Its not a lie. Sajjad Haider was not there but finds fault with the confirmation and other details.

Yes, I do agree with you in some ways. For me, such a UCAV does not need training exercises, etc. Much less than Predator pilots as the actual flying is not remote control but autonomous. This means that most trainings can be simulator based unless as you noted, live firing exercises for assessment of capabilities.

The reason I chose a turbojet was:

1. to keep it simple, keep costs and manufacturing complexity down. Would help as Pakistan has no prior experience in engine technology (and my solution was Pakistan-centric)

2. The kind of flight profile envisaged for the missile-launched UCAV would suite a turbojet particularly. Usually turbojets are inefficient in lower altitudes and lower speeds, but can even be more efficient at higher speeds and higher altitudes than turbofans.

A Mirage III/V for instance, loses about 30% of its fuel just from taking off and flying to combat altitudes. This is the major weakness of the turbojet. However, when a missile puts my UCAV into a high altitude, high speed profile, that weakness is removed.

3. For modern BVR combat, high speeds and high altitudes is key. The F-22’s, PAKFAs, J-20s all seem to point to this. It is most interesting to note the very low BPR of the F-22’s engines, making it conceptually very close to a turbojet…

4. The kind of loiter one would expect in a full-blown Pak-India scenario would be lower. The UCAVs are envisaged as force-multipliers and reinforcers. When combined with longer loiter, turbofan manned fighters (acting as mother ships and coordinators in many instances), you have a perfect symbiotic and complementary relationship.

>>>

I understand that the solution would be different for a different scenario.

I would think that a WP-13 based, or an Atar-based engine would give you enough engineering space to design a UCAV that can carry two BVRs and a single WVR missile…

http://www.grandestrategy.com/2011/08/9348282-missile-launched-ucavs.html

A few points I want to sanity check for logic. Mind, just rumors, nothing definitive and I have no proof, but bear with me…

1. F7pg has bvr. Keep hearing this off and on from reliable ppl. No idea whatkind… how possible is this technically? Could itbe one bvr under belly as a typical setup, (if true)

2. Maa1s were for the f16s! Apparently works with the hmds on the viper… ?? Is that possible?

Bill Sweetman was right, is right and he did what anyone with a backbone and guts would do – call a spade a spade. He has paid for sticking to his guns despite being right!

By the way, DEWs, laser based have been operarltional in afghanistan by US helicopters and aircraft against the manpad threat. Should not be too far a stretch to fighter use. I have heard the f35 may field this capability…

Also, the second operator will not be overwhelmed because the idea is to not directly control them but to assign waypoints, so to speak…

Sanem, your posts are inspirational. Keep up the good work. I agree with you and find it strange that there are so many nay-sayers without much more than “it can’t be done because otherwise it would already be so”.

I must say, I do differ with you regarding slow movers with WVRs. I think its more effective to have fast UCAVs with BVRs.

But perhaps in such a new and emerging area, there is room for diversity.

Between I did talk about the mother ship concept myself before. Interestingly, there are rumors that the two seater JF-17 is being built with the intention of also being used as a mother ship for UAVs. There are even rumors now from Pakdef that Argentina wants its two seater JF-17s to be used as UAV motherships.

http://www.grandestrategy.com/2010/12/19203339391ucavs-future-of-air-warfare.html
http://www.grandestrategy.com/2011/08/9348282-missile-launched-ucavs.html
http://www.insaf.pk/Wings/InsafResearchWing/tabid/225/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/11517/Defending-Pakistan-by-Meinhaj-Hussain.aspx

Although I am happy to see Argentina negotiating for the jf17, I would think something longer legged would be moresuitable. Flankers would really be ideal. If they do go for the jf17, perhaps they could go for the hump on single seeters too, for extra fuel and maybe even cfts.

Another plane that would be good would be the rafale or the f35. Maybe a bare bones jsf…

My knowledge of Pakistan is very limited, but are you suggesting that the Islamization process begun under General Zia 1979 has been unsuccessful? That it hasn’t gone far enough? The accounts I have read posit Zia’s reforms as a turning point for the nation — for the worse.

I’m not Pakistani per se, but my grandfather was among the founders of the country and I deeply care for her. I am also deeply involved in helping Pakistan, the best I can. As someone who has lived and breathed Pakistan and her history I can say that:

1. Zia was an opportunist and merely used Islam to fulfill his own political goals.
2. He was responsible for the killing of a large number of Palestinians in Jordan to protect the puppet-king.
3. He dealt with the Americans under the table, including handing over pictures of Pakistani nuclear installations, caught red handed from an American spy by a daring ISI agent. He simply handed them over.
4. People like him bring disrepute to Pakistan and Islam. Its unsurprising military leaders like him or Musharaf have brought Pakistan to her knees.