PLA-MKIIHi Wanderlai,
I think that their air defenses won’t last long. Possibly Israel will attack and then Iran will react giving opportunity for the US to finish the job. It saddens my heart. I’ve done all that I can to try and make Iran aware but without any success.
Here is my take on their S-300 like system. These ones in the parade are probably dummies as they don’t want to expose the real systems.
http://www.grandestrategy.com/2010/11/iranian-s-300-look-alike-ready-for.html
I think their most potent force will be their submarines including these ones:
http://www.grandestrategy.com/2010/08/iranian-ghadir-class-littoral-submarine.html
Hope that helps.
PLA-MKIIConverted mirages can be used as decoys but not for effective A2A against a 5G plane. Remember the first requirement of BVR-Detect. Due to its bigger RCS, before a mirage like drone gets through detection, identification, speed/alt, an enemy missile would probably have already hit it. To take on a 5G plane effectively any UCAV would need to have almost as low RCS-read LO design, structuraj materials, internal bays etc, all of which means EXPENSIVE R&D and unit price. Now A2G is probably easier. But not A2A.
My purpose in mentioning Mirages was not to counter 5th Gen planes. I did mention they would have limited effectiveness. The point was that we are not necessarily talking about a high end AI-UCAV that you seemed to think of. That there is a big spectrum of possible solutions in between a cheapest solution and an unreachable one.
PLA-MKIIdefinitely longer, based on the truck size..
Nice job Hotdog!!! +2. I’d say that you’re right but maybe its even longer since if you compare the truck to the wings it appears that the truck with the J-20 is further away from the aircraft. But that’s marginal.
PLA-MKIIThe simplest and cheapest UCAV would be to develop and use the software and comm links (and I don’t mean AI but merely a large set of programmed routines) and use old Mirage III/Vs. Of course they would have their limits of usefulness but this could be the cheapest possible UCAV for the PAF for an air-to-air role.
PLA-MKII^^Even if we assume it to be externally controlled, to win over a 5G machine in BVR, it would have to be equally stealthy, be able to use supercruise-for increased endurance-etc. All this would require 5G techs-design, composites, engine etc-which would be prohibitively pricey. Considering recent chinese 5G progress, PLAAF is also likely to have similar political obstacles as in the west. And i cant imagine a private company taking such a risky multi bill dollar project even with PAF-read bad pak economy.
Hi Vikas, I think this is an interesting point that people may often have confusion with. There is a wide spectrum between being externally controlled (like an RC plane) and having an independent AI. There is also the question of autonomy.
I think that super cruise may or may not be necessary. For a cheap UCAV, I’d forgo it (but then, that’s just a random thought). 5G tech may not be necessary in everything. Personally, I’d like to keep this simple, cheap, expendable.
I think that if Pak can collaborate with China the way it did with the JF-17 and build a simple, not-too-ambitious UCAV using the parts bin and expertise from the JF-17, Dark Sword UCAV project and even what they can learn from Turkey, this may be a viable project. Super cruise may not be much of a ticket in the environment of Pakistan. Also, its partially quite a big hype and marketing even without considering the salients of the airspace of Pakistan.
PS: IF we keep the weight down and with the aerodynamics specified, supercruise to a limited extent in fact may not be too much of a technology upgrade. Consider the TWR of the JF-17 as it is and then think of the aerodynamics and weight class being proposed.
PPS: Also consider the low MTBF requirements which allows engineers to spike the engine so to speak.
PPPS: This is a quote from the paper:
Another aspect is the low maintenance and operational costs due to not having a requirement to constantly fly aircraft. This also means that many important systems do not need to be as reliable or have high MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure). After all, if the UCAV is not endangering a pilot’s life, does not fly frequently and is cheap to manufacture, they need not be as durable. UCAVs need only be flown during wartime or during high tension periods.
Note: Aircraft engines have a trade-off between MTBF and performance within a given technology constraint.
PLA-MKIIPLA-MKII, although the idea of a UCAV force for PAF is interesting, IMHO its a non-starter. Lack of finances. I, once, argued for something similar for IAF instead of MCA. And even though GOI has much greater financial resources, a much bigger computational & other R&D base, even with the support of a western company i recognised it a high risk approach and would only become operational around 2035 or so. An autonomous UCAV would not only require many 5G features but it would take decades for AI to mature.
Sallam Vikas, having an AI-UCAV or a non-AI UCAV is dealt with on the UCAV thread here or on my paper. Its not absolutely necessary to have your UCAV with the attribute of real AI. The paper is not written for a solution today but a solution in a decade and half. I hope that helps. Btw, you’re right, this is a proposal, its not like it has to be true. Its just something being proposed. Major nations are looking into UCAVs and directly investing into them. Pakistan of course does not have money, its not like it has ever really had much. This has not deterred her from building nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter aircraft, cruise missiles, a C4I network that would be an envy of even many first world countries and more. Time and time again we have seen peoplw pooh pooh Pakistan and then be proved wrong. Not even the CIA expected the nuclear tests in that time frame.
The sad thing is that unfortunately people do not appreciate ideas. They start attacking the person rather than the idea. This is the typical inferiority complex and the “culture of illiteracy” of the subcontinent being manifested.
Everybody is all ready to jump on the one guy who comes up with something different. A senior Pakdef member I will not name privately emailed me. He says that it is the typical attitude and the inability to think beyond that causes this behavior. Since they can’t think of it, I must be wrong. He asks the question that how on earth can China, US, Russia, Europe invest in UCAVs and Pakistan cannot. He points to pictures of the Dark Sword and European UCAVs. He reminds me that people with vision are often hanged by the public that does not have the same capacity. He hints that there may be jealousy on the part of some and asks me to keep up the good work.
PLA-MKIIsome pictures probably already somewhere on this thread, if not then bonus.
PLA-MKIII’ll leave it at that and wish you the best of luck with your ‘Grand Strategy’ 🙂
What would have been better is if you had actually read the paper (or the paper by the PAF officer and the Dr. from Satuma) and actually debated or argued about specific points that would seem unrealistic to you.
That is what in the West is considered an educated debate rather than what x, y or z said in what forum or how old the writer is. Between, I am a good deal older than you imagine past my third generation. It may also interest you to note that this paper, before publishing, has been viewed and inputs included with praise from quarters I can say you and most people in our set of forums know.
Its not really my Grand Strategy but I’ll take that as a positive comment from you. What business do I have, a non-Pakistani peddling ideas to your nation? 😉
UCAVs are being developed in the US, EU, Japan, China, Israel, Russia. Even India has some noise about it. Why talking about them makes me 15 year old or “utter rubbish” is really not a point of serious discourse.
PLA-MKIISo now Pakdef is no longer viable to you? Wasn’t it you who was lamenting the mythical oracle ‘Eagle Hannan’ over the ‘scoop’ on the latest JF-17/SD-10 developments?
From Pakdef;
http://www.pakdef.info/forum/showthread.php?53-UAV-s-Development-!!/page14
From the administrator of Pakdef;
What Eagle Hannan says is factual to me. What Munir says I consider very seriously. What Usman Shabbir thinks I will leave it up to him to decide. What someone says in a forum or not does not become the basis for judgment for me. I may agree with someone on something and disagree with him on something else. This is the natural process that we see in all discussions.
I think its a poor choice on your part to use this approach on arguing about the merits and demerits of a paper you obviously have not read from your comment about apparently me saying that Pakistan is developing such a plane.
PLA-MKIIWhich part of that ‘paper’ describes the efforts being undertaken by Pakistan in the development of UCAVs? The authors have exclusively discussed concepts proposed by US companies and DARPA studies. Besides, how is Pakistan intending to fund UCAV developed, through a loan from China with ‘very reasonable premiums’, as in the case of funding the production of the first batch of JF-17s?
Despite their ‘postgraduate’ credentials, the authors have provided a very ‘tan tantalizing’ summary using a very interesting dialect of English 🙂
Is it little wonder then that such ‘Grand Strategies’ being put forward are simply laughed away as the fantasies of a teenager, even by the likes of the jingoistic Pak Def forum? :rolleyes:
No one claimed UCAVs are being developed by Pakistan. What a strange statement. Where did you hear me say that? What Pakdef says is Pakdef’s business. I’d advise you to talk about ideas rather than attack my views as the fantasies of a teenager. Given that you don’t know me it seems inappropriate.
PLA-MKIIhttp://www.grandestrategy.com/2010/12/ucavs-move-towards-revolution-in-future.html
UCAVs Move Towards Revolution In Future War Time
Authors:
Flight Lieutenant Muhammad Asim, AHQ Chaklala (Project Vision) Rawalpindi, Pakistan Air Force, Pakistan
Dr. Suleman Ashraf, SATUMA (Pakistan), Union Council Road, Sihala, Islamabad, Pakistan
Posed From: Icas-Proceedings.net
International Council on the Aeronautical Sciences
Download Paper from ICAS Website
Abstract
Improving the survivability of its military aircraft and the pilot as been a top technological priority for decades. Promotion of stand off weapons reduces the exposure of combat air planes to hostile fire. The idea is to put as much distance as possible between a pilot and dense defense encircling high value targets. The trend is certain to continue and, at some point specific types of aircraft likely will be removed from the battle entirely, with a collection of robotic craft taking their places in combat over the target. Current terminology for this system is “Uninhabited Combat Air vehicle”. They may not only help save the lives of the pilot, but also provide more affordable and effective base to attack certain targets. This paper elaborates the inventive concepts, future role, deployment and missions of UCAV.
PLA-MKIIThe author of that article seems under the impression that everything Iran procures must be for sinking super carriers else must be a joke and worthless. The idea that Iran might do 😮 recon 😮 or want to patrol its shores doesn’t seem to be considered, not the idea that Iran might think about threats other than a full scale US invasion 😮
The Iranians using a weird aircraft comes as no surprise though 😎
Perfectly summed up by ppp. two thumbs up.
PLA-MKIIYou have to love Hotdog for his replies. 🙂
There seems to be some confusion regarding what the requirements are regarding a UCAV. I think Europe will end up divided again like the EF and Rafale.
S. Korea, Sweden, etc seem to be playing for the low end of the market. Lets see how that works out. I’ve seen a very large number of papers on UCAVs for the a2a role.
PLA-MKIII think the long span will help with a high altitude flight profile and the large wings also provides some indication of the choices made. Look how menacing it looks!
Doesn’t seem like an appropriate design for Pakistan Air Force 🙁
But seems quite appropriate for the second island chain. Heads up to Carlo Kopp, get to work mate. 😉
Kind of surprised how close the two engine outlets are to each other. That can’t be too much of a good thing.
Its huge! I know everyone has said that already. But it’s HUGE! I mean gigantic. Gargantuan. Massive. Maybe should be renamed H-20. J/H-20. Or J/H-12.
The front canards are either tiny or the pictures aren’t doing it justice.
There seems to be (I may be wrong) something at the back below the canted fins.
Between, have I said it already? The plane is colossal, mammoth, titanic, cyclopean, behemothic, elephantine, commodious, monstrous, humongous, stupendous, serpentine, towering, dragon-sized, hulking, gulliverian, GrandeStrategic :D, stratospheric, supersized, blimpian, whopping.
This Balrog of a plane, needs an appropriate name. Perhaps Tiny 🙂
Edit: Name with an F for NATO designation – FRANKENSTEIN. No, that wouldn’t work. FOOTBALL. FEINOR. FITFUL (particularly for the F-22 pilots). FURBALL. FUTON, FEEBLE, FIDDLER, FUNNEL, FILIP(INO) :D, FORMOS(A), FAILURE, FANNY, FATHER :D.
@Grey Area, bots ah. Had enough of them. Been writing about bots all day and for the last 3 weeks.
Sign In
