What's new

How Akinci &MQ 9 fit into Indo Pak theatre?

As a first
When they are shot down no pilot is either killed or ejects to be taken PoW or needing an expensive CSAR mission to rescue them.

Then, while these are shot out of the sky - that is better than losing Su-25s, Su-30s or in this case JF-17 and F-16s near a contested battlefield.

The loss of a fighter aircraft includes not only machine, but man and morale of its maintenance team and squadron.

UAVs are inherently not going to cause the loss of Morale a living breathing human will.
Then, because of their cheaper nature - you have more available to use to entice the enemy to turn their radars on and allow you to engage them. The sea guardian is not a battlefield weapon and is more suited to allow the IN to conduct long range coastal policing and shadowing of their opponents assets or offboard targeting.

The Akinci is not supposed to go in all alone into a contested battlefield either. Ideally you would want TB-2 acting as ELINT, the other Jamming - 2 others acting as secondary targets while the Akinci picks out SAMs with stand off systems like the SOM before this groups pushes deeper into the contested airspace.

All the while you have JF-17s or J-10s providing cover to these assets from safer heights or further back.
So military wanted a scapegoat for its missions and bought Akinci &TB 2.
Was Mass production & further development of Shahpars not a way to go?
Since these would have been lot more cheaper scapegoats and way more benefits are associated with mass production of domestic products.
 
.
So military wanted a scapegoat for its missions and bought Akinci &TB 2.
Was Mass production & further development of Shahpars not a way to go?
Since these would have been lot more cheaper scapegoats and way more benefits are associated with mass production of domestic products.
That is a very narrow conclusion -
There is no “scapegoat” as these systems are still designed and proven to be effective in their mission without taking undue losses.
The TB-2s may have been shot down in numbers but they also destroyed a LOT of Russian hardware during that time as well.

Shahpar and the overall Pakistani UCAV environment is still not mature enough in production processes and lacks scalability in weapons . The platform also is slightly less capable than TB.2 in some aspects.

Pakistan lags behind in UCAV weaponry and production process compared to Turkey - and timelines require numbers in the field which Shahpar cannot fulfill.

It is not always cheaper to build locally because you need both time and money to create the local assembly line to be the same efficiency as that for Turkish firms.

Once the assembly line is operational - you will start seeing Pakistani systems in greater numbers
 
. . .
The most important reason why the TB2s are not active in Ukraine is that Turkey does not want to be in the position of hostile states with Russia. Most of the systems we supplied to Ukraine were the completion of the agreements made before the war.

Understandable.

These drones will be very useful in operations against terrorist organizations like TTP and BLA

Agreed.

TB2s caused the most damage to the Russian logistics network in the first month of the war.
Almost all air operations to Snake Island were conducted by TB2s or directed by TB2s, they were destroyed after that time but if Turkey had continued to supply TB2 to Ukraine, we would probably see much more impact

They had their uses but Ukraine lost 24 TB-2 and 2 Mini in clashes.

Russian military capability is on another level in comparison to that of small countries, so many hardware pieces and a variety of A2/AD weapons.

Ukraine is able to fight Russia due to virtually endless supply of weapons from NATO, intel sharing from NATO, and training programs of NATO. Ukraine would have collapsed long ago otherwise.

This is what I am trying to tell OP (@MMM-E). A huge army is not something that you can take out with limited precision strikes.
 
.
The main reason why the tb 2 has gone in the back ground n Ukraine has not gone for follow up orders is simply the fact that Ukraine is getting billions upon billions of western military hardware absolutely for free, so why spend money when the whole western world is ur benefactor n provider.
Under such circumstances wouldn't it look bad for the western arms dealers if their hardware is being outshined by a Turkish product.

In any contested airspace, wt we have learnt from the Ukraine war is the simple fact that all air elements, fixed wing or rotary, manned or unmanned need a dedicated ew platform to accompany them in each sortie, for them to be successful. As is being shown by the recent success of Russian Air elements.
 
.
Engines = 1
Endurance (max) = 35 hours
Hardpoints = 7
Operational altitude (max) = 50000 feet
Payload capacity = 1361 kg
Speed (max) = 500 KM / hour

US was using this drone in war when Turkey wasn't producing any drone of note. MQ-9 Reaper specifications were really impressive for its time but it is no longer in production. MQ-9 Reaper's successor is called Mojave.

Mojave has 9 hardpoints and 1633 kg payload capacity. For perspective, Mojave can be armed with up to 16 hellfire missiles. But Mojave is configured to carry a variety of payloads.

MQ-9 class has excellent sensor technology. It is foolish to claim that it is a toy compared to Akinci in technology and firepower. Think before you make a claim.



Engines = 2
Endurance (max) = 24 hours
Hardpoints = 9
Operational altitude (max) = 40000 feet
Speed (max) = 361 KM / hour


Keep in mind that the payload TYPE can significantly affect endurance, operational altitude, range, and speed of any drone.

Maximum performance is possible with ISR payload ONLY.



Absolutely.

TB-2 failed in Ukraine, and Akinci does not stand a chance against jet fighters.

These drones are useful as a force multiplier and can inflict damage, but you are over-expecting from this stuff.
TB 2 was a success in Ukraine. Kyiv is still out of Russia reach and in fact Russia has been limited to areas in the eastern part of Ukraine all thanks to drone warfare which they did and are still doing. TB 2 is still being used in Ukraine and some deep strikes which were carried out in Russia were also TB 2. Drones have failed in TB 2. O bhai even India which was in denial about drones is now ordering drones. How much Air Forces are effective and how much drones can be detected is also quite clear now.
 
.
This is what I am trying to tell OP (@MMM-E). A huge army is not something that you can take out with limited precision strikes.

Russian Army is easy target
Problem is Russian Air Force ( Fighter Jets ) in the war zone of Ukraine
NATO gives F-16 Fighter Jets to Ukraine

Russia is lucky that Turkiye doesnt give 500 TB-2 UCAVs to Ukraine
( BAYKAR increase TB-2 production capability to 500 units annually .. and USA-UK-France-Germany-NATO have huge money to buy 500 TB-2 UCAVs )

and BAYKAR armed TB-2 with 200+ km KEMANKES mini smart cruise missile to hit Russian Air Defense Systems PANTSIR , BUK , TOR from safe distance
1689858354378.jpeg


Also Turkiye can give 100 km Jamming Pod for TB-2 UCAVs to jam/paralyze AD Systems
1689859638636.jpeg




even AKINCI UCAVs carry 60+ km KGK-SIHA-82 guided Bomb with active radar homing and data-link to hit Russian PANTSIR , BUK , TOR AD Systems from safe distance
1689862421754.png


another one 80 km TOLUN-IIR with IIR seeker to hit even moving targets
1689862502474.jpeg


10 km KARGU and ALPAGU-2 tactical Kamikaze Drones to hit Russian Soldiers
1689864567337.jpeg

1689864553357.jpeg

1689864693514.jpeg


Also Turkiye can give another game changer weapon 60-80 km Kamikaze Drones ALPAGUT and DELI to turn Russian Army into scrap of metal

thanks to E/O Camera and 11 kg warhead to hit even moving Tanks
1689858468690.jpeg

Also 200 km SIMSEK Kamikaze Drone with 10 kg warhead ..
( JAVELIN anti-tank missile has 9kg warhead )
1689858870929.png

and DELI Kamikaze Drone

and Turkiye can give 100 km Aselsan STR Weapon Locating Radar for detecting Howitzers, and Rocket artillery fired by Russian Army and to send TB-2s , Kamikaze Drones to hit Russian Forces
1689860216801.jpeg



70 km TRLG-230 laser guided MLRS to hit even moving targets
Russian AD Systems , Tanks , Howitzers , MLRS are easy targets
( American HIMARS can not hit moving targets )
70 km TRLG-230 laser guided supersonic missiles can turn Russian Army into scrap of metal ... TB-2 has 30 km laser designator
1689858034357.png

even Ukranian soldiers can use portable laser designator from 5-10 km to help AKINCI UCAVs to fire IHA-230 laser guided supersonic missiles to hit all Russian military targets from safe distance 150 km away
1689863093649.jpeg


30-40 km TRLG-122 laser guided MLRS ..... 60-70 km air launched version
1689864885218.png


and 40 km KUZGUN-KY Missile with IIR seeker to hit even moving Targets
180 km KUZGUN-TJ missile with IIR or RF seeker on the way ... ( warhead 14 kg )
( KUZGUN can be launched from land platforms and UCAVs )

cost effective and very lethal
1689860298173.jpeg

1689862179321.jpeg



150-280 km CAKIR and ATMACA ground based Cruise Missiles with IIR seeker
1689860544277.jpeg

1689860621479.jpeg


120 km TRG-300 INS/GPS guided MLRS as like 90 km American HIMARS
1689860936657.jpeg


150-280-500 km YILDIRIM , BORA , TAYFUN Ballistic Missiles
1689860859501.jpeg



Turkiye can give more weapons and UCAV war tactic to Ukraine for great precision strike capability

but Turkiye has embraced a neutral position between Ukraine and Russia
 
Last edited:
.
TB 2 was a success in Ukraine. Kyiv is still out of Russia reach and in fact Russia has been limited to areas in the eastern part of Ukraine all thanks to drone warfare which they did and are still doing. TB 2 is still being used in Ukraine and some deep strikes which were carried out in Russia were also TB 2. Drones have failed in TB 2. O bhai even India which was in denial about drones is now ordering drones. How much Air Forces are effective and how much drones can be detected is also quite clear now.

Not due to drones but efforts of Ukrainian army on the whole. Different weapon systems such as artillery pieces, cruise missiles, HIMARS, helicopters, jet fighters, and UAVs have demonstrated their value. There is no such thing as a wonder weapon in this war but HIMARS has exceeded all expectations.
 
.
Not due to drones but efforts of Ukrainian army on the whole. Different weapon systems such as artillery pieces, cruise missiles, HIMARS, helicopters, jet fighters, and UAVs have demonstrated their value. There is no such thing as a wonder weapon in this war but HIMARS has exceeded all expectations.
Literally almost one third of armor destroyed by Ukraine of Russia is through Drones. HIMARS came much later. It was drones which destroyed Russian systems and is still doing it with high success rates. Even HIMARS is guided using drones.
 
.
That is a very narrow conclusion -
There is no “scapegoat” as these systems are still designed and proven to be effective in their mission without taking undue losses.
The TB-2s may have been shot down in numbers but they also destroyed a LOT of Russian hardware during that time as well.

Shahpar and the overall Pakistani UCAV environment is still not mature enough in production processes and lacks scalability in weapons . The platform also is slightly less capable than TB.2 in some aspects.

Pakistan lags behind in UCAV weaponry and production process compared to Turkey - and timelines require numbers in the field which Shahpar cannot fulfill.

It is not always cheaper to build locally because you need both time and money to create the local assembly line to be the same efficiency as that for Turkish firms.

Once the assembly line is operational - you will start seeing Pakistani systems in greater numbers
In counter insurgency role, TB-2's superior performance is moot.

Even if something costs more locally, it is still supporting the local vendors and the money stays in the local economy.

Commission might be the sole differentiator...too bad none of the ex-generals haven't had the light bulb moment to setup a local company specializing in defense wares to tap into the biggest recipient of the national budget.
 
.
In counter insurgency role, TB-2's superior performance is moot.

Even if something costs more locally, it is still supporting the local vendors and the money stays in the local economy.

Commission might be the sole differentiator...too bad none of the ex-generals haven't had the light bulb moment to setup a local company specializing in defense wares to tap into the biggest recipient of the national budget.
What makes you think they didn’t?
And what would it be if they did and some success was had while some massive failures and corruption too.

Generally, nepotism and greasing hands trumps product capabilities and quality for Pakistani military procurement 7/10.
 
.
TB 2 was a success in Ukraine. Kyiv is still out of Russia reach and in fact Russia has been limited to areas in the eastern part of Ukraine all thanks to drone warfare which they did and are still doing. TB 2 is still being used in Ukraine and some deep strikes which were carried out in Russia were also TB 2. Drones have failed in TB 2. O bhai even India which was in denial about drones is now ordering drones. How much Air Forces are effective and how much drones can be detected is also quite clear now.
Indian military planners were always wary of armed drones and never tried to serisly pursue it. Even the MQ 9 drone deal is primarily for survelliance. However, India has doubled down on the armed munitions. AFAIK Indian miliatry planner favour them far more than the armed drones, especially after the Russo-Ukraine war.
 
. .
Literally almost one third of armor destroyed by Ukraine of Russia is through Drones. HIMARS came much later. It was drones which destroyed Russian systems and is still doing it with high success rates. Even HIMARS is guided using drones.

I am not sure if this is true.

There is no definitive accounting of the number of kinetic drone strikes conducted by Ukrainian forces, but some publicly available data suggests their scale have been relatively limited compared to the scope of Moscow’s invasion, their deployed forces, and the publicity those strikes have garnered. But the impact of UAVs and loitering munitions in Ukraine may not be fully reflected in the scale of kinetic operations, which fails to capture how UAV usage has enabled and enhanced Ukraine’s conventional military operations.


Russian electronic warfare (EW) remains potent, with an approximate distribution of at least one major system covering each 10 km of front. These systems are heavily weighted towards the defeat of UAVs and tend not to try and deconflict their effects. Ukrainian UAV losses remain at approximately 10,000 per month. Russian EW is also apparently achieving real time interception and decryption of Ukrainian Motorola 256-bit encrypted tactical communications systems, which are widely employed by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.


These drones are too small, slow, and low for jet fighters or anti-aircraft missiles to take out, but Ukraine is still losing an estimated 5-10,000 a month — over 160 every day. While gunfire from the ground accounts for some, they’re going down in droves to electronic warfare (EW), which can scramble their GPS navigation systems or jam the radio-control links to their distant operators. Without constant human guidance, the drones’ tiny computer brains may crash them into trees, or just hover safely in mid-air, awaiting new commands, until the batteries run out and they fall to the ground.


Ukrainian forces are using most of the drones in ISR capacity to illuminate Russian military positions for their ATGMs and Artillery systems to claim kills because Russian EW capabilities are making it impractical for numerous drones to score kills. Ukrainian drone loss rate is about 10,000 per month. Imagine this.

Russian military capability is on another level entirely in comparison to that of smaller countries such as Armenia and Azerbaijan. Even countries like Pakistan have a limited capacity to fight a conventional war and cannot afford to loose 10,000 drones per month.

Large (sophisticated and reusable) drones are expensive and should be used calculatedly. Ukrainian forces have lost a total of 24 TB2 in the war, 10 of these in 2023. These losses are visually confirmed and it is possible that more are lost by now.

While Russia was vulnerable to strikes from Ukrainian drones in the early months of the war, it soon adapted to improve its electronic warfare and has since been successfully downing and jamming many of Ukraine's drones.

"Once the Russian military got its act together, it was able to down many TB2s," Bendett said.

Ukraine said last year it had received 50 TB2 drones since the Russian invasion began, but by the end of 2022, it had largely disappeared from the battlefield.




Turkey is reluctant to supply its drones to Ukraine because mounting losses will be detrimental to their marketing and exports. Turkey can claim neutrality to be the reason.

I am not discounting the utility of drones in conventional war but it is important to understand what type of enemy you are up against and how it can counter your drone warfare regime.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom