Pakistan UAVs News & Discussions
- Thread starter Interceptor
- Start date
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Antibody
Can you break this for us - what exactly are problem areas ? Pakistan cruise missiles use a small jet engine, how then should we take suggestions that Pakistan are unable to develop propulsion? Is it optical equipment? is it fire control? -- can you just please explain where the problem is?
Can you break this for us - what exactly are problem areas ? Pakistan cruise missiles use a small jet engine, how then should we take suggestions that Pakistan are unable to develop propulsion? Is it optical equipment? is it fire control? -- can you just please explain where the problem is?
Bratva
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2010
- Messages
- 13,832
- Reaction score
- 67
- Country
- Location
The Sat Link and the decent optical suit.
Hi, this article briefly mentions Pakistan in it.
http://www.nytimes.com/
Coming Soon: The Drone Arms RaceBy SCOTT SHANE
Published: October 8, 2011
Scott Shane is a national security correspondent for The New York Times.
AT the Zhuhai air show in southeastern China last November, Chinese companies startled some Americans by unveiling 25 different models of remotely controlled aircraft and showing video animation of a missile-armed drone taking out an armored vehicle and attacking a United States aircraft carrier.
The presentation appeared to be more marketing hype than military threat; the event is China’s biggest aviation market, drawing both Chinese and foreign military buyers. But it was stark evidence that the United States’ near monopoly on armed drones was coming to an end, with far-reaching consequences for American security, international law and the future of warfare.
Eventually, the United States will face a military adversary or terrorist group armed with drones, military analysts say. But what the short-run hazard experts foresee is not an attack on the United States, which faces no enemies with significant combat drone capabilities, but the political and legal challenges posed when another country follows the American example. The Bush administration, and even more aggressively the Obama administration, embraced an extraordinary principle: that the United States can send this robotic weapon over borders to kill perceived enemies, even American citizens, who are viewed as a threat.
“Is this the world we want to live in?” asks Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Because we’re creating it.”
What was a science-fiction scenario not much more than a decade ago has become today’s news. In Iraq and Afghanistan, military drones have become a routine part of the arsenal. In Pakistan, according to American officials, strikes from Predators and Reapers operated by the C.I.A. have killed more than 2,000 militants; the number of civilian casualties is hotly debated. In Yemen last month, an American citizen was, for the first time, the intended target of a drone strike, as Anwar al-Awlaki, the Qaeda propagandist and plotter, was killed along with a second American, Samir Khan.
If China, for instance, sends killer drones into Kazakhstan to hunt minority Uighur Muslims it accuses of plotting terrorism, what will the United States say? What if India uses remotely controlled craft to hit terrorism suspects in Kashmir, or Russia sends drones after militants in the Caucasus? American officials who protest will likely find their own example thrown back at them.
“The problem is that we’re creating an international norm” — asserting the right to strike preemptively against those we suspect of planning attacks, argues Dennis M. Gormley, a senior research fellow at the University of Pittsburgh and author of “Missile Contagion,” who has called for tougher export controls on American drone technology. “The copycatting is what I worry about most.”
The qualities that have made lethal drones so attractive to the Obama administration for counterterrorism appeal to many countries and, conceivably, to terrorist groups: a capacity for leisurely surveillance and precise strikes, modest cost, and most important, no danger to the operator, who may sit in safety thousands of miles from the target.
To date, only the United States, Israel (against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza) and Britain (in Afghanistan) are known to have used drones for strikes. But American defense analysts count more than 50 countries that have built or bought unmanned aerial vehicles, or U.A.V.’s, and the number is rising every month. Most are designed for surveillance, but as the United States has found, adding missiles or bombs is hardly a technical challenge.
“The virtue of most U.A.V.’s is that they have long wings and you can strap anything to them,” Mr. Gormley says. That includes video cameras, eavesdropping equipment and munitions, he says. “It’s spreading like wildfire.”
So far, the United States has a huge lead in the number and sophistication of unmanned aerial vehicles (about 7,000, by one official’s estimate, mostly unarmed). The Air Force prefers to call them not U.A.V.’s but R.P.A.’s, or remotely piloted aircraft, in acknowledgment of the human role; Air Force officials should know, since their service is now training more pilots to operate drones than fighters and bombers.
Philip Finnegan, director of corporate analysis for the Teal Group, a company that tracks defense and aerospace markets, says global spending on research and procurement of drones over the next decade is expected to total more than $94 billion, including $9 billion on remotely piloted combat aircraft.
Israel and China are aggressively developing and marketing drones, and Russia, Iran, India, Pakistan and several other countries are not far behind. The Defense Security Service, which protects the Pentagon and its contractors from espionage, warned in a report last year that American drone technology had become a prime target for foreign spies.
Last December, a surveillance drone crashed in an El Paso neighborhood; it had been launched, it turned out, by the Mexican police across the border. Even Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group, has deployed drones, an Iranian design capable of carrying munitions and diving into a target, says P. W. Singer of the Brookings Institution, whose 2009 book “Wired for War” is a primer on robotic combat.
Late last month, a 26-year-old man from a Boston suburb was arrested and charged with plotting to load a remotely controlled aircraft with plastic explosives and crash it into the Pentagon or United States Capitol. His supposed co-conspirators were actually undercover F.B.I. agents, and it was unclear that his scheme could have done much damage. But it was an unnerving harbinger, says John Villasenor, professor of electrical engineering at the University of California, Los Angeles. He notes that the Army had just announced a $5 million contract for a backpack-size drone called a Switchblade that can carry an explosive payload into a target; such a weapon will not long be beyond the capabilities of a terrorist network.
“If they are skimming over rooftops and trees, they will be almost impossible to shoot down,” he maintains.
It is easy to scare ourselves by imagining terrorist drones rigged not just to carry bombs but to spew anthrax or scatter radioactive waste. Speculation that Al Qaeda might use exotic weapons has so far turned out to be just that. But the technological curve for drones means the threat can no longer be discounted.
“I think of where the airplane was at the start of World War I: at first it was unarmed and limited to a handful of countries,” Mr. Singer says. “Then it was armed and everywhere. That is the path we’re on.”
http://www.nytimes.com/
Coming Soon: The Drone Arms RaceBy SCOTT SHANE
Published: October 8, 2011
Scott Shane is a national security correspondent for The New York Times.
AT the Zhuhai air show in southeastern China last November, Chinese companies startled some Americans by unveiling 25 different models of remotely controlled aircraft and showing video animation of a missile-armed drone taking out an armored vehicle and attacking a United States aircraft carrier.
The presentation appeared to be more marketing hype than military threat; the event is China’s biggest aviation market, drawing both Chinese and foreign military buyers. But it was stark evidence that the United States’ near monopoly on armed drones was coming to an end, with far-reaching consequences for American security, international law and the future of warfare.
Eventually, the United States will face a military adversary or terrorist group armed with drones, military analysts say. But what the short-run hazard experts foresee is not an attack on the United States, which faces no enemies with significant combat drone capabilities, but the political and legal challenges posed when another country follows the American example. The Bush administration, and even more aggressively the Obama administration, embraced an extraordinary principle: that the United States can send this robotic weapon over borders to kill perceived enemies, even American citizens, who are viewed as a threat.
“Is this the world we want to live in?” asks Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Because we’re creating it.”
What was a science-fiction scenario not much more than a decade ago has become today’s news. In Iraq and Afghanistan, military drones have become a routine part of the arsenal. In Pakistan, according to American officials, strikes from Predators and Reapers operated by the C.I.A. have killed more than 2,000 militants; the number of civilian casualties is hotly debated. In Yemen last month, an American citizen was, for the first time, the intended target of a drone strike, as Anwar al-Awlaki, the Qaeda propagandist and plotter, was killed along with a second American, Samir Khan.
If China, for instance, sends killer drones into Kazakhstan to hunt minority Uighur Muslims it accuses of plotting terrorism, what will the United States say? What if India uses remotely controlled craft to hit terrorism suspects in Kashmir, or Russia sends drones after militants in the Caucasus? American officials who protest will likely find their own example thrown back at them.
“The problem is that we’re creating an international norm” — asserting the right to strike preemptively against those we suspect of planning attacks, argues Dennis M. Gormley, a senior research fellow at the University of Pittsburgh and author of “Missile Contagion,” who has called for tougher export controls on American drone technology. “The copycatting is what I worry about most.”
The qualities that have made lethal drones so attractive to the Obama administration for counterterrorism appeal to many countries and, conceivably, to terrorist groups: a capacity for leisurely surveillance and precise strikes, modest cost, and most important, no danger to the operator, who may sit in safety thousands of miles from the target.
To date, only the United States, Israel (against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza) and Britain (in Afghanistan) are known to have used drones for strikes. But American defense analysts count more than 50 countries that have built or bought unmanned aerial vehicles, or U.A.V.’s, and the number is rising every month. Most are designed for surveillance, but as the United States has found, adding missiles or bombs is hardly a technical challenge.
“The virtue of most U.A.V.’s is that they have long wings and you can strap anything to them,” Mr. Gormley says. That includes video cameras, eavesdropping equipment and munitions, he says. “It’s spreading like wildfire.”
So far, the United States has a huge lead in the number and sophistication of unmanned aerial vehicles (about 7,000, by one official’s estimate, mostly unarmed). The Air Force prefers to call them not U.A.V.’s but R.P.A.’s, or remotely piloted aircraft, in acknowledgment of the human role; Air Force officials should know, since their service is now training more pilots to operate drones than fighters and bombers.
Philip Finnegan, director of corporate analysis for the Teal Group, a company that tracks defense and aerospace markets, says global spending on research and procurement of drones over the next decade is expected to total more than $94 billion, including $9 billion on remotely piloted combat aircraft.
Israel and China are aggressively developing and marketing drones, and Russia, Iran, India, Pakistan and several other countries are not far behind. The Defense Security Service, which protects the Pentagon and its contractors from espionage, warned in a report last year that American drone technology had become a prime target for foreign spies.
Last December, a surveillance drone crashed in an El Paso neighborhood; it had been launched, it turned out, by the Mexican police across the border. Even Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group, has deployed drones, an Iranian design capable of carrying munitions and diving into a target, says P. W. Singer of the Brookings Institution, whose 2009 book “Wired for War” is a primer on robotic combat.
Late last month, a 26-year-old man from a Boston suburb was arrested and charged with plotting to load a remotely controlled aircraft with plastic explosives and crash it into the Pentagon or United States Capitol. His supposed co-conspirators were actually undercover F.B.I. agents, and it was unclear that his scheme could have done much damage. But it was an unnerving harbinger, says John Villasenor, professor of electrical engineering at the University of California, Los Angeles. He notes that the Army had just announced a $5 million contract for a backpack-size drone called a Switchblade that can carry an explosive payload into a target; such a weapon will not long be beyond the capabilities of a terrorist network.
“If they are skimming over rooftops and trees, they will be almost impossible to shoot down,” he maintains.
It is easy to scare ourselves by imagining terrorist drones rigged not just to carry bombs but to spew anthrax or scatter radioactive waste. Speculation that Al Qaeda might use exotic weapons has so far turned out to be just that. But the technological curve for drones means the threat can no longer be discounted.
“I think of where the airplane was at the start of World War I: at first it was unarmed and limited to a handful of countries,” Mr. Singer says. “Then it was armed and everywhere. That is the path we’re on.”
Luftwaffe
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 9,544
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
We all are still waiting on an Armed Indigenous UAV as of yet we have heard or seen non.
Does it mean Pakistan will rely on China and Turkey for the next couple of decades. The number of UAVs are increasing.
It is understandable that many equipments and other sensors suite, weapon, and data-link etc are required but they too are not some alien technologies China and Turkey can help in this regards.
Someone mentioned K-8 Engine, I did mention K-8 as a UAV platform and its engine on this forum a long time ago, K-8 could be used as a UAV plaform If PAF puts an effort into it a limited numbers could be developed for WOT and for the use in long run, radical idea I presume to others?
I do not believe the problem is acquiring technology and equipment, I guess the problem is funds and UAVs not being given the level of priority. We have to try you strive and try to make something out of nothing or anything this psyche of waiting and waiting for someone to come to help to end but well who are we talking about!
K-8
General characteristics
Length: 11.6 m (38 ft 0 in)
Wingspan: 9.63 m (31 ft 7 in)
Height: 4.21 m (13 ft 9 in)
Empty weight: 2,687 kg (5,924 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 4,330 kg (9,546 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Garrett TFE731-2A-2A turbofan, 16.01 kN (3,600 lb)
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 0.75 (800 km/h, 498 mph)
Range: 2,250 km (1,398 mi)
Service ceiling: 13,000 m (42,651 ft)
Wing loading: 254.40 kg m-2 ()
Does it mean Pakistan will rely on China and Turkey for the next couple of decades. The number of UAVs are increasing.
It is understandable that many equipments and other sensors suite, weapon, and data-link etc are required but they too are not some alien technologies China and Turkey can help in this regards.
Someone mentioned K-8 Engine, I did mention K-8 as a UAV platform and its engine on this forum a long time ago, K-8 could be used as a UAV plaform If PAF puts an effort into it a limited numbers could be developed for WOT and for the use in long run, radical idea I presume to others?
I do not believe the problem is acquiring technology and equipment, I guess the problem is funds and UAVs not being given the level of priority. We have to try you strive and try to make something out of nothing or anything this psyche of waiting and waiting for someone to come to help to end but well who are we talking about!
K-8
General characteristics
Length: 11.6 m (38 ft 0 in)
Wingspan: 9.63 m (31 ft 7 in)
Height: 4.21 m (13 ft 9 in)
Empty weight: 2,687 kg (5,924 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 4,330 kg (9,546 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Garrett TFE731-2A-2A turbofan, 16.01 kN (3,600 lb)
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 0.75 (800 km/h, 498 mph)
Range: 2,250 km (1,398 mi)
Service ceiling: 13,000 m (42,651 ft)
Wing loading: 254.40 kg m-2 ()
Peaceful Civilian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2011
- Messages
- 12,098
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
How can you can this?? Can't you see propulsion system of CM Babur.
Riz
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 9,160
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
According to my source our first arm drone is not buraq but it is shahpur , this bird has been already tested and completing its trail with a self made weapon, also i head Ra'ad ALCM range has been extended to 1000 plus km.
ziaulislam
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 23,620
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
any source from where did you heard it..
Skorpion
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 0
we haven't developed a compete-able propeller based UCAV and you're talking about bringing jet into it. looks funny when comes to ringing the bell.
as far as the biggest problem in developing the UAV's are concerned.. its not the power plant but its the GCU (ground control unit) for which we're totally dependent on CHIAN and others.
i've heard that the GCU that pakistani engineers developed was only able to Taxi the bird for a shorter distance LOL..
---------- Post added at 12:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 PM ----------
1000 km is a hell of range and i am questioning also about the source
Secur
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 10,119
- Reaction score
- 56
- Country
- Location
Source ? and whats CHIAN ? Who told you about the GCU and what it was able to do ?
There are much more knowledgeable members than you who are telling exactly the opposite thing ... So i will take their word ... Pakistan's been building UAV for almost 2 decades with exports to US ... and you think we cant build a damn GCU ?
Skorpion
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 0
Source ? and whats CHIAN ? Who told you about the GCU and what it was able to do ?
There are much more knowledgeable members than you who are telling exactly the opposite thing ... So i will take their word ... Pakistan's been building UAV for almost 2 decades with exports to US ... and you think we cant build a damn GCU ?
em not asking you to believe me. em just telling you what i know.. now its upto you how you take it. as far as GCU is concerned, its not just three letter word but much above than an ordinary person's thought, you said pakistan's uav's have been exported to USA, any details about the specifications of those UAVs? what kind of GCS have been utilized for them, where did it come from? any idea from you side. The idea behind developing a GCS that controls a combat UAV flying at thousands of Km away from its station with hundreds of parallel control commands being transferred and handled to very minute accuracies is not as simple as you think. i don't know what you're up to but i can stand by my opinion. its just because i know doesn't matter how..
---------- Post added at 03:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:41 PM ----------
it was CHINA not CHAIN
lol
Secur
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 10,119
- Reaction score
- 56
- Country
- Location
Continue standing by your opinions ... I am not trying to force mine on you ...
and about GCU ... Did you bother reading the thread or chose to believe the usual propaganda that Pakistan has to import/reverse engineer everything ? As for Pakistan being dependent on China for Ground Control Stations ... Here's some info for you
G C S - 2 0 0 0
The GCS-2000 is a field-proven system that provides continuous transmission and reliable reception of UAV data. It offers a complete C-4I solution when combined with the ATPS-2000 Tracking system and our microwave telecommand and control and video & data links. This rugged system is easily transportable and has minimal electrical requirements.
Designed for UAV system C4I out to 250 km range without the need for repeater systems, the GCS-2000 can be ready for operation within an hour of arrival at the site. User-friendly software and setups reduce crew requirements and operator training. The GCS-2000 is designed around a ruggedised shelter with three operator stations for a Mission Commander, Pilot, and Observer or payload operator. Each station is equipped with hot-swappable PC’s for redundancy.
G C S - 1 2 0 0
The GCS-1200 is a portable, stand-alone, ground control station that offers UAV control, data linking and interfaces for the ATPS-1200 Antenna Tracking System. The GCS-1200 can track UAV’s out to a 100 km range and incorporates a PC, data display monitor, antenna driver interface, the GCR-1300 ground data receiver, and AC/DC power supplies. Simplified operation and mounting functionality in LandRover type vehicles make it a versatile and field-proven data centric system.
Bukhari.syed
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 174
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Burraq will be a good addition in next few years...
Skorpion
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 0
the systems that you've mentioned i did study on the integrated system website from where u got them and these are limited range system with data transmission limits and can only be used for small systems. not for a UACVContinue standing by your opinions ... I am not trying to force mine on you ...
and about GCU ... Did you bother reading the thread or chose to believe the usual propaganda that Pakistan has to import/reverse engineer everything ? As for Pakistan being dependent on China for Ground Control Stations ... Here's some info for you
G C S - 2 0 0 0
The GCS-2000 is a field-proven system that provides continuous transmission and reliable reception of UAV data. It offers a complete C-4I solution when combined with the ATPS-2000 Tracking system and our microwave telecommand and control and video & data links. This rugged system is easily transportable and has minimal electrical requirements.
Designed for UAV system C4I out to 250 km range without the need for repeater systems, the GCS-2000 can be ready for operation within an hour of arrival at the site. User-friendly software and setups reduce crew requirements and operator training. The GCS-2000 is designed around a ruggedised shelter with three operator stations for a Mission Commander, Pilot, and Observer or payload operator. Each station is equipped with hot-swappable PCs for redundancy.
G C S - 1 2 0 0
The GCS-1200 is a portable, stand-alone, ground control station that offers UAV control, data linking and interfaces for the ATPS-1200 Antenna Tracking System. The GCS-1200 can track UAVs out to a 100 km range and incorporates a PC, data display monitor, antenna driver interface, the GCR-1300 ground data receiver, and AC/DC power supplies. Simplified operation and mounting functionality in LandRover type vehicles make it a versatile and field-proven data centric system.
and as far copying is concerned, i believe that pakistan have talent for copying. and it copies in such a way that no one can find out
pakistan rocks!Similar threads
