Pakistan UAVs News & Discussions

[JamD]

I did not think of things from that perspective. So thanks for pointing it out. My only concern is whether the cost would be worth the effort. Interestingly, PAC getting TOT for ANKA pointstowards local manufacturing which might drive the cost down further. What that cost is likely to be remains to be seen.

Although the wholehearted adoption of UCAV's by all three services is welcome, the lack of coordination may be a cause of concern. All three services are adopting UCAV's in large numbers, which means they are absorbing them into doctrine, which takes a lot of time. The TOT for Anka is with NESCOM and not PAC. PAC is manufacturing it's own, albeit very similar looking, UCAV under Azm. This is why I'm sort of concerned that there is a lack of coordination between the services.

PAF:
- PAC AZM MALE
- WL2
- AWC Shahpar-I
- PAC Falco
- NESCOM Burraq
- ?? AWC Shahpar-II


PA:
- CH-4
- NESCOM Burraq

PN:
- CH-4
- AWC Uqaab
- Luna NG

NESCOM:
- TOT for Anka, we don't know which service will use them if we buy any - it might just be a contract to make some parts at NESCOM.

So it feels like there's a hotpotch of UAV induction going on across all three services with a lot of redundant systems. I will admit that a certain level of redundancy is useful, even necessary. Hopefully, with time, we will see a more streamlined joint-service based UCAV doctrine, and what we currently see are the first step "toe-dipping".

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Although the wholehearted adoption of UCAV's by all three services is welcome, the lack of coordination may be a cause of concern. All three services are adopting UCAV's in large numbers, which means they are absorbing them into doctrine, which takes a lot of time. The TOT for Anka is with NESCOM and not PAC. PAC is manufacturing it's own, albeit very similar looking, UCAV under Azm. This is why I'm sort of concerned that there is a lack of coordination between the services.

PAF:
- PAC AZM MALE
- WL2
- AWC Shahpar-I
- PAC Falco
- NESCOM Burraq
- ?? AWC Shahpar-II


PA:
- CH-4
- NESCOM Burraq

PN:
- CH-4
- AWC Uqaab
- Luna NG

NESCOM:
- TOT for Anka, we don't know which service will use them if we buy any - it might just be a contract to make some parts at NESCOM.

So it feels like there's a hotpotch of UAV induction going on across all three services with a lot of redundant systems. I will admit that a certain level of redundancy is useful, even necessary. Hopefully, with time, we will see a more streamlined joint-service based UCAV doctrine, and what we currently see are the first step "toe-dipping".

I think consolidation (to a handful of different types) will happen when the cost and sophistication of armed UAVs go up.

But if you think these MALE UAV-type programs are all over the place, then the loitering munition and suicide drone world is the wild west. I'm sure each of the tri-services will just buy stuff in bulk and throw it all against stuff without any real concept of commonality or the like.

 

[farooqbhai007]

Although the wholehearted adoption of UCAV's by all three services is welcome, the lack of coordination may be a cause of concern. All three services are adopting UCAV's in large numbers, which means they are absorbing them into doctrine, which takes a lot of time. The TOT for Anka is with NESCOM and not PAC. PAC is manufacturing it's own, albeit very similar looking, UCAV under Azm. This is why I'm sort of concerned that there is a lack of coordination between the services.

PAF:
- PAC AZM MALE
- WL2
- AWC Shahpar-I
- PAC Falco
- NESCOM Burraq
- ?? AWC Shahpar-II


PA:
- CH-4
- NESCOM Burraq

PN:
- CH-4
- AWC Uqaab
- Luna NG

NESCOM:
- TOT for Anka, we don't know which service will use them if we buy any - it might just be a contract to make some parts at NESCOM.

So it feels like there's a hotpotch of UAV induction going on across all three services with a lot of redundant systems. I will admit that a certain level of redundancy is useful, even necessary. Hopefully, with time, we will see a more streamlined joint-service based UCAV doctrine, and what we currently see are the first step "toe-dipping".

alot of problems in your text but its not that complicated imo

Burraq & Shahpar-1 are jointly operated by PAF-PA
PA further operates the Luna X-2000 as smaller UAV and CH4B as medium attack UAV
PAF further operates the Falco as smaller , Shahpar-2 as medium recon and WL-2 as heavy attack UAV
PN operates the Luna NG as smaller and CH4B as MPA UAV

 

[Zarvan]

Although the wholehearted adoption of UCAV's by all three services is welcome, the lack of coordination may be a cause of concern. All three services are adopting UCAV's in large numbers, which means they are absorbing them into doctrine, which takes a lot of time. The TOT for Anka is with NESCOM and not PAC. PAC is manufacturing it's own, albeit very similar looking, UCAV under Azm. This is why I'm sort of concerned that there is a lack of coordination between the services.

PAF:
- PAC AZM MALE
- WL2
- AWC Shahpar-I
- PAC Falco
- NESCOM Burraq
- ?? AWC Shahpar-II


PA:
- CH-4
- NESCOM Burraq

PN:
- CH-4
- AWC Uqaab
- Luna NG

NESCOM:
- TOT for Anka, we don't know which service will use them if we buy any - it might just be a contract to make some parts at NESCOM.

So it feels like there's a hotpotch of UAV induction going on across all three services with a lot of redundant systems. I will admit that a certain level of redundancy is useful, even necessary. Hopefully, with time, we will see a more streamlined joint-service based UCAV doctrine, and what we currently see are the first step "toe-dipping".

Trust me there is not. Since Kiyani time. The coordination between all forces have grown by each passing day.

 

[Windjammer]

Falco UAV assigned to No. 1 UAV Sqn on a night training mission.

 

[farooqbhai007]

Falco UAV assigned to No. 1 UAV Sqn on a night training mission.


View attachment 792300

bas ab Wl-2 ki bhi aisi pic aa ayey

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Just throwing this out there, but if getting a CBU-105-like weapon is difficult, why not try loitering munitions?

Basically: Take the Chinese GB6 (analogous to JSOW), but instead of the standard cluster bomblets, load it with small loitering munitions. The GB6 can fly around an area and drop the loitering munitions which, in turn, can be preprogrammed to search and drop on moving vehicles, personnel, etc.

I think this design can carry at least 18-24 loitering munitions. However, you can reduce the size of the loitering munitions even further (e.g., smaller batteries, smaller fans, etc) to pack more of them in. Yes, each munition will lose range, but it doesn't matter since the GB6 will carry them into the combat area. If you really cut the size down of the loitering munition (at the cost of range, which doesn't matter), you could pack 40 of them into one GB6. Thus, you'd have a similar capability to the CBU-105; maybe a little gnarlier if you combine the GB6 to a Fatah-1-type rocket for a ground-launched, stand-off, anti-armour capability.

@SQ8 @JamD @kursed @HRK

 

[SQ8]

Just throwing this out there, but if getting a CBU-105-like weapon is difficult, why not try loitering munitions?

Basically: Take the Chinese GB6 (analogous to JSOW), but instead of the standard cluster bomblets, load it with small loitering munitions. The GB6 can fly around an area and drop the loitering munitions which, in turn, can be preprogrammed to search and drop on moving vehicles, personnel, etc.

I think this design can carry at least 18-24 loitering munitions. However, you can reduce the size of the loitering munitions even further (e.g., smaller batteries, smaller fans, etc) to pack more of them in. Yes, each munition will lose range, but it doesn't matter since the GB6 will carry them into the combat area. If you really cut the size down of the loitering munition (at the cost of range, which doesn't matter), you could pack 40 of them into one GB6. Thus, you'd have a similar capability to the CBU-105; maybe a little gnarlier if you combine the GB6 to a Fatah-1-type rocket for a ground-launched, stand-off, anti-armour capability.

@SQ8 @JamD @kursed @HRK

View attachment 793115
View attachment 793118

It is on a wish list but no suppliers available either foreign or domestic

 

[HRK]

It is on a wish list but no suppliers available either foreign or domestic

During the time of ex-ACM Sohail Aman tenure one engagement with Poland was made do you have any idea about the out come

Detail about this loitering munition

Just throwing this out there, but if getting a CBU-105-like weapon is difficult, why not try loitering munitions?

Basically: Take the Chinese GB6 (analogous to JSOW), but instead of the standard cluster bomblets, load it with small loitering munitions. The GB6 can fly around an area and drop the loitering munitions which, in turn, can be preprogrammed to search and drop on moving vehicles, personnel, etc.

I think this design can carry at least 18-24 loitering munitions. However, you can reduce the size of the loitering munitions even further (e.g., smaller batteries, smaller fans, etc) to pack more of them in. Yes, each munition will lose range, but it doesn't matter since the GB6 will carry them into the combat area. If you really cut the size down of the loitering munition (at the cost of range, which doesn't matter), you could pack 40 of them into one GB6. Thus, you'd have a similar capability to the CBU-105; maybe a little gnarlier if you combine the GB6 to a Fatah-1-type rocket for a ground-launched, stand-off, anti-armour capability.

@SQ8 @JamD @kursed @HRK

View attachment 793115
View attachment 793118

Idea is great but like many programs and Ideas for our arm forces we do not have knowledge of current status.

 

[farooqbhai007]

@PanzerKiel Our current Air base infrastrcuture is incapable of housing larger UAVs , the purpose built UAV bases we have , contain too small hangars which are already reached their maximum capacity with Shahpar-1/Shahpar-2/Burraq/Uqab UAVs , while even the Mianwali Airbase where the WL2s have been spotted only have < a dozen shelters capable of supporting large UAVs , so the question arises will we see new drone airbases like what PAF has done in the past

Like i had said before that our current infrastructure is not capable of sustaining such a large number of MALE UAVs and that we need more purpose built airbases for MALE UAVs , especially now that drones are being delivered in such large numbers ( i think its safe to say that ~100 MALE UAVs of different kinds are on order excluding PAC-1/Anka which are unconfirmed ) ,
PN has also recieved all of its CH4Bs ( large number ), and PAF has received more WL-2s which have been deployed in COIN ops by the looks of it.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

During the time of ex-ACM Sohail Aman tenure one engagement with Poland was made do you have any idea about the out come

View attachment 793179

Detail about this loitering munition


Idea is great but like many programs and Ideas for our arm forces we do not have knowledge of current status.

I think the armed forces are looking for loitering munitions. But like most of our munitions, they'll probably get what's available off-the-shelf.

Now, to be fair, it's not the worst idea to buy off-the-shelf in this case. Because this technology is so new, I think the industry will iterate rapidly. It would not be a good idea to sink funds on overhead for a weapon that'll go out-of-date in a few years.

So, I think the armed forces will buy in batches of whatever's the latest and available. They'll be in small increments, but frequent orders to keep up with technology advances.

Ideally, we'd nurture our industry to start R&D on the technology and also join in rapid iteration and development. I.D.E.A.L.L.Y.

 

[HRK]

I think the armed forces are looking for loitering munitions. But like most of our munitions, they'll probably get what's available off-the-shelf.

Now, to be fair, it's not the worst idea to buy off-the-shelf in this case. Because this technology is so new, I think the industry will iterate rapidly. It would not be a good idea to sink funds on overhead for a weapon that'll go out-of-date in a few years.

So, I think the armed forces will buy in batches of whatever's the latest and available. They'll be in small increments, but frequent orders to keep up with technology advances.

Ideally, we'd nurture our industry to start R&D on the technology and also join in rapid iteration and development. I.D.E.A.L.L.Y.

You must be aware about the capabilities NRTC has and If somehow it can collaborate with POF for loitering munition then I think with their combine effort they could come up with some inhouse solution

 

[Zarvan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1460943909496844289

 

[Muhammad Saftain Anjum]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1460943909496844289

Ab azm male ucav b in action a jae
Tu ware niare hi ho jaen

 

[Zarvan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1460943909496844289

Ab azm male ucav b in action a jae
Tu ware niare hi ho jaen

We would see that soon in action.