Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    UAV designs for Pakistan

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    UAV designs for Pakistan

    Post  GarryB on Sat May 07, 2011 4:16 am

    I've created this thread to discuss the potential design of a UCAV for Pakistan.

    This design needs to be capable but also relatively cheap and as simple as possible.

    Before looking at design features it is normal to look at the design goals and existing designs that are currently used to meet those design goals.

    For this example lets say the use of US drones in Pakistan airspace is a thorn that needs to be dealt with.

    Equally the use of US drones to pinpoint targets including in mountains with precision, and also with the persistence to operate above the threat for long periods would be a requirement.

    So... some basic air to air capability is needed plus decent air to ground capability with guidance of some form that is not too expensive.

    Obvious problems include the issue that US drones fly very high so this new drone will need to fly higher, and the fact that flying above the range of ground fire... ie 3,000m plus in altitude requires top standard optics.

    A UCAV like predator is a difficult target for most defences because it is relatively small and doesn't have a significant heat signature. The fact that it flys quite high means cheap simple SAMs like MANPADS can't reach it, and the SAMs that are big enough to reach it are expensive. Systems like Buk and HAWK don't have the altitude for very high flying targets and S-300 and Patriot are too expensive.

    The obvious solution would be to convert a MANPADS into an AAM and mount it on a UCAV with the same flight altitude performance.

    For hitting point targets on the ground the best options are small guided weapons like ATGMs or unguided rockets with cheap guidance kits fitted to them.

    Another useful weapon would be a cannon pod due to its accuracy, though the more powerful gun pods would need a substantial UCAV to use it from. Grenade launcher pods would also be effective.

    The other weapon system I would consider would be the very small bomb size sometimes carried by light Russian and Soviet aircraft... the FAB-50, but with a guidance kit added to add satellite guidance. The FAB-50 is short and stubby and internal carriage would mean low drag. With a modern sat guidance and INS kit you could find a target in the side of a mountain and create a flight path that will optimise the effect of the weapon.

    When in Afghanistan the Soviets found that Mig-27s and Su-17s were relatively useful bombers when friendly targets were not near, but sometimes flying up a valley the target required a sharp turn that even guided bombs couldn't hit. It was found that slow flying Su-25s could often get these sorts of targets with unguided bombs because they were able to compensate for crosswinds that are serious problems in the mountains.

    Modern laser guided bombs and satellite guided bombs have built in inertial navigation systems that allows the pilot or the operations planners to shape the flight of the bomb from the aircraft to the target so that the bomb flys at a specific speed and angle to get to and inside the target... such capability is important for hitting caves and other targets in mountain areas.

    So the basic design of the UCAV should either be based on the most capable enemy UCAV it is supposed to attack... which will make it large. Or a design based on a glider perhaps would allow an efficient aerodynamic design with two large pods on the wings to house the main wheels (lower half of the pod) and perhaps engines (in the top half and so shielded from the ground). This would leave the nose of the aircraft free for sensors to find targets and fly the UCAV like a plane.

    Of course as shown in Georgia the best way to shoot down a UAV is with a modern fighter jet... even the most obsolete fighter with BVR missiles of modest performance far out guns any UCAV known in service... the best they have is Stingers and very limited situational awareness to use them.

    If you don't want the AA capability the UCAV can be smaller and use less power, which would make it much cheaper.

    Any body else want to make contributions or comments on the design?
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 534
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 28
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: UAV designs for Pakistan

    Post  nightcrawler on Wed May 18, 2011 7:19 pm

    Just forget that we need UCAVs against US Predators...bcz it will have extreme repercussions upon us...then lets stick to the plan ONLY to hunt down terrorists in hilly valleys...



    @Irfan Baloch
    Thnx for a comprehensice reply but...
    I think the Baktar Shikan isn't meant for the UCAV nor should it be adobted onboard. Point being the large wire spool that is needed will take the PRECIOUS space of the UCAV platform. Also the UCAVS missile must be fire & forget so that after firing a weapon it just scoot away...ths is especially necessary for the UCAV because of its less resilience to defend itself (unlike Helicopter) plus the extremely lower speeds it has (In Kosovo war they bring down UCAVS with AK-47s)
    Anza is the best choice. The warhead can be adobeted against armoured vehicles & my choice will be some self forging warhead & for clearing of buildings HE explosive warhead with delayed time fuse...
    It would e a comfort if we could develop (which we can) some sort of guided rockets; this increases the PUNCH of UCAV platform, like an UGROZA guided Rocket system plus more economical



    The following answer was given to me by Irfan Baluch on our forum to my above response:


    I like your way of thinking at least give every possible option a thought while choosing the best one. Yea wire guided missile has its limitation with respect to the platform and its guidance system that requires that the cross hairs stay on the target until the missile reaches its target (but do note that when missile is fired from round about 1 KM away flying at 220+ m/s with a flight time of just 5 to 6 seconds, there will be hardly any need to make a run for it (evasive manoeuvres) from an enemy that doesn’t have any early warning system and may not even know what is approaching it. But I will leave it for now due to weight & platform constraints).

    The Drones

    We need to take the discussion back to the drone platform itself first before we theorise its weapon options and their compatibility with the proposed role of the UAV. The challenge is that in addition to accommodating communication/ guidance suit , conventional optical cameras and sensors providing “live feed”, the UAV has to a carry targeting pod or target designator, fire control radar plus the weapon/ munitions. With all this onboard It has to have the flight (time) endurance of a conventional (reconnaissance) UAV as a minimum.

    Predator UAV
    As a guide I will like to mention that American predator drone can fly well over 700 miles to the target area and can perform its hunter/ killer / recognisance mission in the area for 14 hours and then fly back to base. It packs all the known accessories & weapons I listed in the above paragraph and few more that are not known in the public domain, has a take off weight of over 1000 KG that includes over 500 KG of payload ref 4.

    Burraq UAV
    Clearly this is high end benchmark by today’s standards but that’s something NESCOM/ PAF should keep in mind if this Armed Burraq development has to materialise into something that can be fielded as a Pakistani version of American Predator drone that might be smaller in size and role but packs enough package & punch to deal with the COIN operations. Note that back in May 2009 it was reported that Burraq was being flight tested 2, so the design has gone past the drawing board phase and we have had a prototype in physical form for some time. its two years on & unless the development hasn’t stalled we should hear some news soon.

    CIA drone controversy
    Given the current problems in Pak US relations due to few reckless Predator drone attacks in FATA and the resulting national outcry and political fallout due to the obnoxious attitude of CIA specially after uncovering of their spy Raymond Davis & his departure from Pakistan leading to the callous attack on peace meeting of tribal elders, it is of paramount importance that Pakistan takes over that role of unmanned hunter/ surveillance with drones that have ability to strike. this development should be top priority and shouldn’t be constrained by funds, politics and/ or international contracts and agreements hindering this armed drone project.

    Chinese Drones

    WJ-600 drone

    Some of the Chinese combat drones look very promising specially WJ-600 (refer 3, c) that is jet powered and a high endurance medium/ high altitude drone (but it is still in development/ evaluation phase). This drone has the US warmongering congressmen panicking all over the place. Refer to link 3 in the bottom for further read in other interesting Chinese UAV designs. But WJ-600 is way above our league and not something that we might be able to produce now and it far exceeds our current requirements re fight against the TTP & BLA.

    CH-3 drone
    CH3 with AR-1 missile

    The CH-3 drone we saw in the earlier pages of this tread looks like a closer cousin of Italian Falco (closer in size in wing span and length) with additional canards. Its maximum TOW is 640 KG & has a maximum load capacity of 100KG that includes 60 KG payload capacity. It will be interesting to see that this UAV will be able to carry sensor, camera(s), communication, target designator or fire control radar AND a pair of AR-1 missiles (one weighs 50 KG). not sure if you have heard or seen robot wars (TV series) but CH-3 specs remind me of design and weight restrictions of that ‘man toys’ program. How this UAV is (or will be) able to carry equipment & weapons and fly its mission is beyond my understanding. unless if all or some of the components like the camera, sensors, communication and the targeting system are included in the “base” weight of the UAV or are made up of ultra light material thus leaving the major portion of the payload weight to be taken up by the AR-1 pair.

    Galileo Falco UAV
    Our most advanced UAV is the Italian built Selex Galileo Falco that carries few high resolution sensors and a target designator but no weapons and has a payload limit of 70 KG (ref 1). (do note that Selex was reported to have been working on Falco Evo back in 2009 which was going to be Galileo’s bigger & armed brother but the last news were that the development has been “parked”)

    Coming back to Galileo, at any given time it has to carry its communications & cameras, the choice between equipping it with radar/ sensors or laser designator or other electronic support measures will depend on mission type.

    Pimp up my ride

    Scenario
    In case NESCOM is facing the technological barrier in making something as big as MQ1 predator to accommodate the flight, reconnaissance & munitions in a single UAV that is flight & mission worthy and feasible as well and are left with a possibility of having a smaller drone then a bit of imagination and thinking outside the box can work for us if we talk about a combat drone which is of same size & limitations like Galileo Falco or CH-3.

    We can overcome this weight restriction by taking a pair of drones for a mission, one with the usual surveillance and target designator payload. And the other one stripped off everything except the equipment that is needed for its flight (say camera + communication) and add a “sting” to it . Galileo Falco has a max take off weight of 420 KG (CH-3 has 640kg) with a stated 70 KG payload ref 1). Whether the weight of communications and/ or cameras is included in payload only or the overall weight is not clear from the information on the web so for argument sake (and for the sake of moving on the discussion) I am assuming a figure of 10 to 20 KG for both items. And thus we are left with the “freed up” weight of say 50 to 60 KG for mounting specially adapted munitions.

    Hunter/ Killer Operation
    So in essence we have 2 drones working together in the mission area. One being the hunter and other being the killer. The first making the full use of cameras and sensors to identify the target and with the help of the laser designator “painting” the target and sending coordinates to the “modified” Falco that is flying in formation with the hunter drone which is equipped with datalink/ fire control system to receive that information and unleash its salvo upon the “painted” target. So Instead of calling in a big, noisy and expensive Gunship helicopter (and possibly loosing the target in the meantime). The Armed drone would use the data from laser designator drone to open fire. It will work well if the operators of both the drones are sitting side by side in the GCS (ground control station) and are able to recognise the target on the ground with the help of the live feed from both drones.


    The Burraq Likelihood
    Going by the experience of past Sino-Pak cooperation in defence I would base the Burraq on Chinese CH-3 as a starting point with maybe a bigger dimensions to accommodate munitions in addition to the usual reconnaissance package. With a payload capacity being ideally between 150 to 200 KG. The dimensions and the power plant might give a hint about how much (in size and weight) Burraq will be able to carry . The dimensions like length and width will indicate what (how many and type of) reconnaissance, armament and avionics equipment it will be able to accommodate.

    Possible Questions re Pak Burraq UCAV
    Following is the list of questions (if not all) that one might have in mind while trying to think if this UCAV development will come a reality.

    What are the spec of the power plant and engine thrust
    What are its physical dimensions
    What is the total weight of the drone & its max take off weight.
    What is its total weight and payload capacity
    What are its flight abilities in different weather conditions (all weather/ day night?)
    What are its avionics (communications), armament, target designator, cameras & other sensors
    What about its range, speed, ceiling and endurance.


    Weapon options
    (the above heading reminds me of command & conquer RTS games where new tech based structures prompted the computer to say “new construction options)

    What I am going to share now can be classed as theory crafting (a politically incorrect term is fanboy stuff, all feedback is welcome )


    AR-1 missile
    Weight 50 KG
    Speed super sonic
    Guidance TV, Semi active laser homing.
    Range 10KM
    Warhead multiple (HEAT, MAC)
    Arrangement (wings) 2 x tubes with missiles (100kg)

    HJ8-Baktar Shikan Missile

    Wight 25kg+ 25 Kg tube =50KG (approx note1)
    Speed 220m/s
    Guidance wire guided
    Range 3-6 Km
    Warhead HEAT
    Arrangement (wings) tube+ missile x2 (100 KG)

    ANZA MK1missile
    Missile Weight 9.8 kg + 5.2 Kg launcher =15 KG
    Speed 600 m/s
    Guidance IR homing (current)
    Range up to 5km
    Warhead shaped charge (HE fragmentation)
    Arrangement (wings) 4x tube +missile (2 on either side 60 KG)

    Automatic Grenade Launcher MG

    33Kg weapon +27Kg ammo 48 rounds =60 KG (note 2)
    Blast impact(AOE) 5 metre kill- 15 metre injure
    Effective range of 1.4 KM
    16 x bursts @ 3 rounds per burst
    Practical ROF is 60 rounds / Min (1 round a sec)
    Muzzle velocity 152 m/s
    Warhead HE (high explosive)
    Arrangement under fuselage

    MG 1A3
    11.5 KG weapon+ 34 KG ammo 2x box (200 rounds)=45.5KG total (note 2)
    Effective range 1.2 KM
    9-12 bursts @ 16-21 rounds per burst
    ROF is 1000 to 1300 rounds /min (16-21 rounds a sec)
    Muzzle velocity 820m/s
    Arrangement under fuselage


    Arming the beast

    First I must respond to your post. I picked up following issues you raised
    Space issue with the wire guided missile
    Vulnerability of the UAV to small arms fire
    Optical tracking of targeting issue “till impact” for wire guided missile

    Given the speed of the missile from the time of firing to the point of impact it would take 4.5 seconds (if fired from say 1km) this is almost as good as F&F because there is not enough reaction time for the target to respond and the small rotary engine of the UAV would hardly make enough noise from over a KM to cause an alarm once the missile is fired. The speed of over 220 Km/h is good enough to evade the lucky shot from small arms fire. Anyway coming under fire is a job hazard and has to be faced whatever weapon is used to arm the UAV. Secondly regarding space, since the missile is tube launched so the wire spool would be integral part of the tube and wont take any extra space. One of the reasons for mentioning this missile was that it has been already adapted for Cobra gunships so the groundwork is already done and it is field tested for aerial launch. Its biggest limitation is the guidance system and the operator having to track the target plus having to attach the tubes under the wings that would cause weight and aerodynamic issues for drone. But if the proposed UAV size is somewhere near Predator drones then even that wont be a problem but I wont advocate this missile anymore.

    As far as AR-1 is concerned not much is known about this, it seems to be a clone of Hellfire ATGM and is laser guided, the weight & ammo limitation are an issue here. Apart from that it ticks all the boxes (bar collateral damage).

    ANZA, this missile has promise, its small in size its compact and it weighs less even with the tube the MK1 version is 15kg enabling the chance to equip 2x on either side of the wings. The guidance system is infrared which might be an issue because it is actually tailored for a much bigger flame source of an aeroplane (jet). TTP and BLA with all their valour on the videos aside are a shady bunch and wont light up camp fire to announce their position secondly I am not sure how well this missile would pickup the heat signature of a vehicle if the terrorists are on board a truck etc. the fact is further complicated if the target is located being on foot.
    I think if its guidance system is changed to a typical SALH (semi active laser homing) like many ATGMs (hellfire, HJ-10, Griffin) then this issue of targeting can be solved. The point to consider is how easy it will be to replace the I|R sensors within the missile with the laser seeker without affecting the physical frame and flight performance of the missile otherwise we can end up having to build a missile from scratch. Griffin missile which also uses the SALH and is used as a lighter/ smaller alternative to Hellfire in the predator drone weighs 20kg, it is tube launched like ANZA missile so hopefully developers will be able to adapt the ANZA for air launch with laser guidance system without much trouble and within the same weight range of 15 to 20 kg. re warhead I would agree with you that it should be HE/ fragmentation to fulfil the role of taking out target in a building/ vehicle or on foot.

    Grenade launcher & machine gun as an option is interesting concept. Keeping in mind the possible weapon recoil, platform (UAV in this case) stability, wind/ gravity & target visibility, this weapon choice seems a better trade off between a High explosive/ fragmentation missile and a conventional light/ medium machine gun (assuming a MG based UCAV is ever designed and fielded)

    Missile based drone has a limited ammo, is costly and carries a danger of higher collateral damage (specially COIN ops) due to its blast radius while later (MG) lacking punch (building, vehicles) & non-explosive (AOE, area of effect) attribute to compensate for accuracy issues. A grenade launcher attached under the belly of the drone with the option of laser range finder along the gun-cam can make a low tech but effective weapon platform.
    Its short bursts fired over a kilometre can provide very effective fire power against a target whether it is in a structure/ vehicle or on foot. The resulting blast radius from multiple shots can eliminate the target (refer 8,a) without having to go through the effort of all missile adaptation and guidance system etc. I mentioned MG 1 A3 as another lighter alternative for aerial based fire suppression alternative to a helicopter gunship. The light weight of the machinegun and its ammo drum will also enable the UAV to perform the hunter/ killer role as well. With the cyclic rate of fire of up to 1300 rounds per minute, the amount of led being showered on the target for few seconds would neutralise it. The only issue with this one will be the “stand off” range from target, in order to be effective the drone will have to be within 1 kilometre of the target which can bring in the issue of taking fire from small arms fire but its worth the risk when it’s the difference of saving lives of our troops that might come under fire on a patrol or a post is under siege and limited helicopter gunships means that no air support can get there in time. A drone armed with a grenade launcher or machine gun will be godsend not only it will pin down the attacking terrorists but will continue to harass them with its short bursts thus buying enough time for the bigger guns to arrive on the scene and eliminate the terrorist. A grenade launcher/ MG based UAV would be a preferred option rather than a missile in case the intended target’s close proximity with friendly units and / or civilians.
    The last two options might sound strange (read crazy) but we need to allow ourselves some creative thinking (re arming UAVs) and employ anything which we have and are already using in other platforms like vehicles, helicopters. Because other countries like China that do have development programs for combat drones are not settling for one combat drone type but a range of armed drones from low to high tech. (ref 3)

    I remember a quote in the “old man and the sea” when the old fisherman eventually catches a Marlin and ties it with the port side of the boat and starts his journey back, his fish starts getting attacked by tiger sharks that start nibbling at his catch. Knowing he doesn’t have a harpoon to “shoo” them away he takes his knife and starts tying it with a rope on one of the boat’s oars saying “don’t dwell on what you don’t have, but try to employ what you got and make best use of it”. saying that he finishes making his improvised spear/ harpoon and starts hitting the sharks with it. That scene has stayed with me for years since I saw that movie and I find it very fitting whenever there is a similar situation of limited means that are not the best and we have a problem at hand.




    Conclusion

    When we come to Burraq, there is next to no information on the web (for understandable reasons). When Americans are so secretive about their combat drone capabilities and are the only country that has the experience of successfully fielding these UAVs, it is understandable that any other country will like to keep its progress (or lack of it) towards combat drone development under wraps.

    Explore every possibility and try out different weapon options if their weight and dimensions fall within the parameters of a drone payload capacity.
    Explore every avenue to share and seek drone technology from all other countries that are willing to share/ sell it for love or money including Iran, Turkey, China & Europeans (e.g. Italy) that are not bullied by Americans to refuse or withdraw from such requests/ proposals.


    References


    1. Falco UAV system
    Galileo Falco - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    http://www.selex-sas.com/EN/Common/files/SELEX_Galileo/Products/FALCO.pdf

    2. Burraq
    Pakistan reported developing armed UAV - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times


    3. Chinese UA & UCAV development
    http://www./air-force/chinese-uav-ucav-development-10-3526.html
    China's Drones Raise Eyebrows at Air Show - WSJ.com

    4. Predator UCAV
    General Atomics MQ-1 Predator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    5. ANZA missile
    Anza (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    6. Griffin missile
    Griffin (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    http://defense-update.com/images_new1/reaper_afgan.jpg

    7. AR-1 missile
    HJ-10 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    8. Missile guidence
    Missile guidance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    9. Automatic Grenade launchers
    Mk 19 grenade launcher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    9. Baktar Shikan
    HJ-8 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Videos

    a. MK-19 Automatic grenade launcher
    [video=youtube;uE9zmAECOKM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE9zmAECOKM[/video]

    b. Iranian Done Bomber Karrar
    [video=youtube;7q-cfmzyP_c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q-cfmzyP_c&feature=related[/video]

    c. Chinese WJ-600 Combat UAV
    [video=youtube;GiXSOn1hHiE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiXSOn1hHiE[/video]

    d. TOW fired from Helicopter
    [video=youtube;yfuqXIVqDUs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfuqXIVqDUs[/video]


    Notes:
    1. The weight is calculated on the bases of 4 disassembled components with stated weight less than 25 kg each of the missile, tube, targeting system and the tripod. Taking only the launch tube with missile, the weight is estimated to be 50 kg (assuming the missile guidance will be from UCAV’s own targeting/ guidance system.

    2. While suggesting the grenade launcher & MG 1A3, I have added the exact weapon weight + the estimated ammo drum weight based on the weight of the cartridge (where loaded ammo box weight info was missing) the number of shots/ burst are a guidance and based on ROF and impact.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: UAV designs for Pakistan

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 19, 2011 5:35 am

    Just forget that we need UCAVs against US Predators...bcz it will have extreme repercussions upon us...then lets stick to the plan ONLY to hunt down terrorists in hilly valleys...

    Yes... whatever you do... don't stand up to the Americans... they have every right to bomb the crap out of anything they want and when they want...

    Perhaps you should just ask to use their UCAVs and they can save fuel by bombing anything in Pakistan they want before they land... Twisted Evil

    A great friend you have there.

    Yea wire guided missile has its limitation with respect to the platform and its guidance system that requires that the cross hairs stay on the target until the missile reaches its target

    The requirement to keep tracking the target after weapon release is a good thing... not a bad thing. Fire and forget means it must get a lock on a target which adds expense to the weapon. Don't add expense to weapons because by their very purpose they are destroyed when used. A UAV or UCAV is not a manned aeroplane. A UCAV has a turret mounted under it with optics that can turn 360 degrees so you can fly up to a target and release a weapon and then turn around and fly away while keeping your optics always on the target... keeping the crosshairs on the target with a video auto tracker is not a problem... even if the target is moving.
    In fact it is better to use this sort of guidance because if, after launch, a bus approaches the target area full of little kids you can redirect the missile away from the target area and land it in open empty ground.
    Command guidance is cheap. With cheaper weapons you can afford better thermal sights on the UCAV because they are not destroyed with each use.

    We need to take the discussion back to the drone platform itself first before we theorise its weapon options and their compatibility with the proposed role of the UAV. The challenge is that in addition to accommodating communication/ guidance suit , conventional optical cameras and sensors providing “live feed”, the UAV has to a carry targeting pod or target designator, fire control radar plus the weapon/ munitions. With all this onboard It has to have the flight (time) endurance of a conventional (reconnaissance) UAV as a minimum.

    If you are going to fit a targeting pod then it would make sense to use weapons already integrated with the weapons pod.

    I would expect Pakistan has LANTIRN systems from the US, so most systems your air force carries with LANTIRN should also work with the UCAV... the problem would be weight of course as most aircraft can carry much heavier loads than UCAVs.

    Weight is cost... to buy and to operate.

    GPS guidance, an INS (Inertial Nav System), and a datalink for 200km... you don't need expensive satellite links here... perhaps even another dedicated UAV to relay datalink signals could be used?
    High magnification optics and perhaps antennas that can detect radio transmissions so that it can find enemy positions.
    Weapons wise you probably want light and cheap, but accurate.

    Its biggest limitation is the guidance system and the operator having to track the target plus having to attach the tubes under the wings that would cause weight and aerodynamic issues for drone. But if the proposed UAV size is somewhere near Predator drones then even that wont be a problem but I wont advocate this missile anymore.

    I think this is a mistake.

    If your drone is to operate over enemy forces it needs to operate at a minimum of 3,000m above ground to make it invulnerable to ground fire.
    This is an unmanned aircraft so if the enemy want to waste any MANPADS they might have on it then that is a good thing.
    From 3,000m many of your weapons should take advantage of the height and be gliding weapons... again... you are an unmanned aircraft so there is no need for 10km standoff range for safety from MANPADS. Being 3km up having to look at targets 10km away means very very expensive optics.
    You are an unmanned aircraft... you should be flying directly over your target.

    The wire guidance of TOW is a pain so modify the missile to use a radio command guidance. Everything remains the same on the missile except the wire spool at the rear of the missile is replaced with a radio command receiver and the electronic box that converted the wire signals to command signals can be altered to convert the radio signals to command signals. In the launcher the small box that sends command signals down the wire can have a radio command antenna added and it can send command guidance signals to the missile via that antenna.

    As far as AR-1 is concerned not much is known about this, it seems to be a clone of Hellfire ATGM and is laser guided, the weight & ammo limitation are an issue here. Apart from that it ticks all the boxes (bar collateral damage).

    Remind you again... you are in an unmanned vehicle... this AR-1 has 40kgs of rocket fuel and guidance systems to move a 10kg warhead 10km to hit a point target.
    You could fit an FAB-50 with a glide package and laser guidance kit and have a 50kg payload hitting targets out to about 5km range with laser precision... sometimes you will need heavier warheads to take out caves or larger groups of enemy forces... a 50KG HE bomb might be the right tool in some cases.

    ANZA, this missile has promise, its small in size its compact and it weighs less even with the tube the MK1 version is 15kg enabling the chance to equip 2x on either side of the wings. The guidance system is infrared which might be an issue because it is actually tailored for a much bigger flame source of an aeroplane (jet). TTP and BLA with all their valour on the videos aside are a shady bunch and wont light up camp fire to announce their position secondly I am not sure how well this missile would pickup the heat signature of a vehicle if the terrorists are on board a truck etc. the fact is further complicated if the target is located being on foot.

    Sorry... but do you think a MANPAD IR seeker could be kept for anything but engaging air targets?
    That is crazy.
    Use it as an AAM for self defence.
    The weapons of promise need to have more than a 2kg warhead... a MANPAD is fast and light, but we want weapons that can be used from height... from 3,000m up most manpads will not lock onto heat sources on the ground anyway... and the point is that you point the missile at a helo or aeroplane and get a lock... if you point it at the ground how do you know what you have just locked on to? You might be pointing it at a tank but it could just as easily have locked onto a sun heated rock sitting next to the road.

    Without a change of guidance ANZA is no good for anything but use against aircraft... and it is not worth the effort. ATGM are a better option than MANPADS for modification.

    MANPAD has too much speed and not enough payload.
    ATGM is good for both.

    Regarding grenade launchers and machineguns... 30 cal rifles would be largely ineffectual from the heights this UCAV will operate.

    If you built the UCAV around a 40mm grenade launcher so that the whole aircraft absorbed the recoil (much the same way the A-10 is built around its gun) then you should end up with an interesting gun ship.
    40mm grenades are bulky and heavy, but with a decent fire control system and dedicated optics it should be quite capable in diving attacks.

    It should be pointed out with this talk of operating UCAVs near friendly troops or innocent civilians that the UCAV doesn't always need to fire weapons... often its video feed of the target and perhaps a laser target marker picking out the target to be hit by laser homing weapons fired by ground forces or air power will get the job done.

    BTW I have done some reading about the Krisantema and I realise that it actually uses MMW radar for command guidance rather than using a MMW seeker itself.

    This will make the missile orders of magnitude cheaper as it doesn't need a small radar seeker.
    The missile can be fired using laser beam riding guidance where the laser has 4 beam colours and the missile looks back at the launch platform and manouvers itself into the centre of the beam to the target.
    It can also be fired with the launcher tracking the target and launched missile using MMW radar and sending a radio command pulses to the missile to manouver the missile to hit the target.
    The laser beam riding guidance can be used against any type of target whether they are visible to MMW radar or not.
    The MMW radar can be used in any conditions including white out and brown out and conditions of zero visiblity.


    Pervius

    Posts : 247
    Points : 267
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: UAV designs for Pakistan

    Post  Pervius on Sun May 29, 2011 7:58 am

    China just handed Pakistan 50 new JF-17's to deal with the American UAV's. Supposedly with some new advanced electronics the Pakistani's formerly weren't getting in the JF-17 deal with China.

    Aren't the JF-17's cheaper than a modern UAV anyways?

    Looks like Pakistan's going UAV hunting. But then the Americans will see new the Chinese version of the JF-17 and find out what it's capabilities are. China must have something even more advanced to protect it's homeland if they are handing out some of their top technology 4th Gen fighters.


    US Army Commanders were screaming for UAV's with weapons because the US Air Force would drop JDAM's in Afghanistan and those munitions would miss their targets.

    JDAM doesn't work well in mountainous terrain where satellite signals are lost as the munition tries to guide itself down to the target. So they've gone to UAV's and laser guided munitions for precision strike.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: UAV designs for Pakistan

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:14 am


    Aren't the JF-17's cheaper than a modern UAV anyways?

    If you include the development costs... especially for a country with little or no experience of UAVs you are probably right in the sense that if you are using JF-17s anyway, that adding an intercept mission to their role is much cheaper and simpler than developing a UAV to do the job.

    On the other hand if you just want an eye in the sky, like a cheaper lower flying satellite that can stay over the target area for perhaps even the better part of a day then it becomes more worthwhile.

    Looks like Pakistan's going UAV hunting. But then the Americans will see new the Chinese version of the JF-17 and find out what it's capabilities are. China must have something even more advanced to protect it's homeland if they are handing out some of their top technology 4th Gen fighters.

    It wouldn't need too much in the way of technology to hunt down and shoot down a UAV, in fact it would probably be better off if it didn't have too much in the way of high tech.

    There is little point in fitting AESA radars or anything like that.

    In fact a decent third gen thermal imager and some datalink detection gear would be enough...
    When the target is a UAV then it will be transmitting a signal containing its position and perhaps a digital video feed of its target, so finding it should be relatively easy with the right sensors.
    A quick ID with a long range Thermal Imager to make sure it is armed preferably from a safe distance like 8-10km in case it is equipped with stingers, so relatively modern Sidewinders would do the job.


    US Army Commanders were screaming for UAV's with weapons because the US Air Force would drop JDAM's in Afghanistan and those munitions would miss their targets.

    JDAM doesn't work well in mountainous terrain where satellite signals are lost as the munition tries to guide itself down to the target. So they've gone to UAV's and laser guided munitions for precision strike.

    Not actually JDAMs' fault... most of the Navstar satellites are orbiting near the equator so it is hard to get three satellites visible in steep mountainous areas away from the equator.

    Ironically GLONASS would work much better in the mountains of Afghanistan, though slightly less accurate it would be much easier to get the signal for three or more satellites to get a proper fix and a location. The same problem applies to near the polar regions... and for the same reasons.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: UAV designs for Pakistan

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:54 am

    Had a question that goes like this:

    I have a question regarding Russia's (if any) programme NLOS antitank missiles.
    So far I have been unable to find them online.
    Only two:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM501_Non-Line-of-Sight_Launch_System
    http://www.army-technology.com/projects/efogm/


    are categorised as NLOS in wiki...along with Israeil Spike; but nothing Russian??

    by the way isn't the upgraded Kornet (using MMW radar guidance & such) can too be regarded as NLOS

    In this case NLOS or non line of sight basically means that the vehicle firing these weapons does not need to see the target, ie they do not need a direct line of sight on the target.

    For a weapon like Kornet because the launcher directs a beam that the missile flys down you need a clear line of sight from the launcher to the vehicle.

    However NLOS is also considered a fire and forget concept and with an autotracker the latest version of Kornet does achieve that in the sense that the operator does not need to manually track the missile or the target.

    Russian examples of NLOS anti armour weapons would include all semi active laser homing artillery rounds from the 152mm Santimetr, the 240mm Smelchak, the 152mm Krasnopol, the 152mm and 155mm Krasnopol-M, the 122mm Kitolov-2M, the 120mm Gran.

    They also have the Hermes on the way which has MMW radar, IIR, semi active laser homing, and Satellite guided models in development.

    http://kbptula.ru/eng/multi/hermes.htm

    The talk of upgraded versions of the Kornet and Krisantema with fire and forget capability suggests to me that perhaps with the former taking the relatively cheaper option of an auto tracker, the latter might use a more sophisticated and expensive guidance for true fire and forget like MMW radar homing. (ie active homing like an AMRAAM).

    Very simply the design of the latest model Kornet is the cheap option for fire and forget.
    The more expensive option is to take the optics and autotracking system off the launch platform and put it in the missile. The thing is that putting it in the missile means it gets destroyed with every launch. You wouldn't put an expensive thermal camera like a Catherine thermal sight in a missile, but putting it in a light vehicle makes a lot of sense because it means targets can be engaged in total darkness out to 8km or so.
    When the optics and autotracker don't blow up with each launch it makes it much cheaper to use and you can spend more money on better quality optics because they aren't needed to be disposable.

    For instance the TV guided Kh-29T has the camera built in to the nose of the missile, so you get a lock and then fire the missile and the camera in the missile keeps a lock on the target using an autotracker.

    In fact a better example would be the Kh-59M, known in the west as the AS-18 Kazoo, which has the same TV sensor in the nose but it has a datalink in its tail so you launch it in the direction of the enemy to something like a dam or bridge and when the missile gets near it turns on its TV seeker and transmits video back to the launch aircraft via a small video link pod. The weapon operator then uses a small joystick to move crosshairs on the video picture to select a target in view or to turn the missile toward a target. When the target is visible in the video the weapon operator puts the crosshairs on the target and pushes a button to transmit the target back to the missile. The missile then homes in on the target and hits it.
    The US equivelent is called SLAM-ER and is based on the Harpoon missile.

    A great way to attack targets without having to risk your aircraft by flying into enemy held airspace.
    avatar
    milky_candy_sugar

    Posts : 396
    Points : 515
    Join date : 2009-10-30
    Age : 23
    Location : Switzerland

    Re: UAV designs for Pakistan

    Post  milky_candy_sugar on Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:11 pm

    Moved to Pakistan thread Smile


    _________________
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: UAV designs for Pakistan

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:40 am

    Having a think about things again....

    Smile

    Now the US gets around the issue of the USAF killing people in Pakistan with UCAVs by the UCAVs being operated over Pakistan being controlled by the CIA.

    Perhaps Pakistan should do the same thing and not design an UAV for the Pakistani Air Force, but for some non governmental organisation that gives them plausible deniability.

    It is important that this new org is not connected with any group on a terrorist list anywhere, so that their assets and resources cannot be targeted as part of the made up war on terror.

    It must be an official org whose role is the defense of Pakistan from outside threats of any kind, and designed to deal with any outside forces that violate Pakistani borders.

    A stinger or stinger like weapon is a simple point, lock and shoot weapon so fitting it to a small UAV with a forward facing camera... climbing to the altitude the target UCAV is operating at and approaching it from above and behind in your blue painted aircraft the target will not see what has hit it.

    The target has generally only satellite links on its upper surface and it has forward cameras for manual flight and a belly mounted ball turret for looking at ground targets.

    By approaching from behind and above you get the best view of the engine which will be the heat source you are locking your missiles on to and you will be in the blind spot of the target.

    The first thing the target will know of the attack will be the loss of video picture.

    Any problems about the loss of the UCAV can be forwarded from the Pakistani government to the organisation that operates the interceptor UCAV, who will of course ask what the shot down UCAV was doing in their airspace without permission in the first place.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: UAV designs for Pakistan

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:38 am

    I have been reading an article on Russian guided weapons manufacturer Tactical Missile Corporation and to quote the article:

    Glide bombs designed by Region are classified as high-precision weapons and notable for high combat effectiveness, jamming resistance, and reliability proved out during service in Russian Air Force. Key feature of glide bombs is combination of high accuracy sometimes comparable to guided missiles and considerable warhead yield.

    Today, glide bombs are equipped with television/correlation, laser/gyrostabilized, and satellite guidance systems providing impact accuracy within the limits of 3-10 meters depending on altitude of bomb release and speed of aircraft. As of cost-effectiveness ratio, such bombs outclass regular ones in 10-30 times. Under certain conditions, glide bombs are comparable to guided missiles in this criterion, but are much cheaper and powerful.

    Presently, Region State Research and Development Enterprise produces 250-, 500-, and 1,500-kg glide bombs. They can be armed with wide range of warheads (concrete-piercing, penetrating, and fuel-air explosive). Specially designed warheads are capable to destroy high-tensile targets bunkered or ambushed in terrain.

    Further development of glide bombs is primarily associated with improvement of guidance accuracy and range which would make possible to drop bombs beyond an opponent's air defenses. Obviously, in the near term reconnaissance and attack unmanned aerial vehicles will gain considerable positions in military aviation. Therefore, there is a trend to develop small-size glide bombs, i.e. no heavier than 100 kg.

    So it is interesting that they are clearly developing 100kg and smaller bombs with satellite guidance and wing kits to extend range clearly for use from UCAVs... the precision making up for the reduced payload size and also reducing risk to others and of course reducing the size of the platform needed to carry it with or greatly increasing the number of targets that can be engaged by increasing the number of weapons that can be carried within a specific payload weight.

    BTW for those interested in the rest of the article it is here:

    http://rusnavy.com/science/weapons/tacticalmiscorpbreaks/
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10763
    Points : 11242
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: UAV designs for Pakistan

    Post  George1 on Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:33 pm

    Pakistan Successfully Tests Its First Armed Drones

    Drones are taking on a more ever-present role in the world and changing the way wars are fought. On Friday, Pakistan successfully tested its first military UAV.

    According to a statement released by the Pakistani army, its military has just tested its own indigenously developed, armed drones. The unmanned aircraft come equipped with laser-guided missiles and will be deployed against terrorists along the country’s northwestern border with Afghanistan.

    While the republic had already acquired surveillance drones, the new armed models highlight a major leap in technological achievement. The UAV’s have been named Burraq, after the flying horse familiar in Islamic tradition.

    Asim Bajwal of Inter Services Public Relations witnessed the test with Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif, and according to Bajwal, both men were very satisfied with the results. Raheel called the event "a great national achievement."

    Despite repeated requests for the United States to supply the Pakistani military with armed UAV’s, the American government has consistently denied the appeals.

    As such, the development of unmanned aerial vehicles has been a longtime goal of the Pakistani military, which has complained about US drones targeting jihadists through its airspace. Many of these strikes have killed civilians.

    According to an analysis conducted by human rights group Reprieve in January, US drones searching for four terrorists killed as many as 221 innocent civilians. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism claims that the CIA has conducted 413 strikes in Pakistan since 2004.

    Pakistan stepped up its efforts to combat terrorism within its borders after a brutal attack by the Taliban last year. Over 130 children were murdered in a school in the northwest region of Peshawar. That assault also led to a reinstatement of the death penalty in Pakistan.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20150313/1019466872.html#ixzz3UI9rphso
    avatar
    Gunner

    Posts : 32
    Points : 41
    Join date : 2015-08-20

    Re: UAV designs for Pakistan

    Post  Gunner on Thu Aug 20, 2015 9:44 pm

    Pakistan does have experience building UAVs we have been building UAVS unarmed) since the early 90s... Specially our private companies like Integrated Dynamics etc.... Falco is actually produced under ToT but that was back in late 2000s... The latest MALE UAV inducted (before Burraq) was Shahpar UAV...


    Burraq UCAV was Publically unveiled this year... It's equipped with Pak made EOD sensors like Zumr series and carries 2 Burrq laser guilded missiles and can target static Aswell as moving targets...
    avatar
    Gunner

    Posts : 32
    Points : 41
    Join date : 2015-08-20

    Re: UAV designs for Pakistan

    Post  Gunner on Fri Aug 21, 2015 9:40 pm

    Burraq UCAV armed with Burrq Laser guided missiles;



    Sponsored content

    Re: UAV designs for Pakistan

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:11 pm