft engines were last put on a fighter by the UK. No one apparently thought yet of bringing them together. No one thought how such a simple solution does not require the materials, metallurgy and mechanical complexity of today's engines. Not because they are dumb, but because they walked down a different road suitable for their country's benefit (power projection, high MTBF, best fuel economy).

Have you built these yourself? Do you have a proof of concept?
Ans. No I don't. But if you look around online you can find these done by hobbyists worldwide. Including a fellow in New Zealand who says his pulse jets can be turned into cruise missiles at a fraction of the cost.

How much do you estimate a CAS aircraft to cost? A drone?
Ans. Anywhere between 100,000 to 1 million USD, depending on what exactly the spec requirement is. As for drones, anywhere from 5,000 to 50,000 USD, again depending on specs.

The engine size in the Aliexpress rc model is pretty small. How can one enlarge it?
Ans. Making anything small is a lot harder than making them bigger. Simply taking the engine and making a bigger version is one way. Another way adopted by DLE and other engine manufacturers is to increase the number of cylinders. The example shown is for a two cylinder model. There are models with 4 cylinders. In theory, we could thus not only increase the size but increase the number of cylinders. Such engines are not new, but existed in aircraft before the jet age, although most (not all) were four-stroke engines back then.

There was news that China is selling VTOL UCAVs to Pakistan which can be used in drone swarm tactic which means that PA is looking for drone swarm capability too.

https://liteye.com/china-negotiates-autonomous-gunships-for-pakistan-and-saudi-arabia/

 

[Nomad40]

@Mirage Battle Commander This is the combination of engine I have in mind. It is for a generally low flying close air support aircraft. Imagine a smaller A-10 type but designed to fly tree top at speed. Pops up, unload weapons, scoots.

Now, if the propeller is rated for the piston engine, but 66 percent of the thrust is being provided by the pulse jet engine, my gut tells me the pitch rating and length rating of the propeller needs to be different than if the jet engine is not there.

The aircraft is likely to have 4 sets of engines, each set a combination of the 2 stroke piston and pulse jet. The sets are to be distributed, say, one on each wing and two in the position of the A-10 engines, just aft.

Hello before I answer this question (out of my league) but are you a trained Pilot?

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

OV-10 Bronco??

@Mirage Battle Commander This is the combination of engine I have in mind. It is for a generally low flying close air support aircraft. Imagine a smaller A-10 type but designed to fly tree top at speed. Pops up, unload weapons, scoots.

Now, if the propeller is rated for the piston engine, but 66 percent of the thrust is being provided by the pulse jet engine, my gut tells me the pitch rating and length rating of the propeller needs to be different than if the jet engine is not there.

The aircraft is likely to have 4 sets of engines, each set a combination of the 2 stroke piston and pulse jet. The sets are to be distributed, say, one on each wing and two in the position of the A-10 engines, just aft.

 

[Armchair]

OV-10 Bronco??

That would be interesting but why not think of this as a conceptual development of using simple but tried and tested technology and using new ways to bring them together?

Case in point is the two stroke with the pulse jet engine combination. One can build the latter in a garage.

This technology would allow Pakistan to field innumerable low cost cruise missiles, UAVs and CAS aircraft.

 

[Armchair]

When we ask our brothers why attack helicopters at $20 million to $50 million are so much superior to fixed wing, they say "oh they can hide behind tree tops".

They don't realize that this supposed advantage has not helped attack helicopters be remotely as good as fixed wing platforms. A fixed wing platform costing $5 million can give similar performance to a $40 million attack helicter.

here are some other points they don't realize:

1. Cold Start will happen largely in an open plain / desert where there is no tree top to hide behind
2. There is no hiding behind tree tops when the enemy has airborne radars with look down / shoot down capability and AWACS. And ground forces have thermal imagers and radars to do the same.
3. no aircraft sits in one place as it is suicidal when combat aircraft are flying around 500-800 kph.


This whole conversation just makes no sense. Pakistan cannot afford to spend 1.5 billion USD for 36 attack helicopters that will never show up because "engines are blocked by the US".

There is no combined arms 21 century warfare without Close Air Support. Yet this is where Pakistan periliously lies, just because of the Ayub Khans among us that will refuse Pakistan water because they cannot get premium bottled water at exorbitant prices.

Here are the raw performance parameters of the T-129 helicopter:

Speed: 280 kph
Range: 560 km
Hard points: 4
Weapons Payload: 1200 kg

Here is a rough comparison with a Super Tucano just to show how a fixed wing that costs 1/4th the amount compares:

Speed: 590 kph
Range: 1330 km
Hard points: 5
Weapons payload: 1550 kg

Again, CAS fixed wing has, in every conflict done better than attack helicopters. A big reason why the US Army uses attack helicopters is because they are banned from using fixed wing CAS due to air force politics.

I am truly sad that no one sees the clear logic.

 

[Cuirassier]

Need armed drones ASAP for AoR FC Balochistan South, poor sods run into ambushes frequently and are helpless.

 

[Armchair]

Here is what I feel Pakistan today really needs - a simple, rugged CAS platform to take on large Indian formations attacking Pakistan. The specs for such an aircraft would perhaps be:

Speed: 700 kph
Range: 600 km
Payload: 1500 kg

Protected with armor to an equal level to an AH-1Z. Armed with ATGMs, guided and unguided rockets, PGMs, and cluster munitions. Capable of flying Nap of the Earth (NoE). In my estimation, such an aircraft if built locally would not cost more than 5 million USD.

Need armed drones ASAP for AoR FC Balochistan South, poor sods run into ambushes frequently and are helpless.

The need is clear given how effective Turkish drones have been recently against conventional and unconventional forces.

 

[RadarGudumluMuhimmat]

When we ask our brothers why attack helicopters at $20 million to $50 million are so much superior to fixed wing, they say "oh they can hide behind tree tops".

They don't realize that this supposed advantage has not helped attack helicopters be remotely as good as fixed wing platforms. A fixed wing platform costing $5 million can give similar performance to a $40 million attack helicter.

here are some other points they don't realize:

1. Cold Start will happen largely in an open plain / desert where there is no tree top to hide behind
2. There is no hiding behind tree tops when the enemy has airborne radars with look down / shoot down capability and AWACS. And ground forces have thermal imagers and radars to do the same.
3. no aircraft sits in one place as it is suicidal when combat aircraft are flying around 500-800 kph.


This whole conversation just makes no sense. Pakistan cannot afford to spend 1.5 billion USD for 36 attack helicopters that will never show up because "engines are blocked by the US".

There is no combined arms 21 century warfare without Close Air Support. Yet this is where Pakistan periliously lies, just because of the Ayub Khans among us that will refuse Pakistan water because they cannot get premium bottled water at exorbitant prices.

Here are the raw performance parameters of the T-129 helicopter:

Speed: 280 kph
Range: 560 km
Hard points: 4
Weapons Payload: 1200 kg

Here is a rough comparison with a Super Tucano just to show how a fixed wing that costs 1/4th the amount compares:

Speed: 590 kph
Range: 1330 km
Hard points: 5
Weapons payload: 1550 kg

Again, CAS fixed wing has, in every conflict done better than attack helicopters. A big reason why the US Army uses attack helicopters is because they are banned from using fixed wing CAS due to air force politics.

I am truly sad that no one sees the clear logic.

Turkey spends almost as much money as Pakistan's defense ministry for internal security. It uses T129 with Anka, and there are still orders for new helicopters. And for now very few have ordered Hurkus C Cas aircraft. For guerrilla operations, 20mm is indispensable, especially if you are in a mountainous geography, you have to give air support close to the air. Uav use is quite logical instead of CAS planes, but the helicopter comparison is very meaningless. Your might think that there are people trying to launder money in your army, but they are experienced first of all, maybe there are reasons you really don't know why they want helicopters so much.