What's new

CENTCOM chief Petraeus in Pak, to discuss weapons delivery

it's time to ask for f-16

the list will be kept to counter insurgency equipment. he is not the right person to ask for F16zz :lol:
the talks will be about counter terrorism equipments like NV glasses, Bullet Proof Jackets, Guns Detectors and so on!

regards!
 
.
F16? I think it is not impossible but the Indian/Israeli lobby will do its best to cancel that... On the other hand the NATO uses F16 a lot to strike... I think it would be handy to have it cause you cannot have heli's active for so long and strike suddenly... You see and hear a chopper a lot faster then when you see s smart bomb fall...
 
.
Hellfire capability for the cobras

Actually, I've heard our Cobras cannot carry Hellfires given that they're single engine versions as opposed to the King Cobras. Could be wrong though.
 
.
Actually, I've heard our Cobras cannot carry Hellfires given that they're single engine versions as opposed to the King Cobras. Could be wrong though.

we use baktar shikan missiles with our cobras! no hellfire!
i think it is good enough!

regards!
 
.
I just hope that PA will ask for some Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) Vehicles and Wheeled armoured personnel carrier like STRYKER ICV/APC or light APC like Turkish Cobra (10+in servicewith PA)or Pakistani Mohafiz APC, if they are really interested in reducing the caulities of the troops in WOT operations.

PA is using Toyota Hilux and trucks with soldiers riding in open back with no protection at all. Toyota landcruiser is essentially a civilian vehicle, no armour protection and not designed for counter insurgency operations, in counter terroristism operations, this is just like inviting you enemy to ambush you. We need something that can at least protect against the small arms fire from terrorists and help save the valuable lives of our brave army men. We should opt for the protected turrets for the our current APCs and perhaps a good idea would be to use the a small hand launched uav (similar to the US RQ-11 Raven, perhaps something from the IDS ROVER Uav/ Desert Hawk II etc Or larger UAVs like Nighthawk UAV with 15hr endurance / Pakistan army’s Uqaab UAV for that role) and take the advantage of surprise away from the terrorists

Mohafiz APC could be a very good option for the counter terrorist operations as it will provide protection against the ambush from terrorists. I don’t know why it is not being mass produced. Muhafiz APC has already been exported to Iraq (APC Talha Qty- 44 and Security Vehicles Al Mohafiz Qty- 60 and Armoured Guard Post Qty- 300).

Does anyone know about the production number of Al Mohafiz?

Mohafiz Security Vehicle

Al Talha is based on M113 but Mohafiz is Security Vehicle which has welded Alumiuium Armour hull with ricochet??? angles all round. The hull is protected against 7.62mm bullet point blank range. The vehicle has bullet proof wind screen and run flat tyres. It can accommodate 8 persons with 10 firing ports. This vehicle is based on the chassis of a proven Land Rover commercial vehicle, for ease of maintenance support. The hull of this vehicle has been fabricated using welded Aluminum Armor. It has bullet proof wind screens and run flat tyres. Seating capacity is 8 persons with 10 firing ports towards the rear and on both sides.Early in 2000, the Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) started design work on a new 4 × 4 Internal Security (IS) vehicle called the Mohafiz. This was first shown in mid-November 2000 and in December 2000 started extensive trials. Possible customers for this vehicle are the Pakistani Rangers and Police. The first export customer for the Mohafiz was Iraq, which took delivery of 60 vehicles in 2006. These are based on a Land Rover 110 (4 × 4) chassis.
 
.
Why do we not ask for the Super Cobra. Irealize we will need more training but PA seems resistant to the idea of the helicopter.Any explanation?
Araz
 
.
I just hope that PA will ask for some Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) Vehicles and Wheeled armoured personnel carrier like STRYKER ICV/APC or light APC like Turkish Cobra (10+in servicewith PA)or Pakistani Mohafiz APC, if they are really interested in reducing the caulities of the troops in WOT operations.

PA is using Toyota Hilux and trucks with soldiers riding in open back with no protection at all. Toyota landcruiser is essentially a civilian vehicle, no armour protection and not designed for counter insurgency operations, in counter terroristism operations, this is just like inviting you enemy to ambush you. We need something that can at least protect against the small arms fire from terrorists and help save the valuable lives of our brave army men. We should opt for the protected turrets for the our current APCs and perhaps a good idea would be to use the a small hand launched uav (similar to the US RQ-11 Raven, perhaps something from the IDS ROVER Uav/ Desert Hawk II etc Or larger UAVs like Nighthawk UAV with 15hr endurance / Pakistan army’s Uqaab UAV for that role) and take the advantage of surprise away from the terrorists

Mohafiz APC could be a very good option for the counter terrorist operations as it will provide protection against the ambush from terrorists. I don’t know why it is not being mass produced. Muhafiz APC has already been exported to Iraq (APC Talha Qty- 44 and Security Vehicles Al Mohafiz Qty- 60 and Armoured Guard Post Qty- 300).

Does anyone know about the production number of Al Mohafiz?

I would doubt very much that the Army would ask for an MRAP. They have already tested the South African model in the past. But now it is rumored that HIT is developing an MRAP six-wheeled vehicle. Prototype is ready and being currently tested. In such a situation buying MRAP from US or any other source will not be possible.

The most likely list of main US made equipment being sought can be as follows.

1. Upgraded Bell Cobra Helicopters (Super Cobra with advanced radar and night vision capability)

2. Transport Helicopters such as the Chinook. Owing to its remarkable lift and drop capability witnessed during the earthquake rescue ops; Army was sold on its utility and versatility.

3. Predator/ Reaper UAV for PA's own surveillance and offensive ability. PA also wants the Hellfire to be integrated with the Reaper.

4. Satellite Phone transmission triangulation and pin-point equipment. Flexible for tracking other civilian frequencies such as mobile phones and walkie talkies etc.
 
.
I would doubt very much that the Army would ask for an MRAP. They have already tested the South African model in the past. But now it is rumored that HIT is developing an MRAP six-wheeled vehicle. Prototype is ready and being currently tested. In such a situation buying MRAP from US or any other source will not be possible.

The most likely list of main US made equipment being sought can be as follows.

1. Upgraded Bell Cobra Helicopters (Super Cobra with advanced radar and night vision capability)

2. Transport Helicopters such as the Chinook. Owing to its remarkable lift and drop capability witnessed during the earthquake rescue ops; Army was sold on its utility and versatility.

3. Predator/ Reaper UAV for PA's own surveillance and offensive ability. PA also wants the Hellfire to be integrated with the Reaper.

4. Satellite Phone transmission triangulation and pin-point equipment. Flexible for tracking other civilian frequencies such as mobile phones and walkie talkies etc.

agree with points 1 and 2 (maybe no chinooks but additional 412s and mi-17s)
3 and 4 looks difficult!
 
.
agree with points 1 and 2 (maybe no chinooks but additional 412s and mi-17s)
3 and 4 looks difficult!

Army Aviation at this stage is flooded with helicopters from everywhere. With the recent arrival of the Abu Dhabi Puma's Army Aviation Command is having a difficult time in keeping up with finding pilots etc. We need the Chinooks more that the Mi-17's as the latter's air frame has limited flying hours.

Regarding the UCAV and Monitoring ability, well if we get it in the short term good enough, if not then China is already finalizing its MALE/HALE UCAV, we can always retrofit the FALCO with 1-odd Baktar Shikan at PAC and our MI already has the partial ability to triangulate sat-phone transmissions.
 
.
Army Aviation at this stage is flooded with helicopters from everywhere. With the recent arrival of the Abu Dhabi Puma's Army Aviation Command is having a difficult time in keeping up with finding pilots etc. We need the Chinooks more that the Mi-17's as the latter's air frame has limited flying hours.

Regarding the UCAV and Monitoring ability, well if we get it in the short term good enough, if not then China is already finalizing its MALE/HALE UCAV, we can always retrofit the FALCO with 1-odd Baktar Shikan at PAC and our MI already has the partial ability to triangulate sat-phone transmissions.

Well Chinook is the best option as its carrying capacity is superior then the Mi-17, but in the end the operating & maintenance cost & last but not the least is the availability of in case we are sanctioned again. But if added, it will be a great help & lifting capacity of our aviation will increase manifold.

As for UCAV, i think American UAVs will not be good option due to the same facts mentioned above.

Falco would most probably be weapon carrying UAV by next year.

And Sir, Baktar Shikan is not an ideal weapon for our UAVs, In chinese options we have the HJ-9 ATGM as its guided with Laser Guidance and new millimeter wave radar guidance options. Much better would be the newest HJ-10 option which is said to be in the Hellfire missile class. It has many variants in development, AR-1 or AKD-10 variants.
 
.
Army Aviation at this stage is flooded with helicopters from everywhere. With the recent arrival of the Abu Dhabi Puma's Army Aviation Command is having a difficult time in keeping up with finding pilots etc. We need the Chinooks more that the Mi-17's as the latter's air frame has limited flying hours.

Regarding the UCAV and Monitoring ability, well if we get it in the short term good enough, if not then China is already finalizing its MALE/HALE UCAV, we can always retrofit the FALCO with 1-odd Baktar Shikan at PAC and our MI already has the partial ability to triangulate sat-phone transmissions.

my understanding is that the dubai pumas have been purchased for spares!
 
.
why are we asking for Night Vision Gear don't we locally produce it in POF ? which is equal to US NVGs....i read somewhere sir Muradk said it i simply don't get it.
 
.
why are we asking for Night Vision Gear don't we locally produce it in POF ? which is equal to US NVGs....i read somewhere sir Muradk said it i simply don't get it.

PA needs the latest generation ones, the ones we make are mostly of old generation.
 
.
Could someone enlighten me what the difference is between the older and newer generation.
Araz
 
.
"Generation Designations

Levels of night vision technology are known as generations. Each generation corresponds to a U. S. military specification defining components, performance requirements, and quality parameters. Night vision devices come in three accepted generations of design (Generation 1, 2, and 3). Other designations (Generation 1+, 2+, 3+ and 4) may offer improvements, but do not correspond to official accepted generations. These designations are not specifically defined, and the names are not consistently applied.

Levels of night vision technology are known as generations. Each generation corresponds to a U. S. military specification defining components, performance requirements, and quality parameters. Night vision devices come in three accepted generations of design (Generation 1, 2, and 3). Other designations (Generation 1+, 2+, 3+ and 4) may offer improvements, but do not correspond to official accepted generations. These designations are not specifically defined, and the names are not consistently applied.

Some manufacturers are also touting Generation 4 night vision devices. These have not been officially adopted by the military so the designation has not gained general acceptance. We will discuss this generation briefly below since it is likely that this designation will indeed gain acceptance and official military specifications (mil spec definition).

Generation 1 Night Vision

First Generation night vision devices are the most common and inexpensive consumer models on the market today. These devices have a great range of quality (more so than any other generation). To give a feel for price, Generation 1 monoculars range from about $100-$400. The differences in quality and features are extensive within this price range.

Generation 1 night vision was originally developed by the US military in the Vietnam War. These devices are also called “Starlight scopes” and were a tremendous improvement upon the Generation 0 devices, mainly through improvements in the photocathode.

Generation 1 devices certainly have their uses although the image distortions (discussed above under “Image-intensifier tube”), lower light gathering ability, and range in quality can discourage initial buyers from the technology.

Good Generation 1 devices, although significantly lower in light gathering ability than Generation 2 devices, gain tremendously in effectiveness with the standard incorporation of IR Illuminators. These units are often all that is needed for campers and boaters. General nature observation at night might also be comfortable with better models although the image distortions and low light-gathering ability make anything other than general behavior observation difficult.

The best performance is achieved in Generation 1 devices by using fully-coated all-glass optical elements. Units which incorporate plastic (composite) optics are not recommended.

Generation 2 Night Vision

The main design change between Generation 1 and Generation 2 night vision was the addition of the microchannel plate that we discussed above under the “image-intensifier”. The introduction of the microchannel plate significantly improved the light amplification ability of the devices. Multiplying the number of electrons provided a much brighter image. Forcing the electrons into a linear path as they flow through the microchannels ensures more orderly output and much less distortion in the resulting image. This also allowed there to be less charge in the intensifier tube, since acceleration was not the principle source of light amplification, resulting in increased battery and tube life.

The significant increase in capability of Generation 2 devices comes at a big jump in cost though. Generation 2 monoculars range in price from about $1000-$1500. Although this is a significant jump in price, the image quality, brightness and extended life over Generation 1 products make these a much more sensible investment for serious night vision users.

Generation 3 Night Vision

In Generation 2 designs, the main improvements came with the addition of the microchannel plate, but the photocathode had only minimal improvement. Generation 3 devices were substantially improved by changing to a new photocathode material - gallium arsenide. An ion barrier film was added to increase image-intensifier tube life. This, along with more improvements in the microchannel plate, gave Generation 3 night vision devices much greater light amplification abilities, better resolution and clearer images with less noise.

Once again these newer devices come at another significant jump in cost. In our price comparisons, we see Generation 3 monoculars running about $3,000-$4,000. Although they still benefit from the addition of an IR illuminator, the increased sensitivity of these devices allows them to be operated entirely passively outdoors.

Generation 3 night vision, because of the higher cost, is normally reserved for only the most demanding naturalists, researchers, police, Homeland Security, etc. They are such high tech instruments that both these and “Generation 4” night vision devices are restricted in sales and cannot be shipped out of the United States without special permits from the State Department.

Generation 4 Night Vision

Officially there is no accepted (by the military) Generation 4 night vision technology although the term is used/accepted among night vision manufacturers. The designation is widely debated and is referred to as Filmless & Gated image intensifiers by the US military.

The "filmless" terminology refers to the removal of the ion barrier film that was added to the Generation 3 image-intensifiers. This provides a higher “signal to noise” ratio (less "snow" in the image). The "gated" terminology refers to a “gated” power supply. This technology makes it possible to operate night vision devices during daylight (if necessary). It also improves the image resolution and minimizes halo from bright light sources. If, for instance, you have a distant house light in view the typical halo around the light is minimized and the overall image resolution is improved.

Once again this all translates into an even sharper view over Generation 3 night vision, even greater ability to see in very dark conditions and another jump in price. Our general price comparison of this technology shows monoculars running about $5,000-$6,000. "
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom