A Vision of a New Combined Arms Philosophy & Doctrine

[Armchair]

In a conversation with @Signalian I was reminded of some work that I had been doing over the past 15 years off and on. Mainly idle thinking and daydreaming, and some written stuff.

The basic idea that has been brewing in my head has been that military doctrine has mainly been imported from the West, and never truly grown and bred in South Asia. At a time when Western military doctrine is in shambles and stagnant, it is strange to see this.

For one thing, the terrain, the labour to capital ratio, the weather, the scenarios are largely different from what the West has faced. So it made no sense to me to keep being mentally enslaved by their thinking.

I daydreamed of a form of warfare and an epistemological approach that would shock and dramatically change the dynamics. For instance, the use of tanks and fighters, whose quantities are so precious, is constrained in India and Pakistan because they are psychologically conditioned to preserve assets and take lower risk maneuvers. The armor to infantry ratio is also abysmal compared to what takes places in Europe.

In this state, it makes far more sense to produce, for instance, a cheap and effective tank that can be locally mass produced. But neither India nor Pakistan did that. Instead, they copied the patterns of Russian and Western tanks, and tried to up-gun each other. Rather than creating the necessary infrastructure for a sustained mass production of tanks and munitions that would mean they can outnumber and outlast the opponent.

Another issue has been that CAS aircraft have lost out. Not because they aren't effective, but because of a very curious politics and Western requirement. Firstly, the West needs attack helicopters because they are a lot easier to deploy in LHDs and in expeditionary units. Secondly, because of US Army - USAF politics, the US Army was banned from having its own CAS aircraft. The USAF neglected this requirement like a step-child. the US Army countered by building Attack helicopters.

CAS aircraft are the cheapest and sanest way to build effective airpower as concerns ground support. For instance, a simple CAS aircraft that has armor, something like the BAe SABA, can be built for 5 million to 7 million USD, while the recently acquired Apaches cost 60 million US each (Pakistani T-129s cost about 40 million each). The value for money has never been a question for anyone who technically studied and compared the two.

Another issue that outdates and makes modern Western doctrine insufficient is that emerging disruptive technologies such as ATGMs make armor doctrine and battlefield doctrine less relevant and in need of updating.

Armor increasingly needs to move with infantry, more than the eras without ATGMs. Infantry itself is effected as bunkers and other structures become less effective. This means, in WW2 terms, infantry tanks are needed rather than the Tiger tank philosophy followed so far.

The tiger tank philosophy is also less meaningful in face of modern precision bombing and airpower.

Another impact of precision battlefield weapons is that direct fire weapons such as tank guns are less relevant. NLOS (non line of sight) weapons are more relevant. This means that the time is ripe for a platform that combines mobility and the indirect firepower of artillery-like systems to come to the fore.

All of these issues taken together, one could imagine a new form of warfare. I've day dreamed of that in my own scenarios and solutions. And have written of it on occasion. What I believe is that we can create a new form of military, something like what the Germans did before the start of WW2.

This could potentially defeat India in a manner from which there would be no recovery. Over the years I've come to believe it is very practical, real and possible. And over the years I've been frustrated that it hasn't been done or that no one seems to be able to think outside of the box enough to imagine it.

Mass production, such a vital ingredient of battle, has been near completely forgotten. Today's tanks are so complex they have production rates that WW2 veterans would be left astounded, and not in a good way.

I want to start this thread to discuss and envision new forms of warfare that can take place in the context of today's South Asia. I want to imagine such innovative weapons and tactics employed to completely shatter the old way of thinking.

I believe it is possible. Will you join me on a journey to imagine it?

@Signalian @FuturePAF @MastanKhan

 

[Armchair]

Let us imagine that Signalian gives Armchair 5 billion dollars and says "go ahead, go nuts". Here is what I would do:

1. To engage in maneuver warfare you need the right training. This means from the squad leader to the sargeant to the lieutenant. The kind of training needed, the conditioning, is still missing. This needs to be inculcated effective (and no, reading a few textbooks, memorizing notes and passing exams at the war college of officers does not prepare your military for maneuver warfare). $5 million spent on training and education.

2. Take the basic concept of the BAe Saba, a simple, rugged and effective CAS platform. Use the Chinese HS-5 or similar 1000-1200 HP piston engine to build a similar aircraft. A simple 20mm cannon. FLIR. precision weapons, rocket pods, bombs. Cost per unit $4-7 million. 100 of these $600 million

3. A new generation "tank". 76mm gun, 8x ATGM, engine is forward (500 hp). Simplified tank nothing fancy or foreign. rear escape and troop compartment for 4x troops, of whom 1 keeps a manpad. 30 tons. $0.5 million each. 4000 units. $2 billion.

4. Using the same platform as 3, build a mobile mortar, indirect fire infantry support. Also 4x infantry, one of whom carries a manpad. 500 units. $250 million

5. An air assault brigade with a portion using heliborne forces, a portion as a parachute battalion using C-130s, and a portion using Y-5s. Will need helicopters, Y-5s and assorted equipment, prime of which is lightweight artillery. $500 million

We have spent 3.355 billion. Still have a bit to go but let's keep that in reserve for now. Next I will go into employment of these assets in the wider scheme of things.

 

[Signalian]

For the CAS aircraft you will need three types of armament on it, to start with:
1. A 30mm gun for strafing runs.
2. An air to surface missile, like AGM-65, KH-29 etc for taking out armoured vehicles. Carrying capacity 4-6.
3. General purpose bombs for bombing runs against bunkers, bridges, C4I structures and command HQ's.
Optional could be rocket pods.

F-7 can suit this role, otherwise A-5 wasn't bad too. I cant find my post on F-7 for ground role.

The main gun is a debatable topic. Gun length(48-52 cal), ammunition used(AP,HE,MPAT), muzzle speed, range etc but mostly the targets that a 76mm gun and 125mm gun could be facing. After expending all ATGM's, the 76mm main gun of tank wouldn't be able to take on heavy targets like other MBT's, armored veh's, bunkers etc.

If new launchers are made for firing ATGM's like M2 Bradley or will ATGM get fired from main gun like T-80 ? Modern ATGM's are above 120mm in caliber, so the main gun has to be atleast 125mm e.g. Refleks is 125mm, TOW is 152mm, SPIKE is 170mm etc.

Coming to engine, 500 HP engine will have two limitations;

1. Up-armouring the MBT or putting more ERA on MBT will slow down the tank. As a reference, 40 Ton MBT using 700 HP engine is acceptable by PA.
2. Desert requires lots of travelling in high speeds over a vast area especially for flanking maneuvers, a slow tank wont be able to sustain itself properly even when negotiating obstacles or if it gets stuck in sand or mud.

 

[Army research]

There is a idea I intend to bring in written form by the end of the year for which I've been researching for quite some years now , a new armoured warfare vehicle which will be cheap to produce and be an instant force multiplier , allowing a force of 4 inferior tanks with one proposed vehicle total strength five fight of at least 12-15 enemy superior tanks in an ideal scenario ,
God willing if I am able to complete a report on it I will try to send it to industry manufactures but one thing I'm afraid of is Pakistan brass isn't known for appreciating innovation and I'm worried which department I should contact
Also the said vehicle would be designed specifically for the Pakistan vs indo scenario ie an asymmetric tool for a qualitative and quantitative inferior force to damage a a superior force in a shock battle of attrition,

Also something I've noted in this regions military history not much emphasis is placed on shock tactics apart from special forces, if we look at the past from Napoleon era forward all major successful forces Prussia nazi Germany etc used shock tactics especially conquest of France should be a example of what can be mimicked In a indo pak scenario in which a inferior quality and quantity force uses shock to defeat a superior force

 

[Armchair]

Some brilliant replies, thank you gents!

The F-7s are going to be difficult to use in this role. F-7s were designed as high speed interceptors, while what you need is something that has solid loiter time, can operate from rough semi-prepared fields, has armor, and designed to be cheap, produced enmass.

The concepts you could look up are the "blitzfighter", the BAe SABA. My cost estimates suggests I can produce these at about 4-7 million dollars each. You may be surprised at the low price, but there are certain "shortcuts" I'm taking, which I can discuss at another opportune moment should the need arise.

Suffice it to say, I can produce something that looks approximately like this:

Now, for ease of mass production (the #1 criteria for me), we would need to standardize to the minimum effective weapons, and to keep them low cost. @Signalian has already provided this in a very effective and concise way. Here is my mod to his list:

1. 20mm cannon instead of 30mm (lowers weight and strafing runs are increasingly outdated in a conventional battlefield)
2. Some anti-tank ASM
3. Dumb bombs and rockets
4. CIRIT as precision strike

No radar, just FLIR, NVG, MAWS

A basic, tough, armored ground attack brute. In large quantities. A game changer.

Now, armies today employ CAS and strike aircraft from forward airbases. We will have a different doctrine and philosophy. They will be operated by the army, not the airforce, and by army personnel. They will also move with the armored formations, or just behind them, in quickly prepared rough fields. This is perfectly feasible and possible, and the aircraft is designed from the ground up for this purpose.

This will allow very close and effective coordination between the ground forces and the CAS aircraft. It will also keep the enemy guessing as the "airfield" is constantly changing on a daily basis.

The main gun is a debatable topic. Gun length(48-52 cal), ammunition used(AP,HE,MPAT), muzzle speed, range etc but mostly the targets that a 76mm gun and 125mm gun could be facing. After expending all ATGM's, the 76mm main gun of tank wouldn't be able to take on heavy targets like other MBT's, armored veh's, bunkers etc.

Remember, we are building 4000 odd units. We won't be outnumbered. Each will have two quad-packed ATGM launchers. Meaning each can theoretically destroy 8 enemy MBTs. This is already overkill, not to mention PA already has a host of MBTs with big guns. The small caliber gun would lower the costs, lower the weight, lower the complexity, lower the stabilization system costs,...
Bottom line is the lower caliber gun is perfectly able to take care of all brands of APCs and IFVs, is ideal to provide a good quantity of supporting firepower to infantry, and that's all it needs.

Since the ATGMs are not launched from the barrel, it doesn't need a big caliber. A simple gun that can be locally produced. A simple stabilization system. Low weight. Low complexity. All mean very large numbers at low cost...

In WW2 parlance, this is an infantry tank designed like a T-34 - for mass production.

Coming to engine, 500 HP engine will have two limitations;

1. Up-armouring the MBT or putting more ERA on MBT will slow down the tank. As a reference, 40 Ton MBT using 700 HP engine is acceptable by PA.
2. Desert requires lots of travelling in high speeds over a vast area especially for flanking maneuvers, a slow tank wont be able to sustain itself properly even when negotiating obstacles or if it gets stuck in sand or mud.

Now, if we manage to keep the gun small, the ammo needed will also weigh less. The stabilization system would be cheaper and lighter...
If we keep the tank at 30-40 tons, we can keep costs down. A 500 HP engine would be a whole lot easier to mass produce and cheaper because they are similar to large trucks and earth-moving engines, i.e. not proper tank engines but a close-enough substitute. The key here is simplicity and mass production.

Now, between Sialkot to the north, and Multan to the South, this tank should generally have no problem. Further south, the desert increasingly becomes wilder, and these tanks would not be ideal. You'd be better off with AKs and T-80s. Still could play a supportive defensive role, but the main focus of utilizing these tanks would be between Sialkot to Multan, employed in numerous mechanized divisions.

Quantity has a quality all its own.

If this is an infantry tank, its not designed to go very fast. But rather at a moderate pace. Well, mostly at an even slower pace, as it will be supporting infantry, which never goes fast to be honest. Definitely not in the South Asian weather. Flank maneuvering will be done at best, at a slightly faster trot, at moderate pace. If anything faster is needed, AKs and T-80s can fit that role.

There has actually never been a truly rapid and incisive thrust by either India or Pakistan. There are training and mindset reasons for this imho.

With ATGM teams and air power, very rapid, unsupported thrusts (largely by tanks without infantry or artillery support) has generally been a failure.

Instead, our numerous mechanized formations will focus on true to the blood combined arms operations, moving at a moderate pace with all elements working coordinatedly.

4000 additional infantry tanks to what PA already has would be a game changer. 100 odd CAS aircraft would devastate Indian formations. There is no need to make these weapons more complex, rather the trick of the trade is ease of mass production...

Along with the CAS element in each brigade, there will be an air assault element. CAS + air assault will tent together, somewhere behind artillery in the ground order of battle. Their aim will be to punch through weak points and flank Indian infantry while blunting Indian armor.

The sheer numbers and the combined effect of CAS, artillery, mobile mortar, giant numbers of infantry tanks, infantry, would overwhelm traditional Indian infantry divisions. Indian armored divisions are also not equiped to be able to handle effectively such a force.

What will follow would be decimation of Indian forces in the plains of Punjab, further south and further north. But this needs to be explained in more technical terms and with fewer broadbrush strokes.

 

[Armchair]

Structure of the Brigade

The armored brigade currently in PA use 2 tank regiments each. Infantry is missing and added ad hoc from a separate infantry brigade. This is a pretty ridiculous situation to have, as the kind of close coordination and teamwork needed, that needs to be built over time, can never really be done adequately with that structure.

So for our new armored brigades, the following structure would be more appropriate:

1. 2 tank regiments per brigade, 1 mechanized infantry (APCs), 1 mobile artillery regiment. Since our tanks have 4 infantry within the tank each, this will provide close integration and cooperation of the units. Every 8th unit will be a mobile mortar NLOS. Every 10th tank will be an MBT.

As you can see, basically, each brigade is more like an independent brigade. This will allow significant flexibility in tactical combat. We will call these brigades "Flex" brigades.

There will be a total of 45 tanks, whether MBTs, NLOS or infantry tanks in each regiment. So each brigade will have 90 tanks.

2. Air component regiments will be held by the division command, with 1 air component regiment each

3. Each division will have two flex brigades and 1 motorized infantry brigade, along with 1 extra artillery regiment and 1 air component regiment. Each division thus has 180 tanks. With 4x infantry with each tank (other than the MBTs), that's 162x4 =648 contiguous infantry units, not counting the mechanized infantry.


With a total of 4500 tanks (infantry and NLOS combined), there is now a capacity for raising a maximum of 25 new Flex divisions!
But this is being optimistic as the necessary artillery and support components need to be raised or reassigned. Also the 1 in 10 MBT will mean about 500 MBTs are needed which have not been budgeted.

We have some spare cash left and some cooperation from the armed forces left, where traditional units can be cannibalized.

 

[CriticalThought]

I see a bunch of mediocres whose uninformed discussion is quickly converging towards a 'medio-cracy'. It is a travesty when mediocrity is given 'freedom of expression'; it is absolute destruction when mediocres acquire a high conceit of themselves.

When your mind fails to grapple with the odds you are facing, and you relegate yourself to accepting 'cheap and numerous' as a plausible solution to your problems, it is better to give up, rather than give form to your defeat through words that reek of desperation. The title of this thread should be changed to 'Pathetic options for poor, third world nations who really can't afford modern weapons'.

If this is indeed the level of our intelligentsia, then I suggest we raise the white flag now. These idiots who think they are somebody, will ruin this nation.

There was a time when I would see red when I encountered such discussions on the forum. And I countered with exactly what I thought such discussion deserves: choicest rebukes, freely given. These days, I can simply point out; read this and it will show you the mirror:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/pakistaniat-and-its-remedy.559533/

 

[Armchair]

I see a bunch of mediocres whose uninformed discussion is quickly converging towards a 'medio-cracy'. It is a travesty when mediocrity is given 'freedom of expression'; it is absolute destruction when mediocres acquire a high conceit of themselves.

When your mind fails to grapple with the odds you are facing, and you relegate yourself to accepting 'cheap and numerous' as a plausible solution to your problems, it is better to give up, rather than give form to your defeat through words that reek of desperation. The title of this thread should be changed to 'Pathetic options for poor, third world nations who really can't afford modern weapons'.

If this is indeed the level of our intelligentsia, then I suggest we raise the white flag now. These idiots who think they are somebody, will ruin this nation.

There was a time when I would see red when I encountered such discussions on the forum. And I countered with exactly what I thought such discussion deserves: choicest rebukes, freely given. These days, I can simply point out; read this and it will show you the mirror:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/pakistaniat-and-its-remedy.559533/

What an ugly and nasty post. Seems your usual. Don't like this thread? Go elsewhere.

 

[Army research]

I see a bunch of mediocres whose uninformed discussion is quickly converging towards a 'medio-cracy'. It is a travesty when mediocrity is given 'freedom of expression'; it is absolute destruction when mediocres acquire a high conceit of themselves.

When your mind fails to grapple with the odds you are facing, and you relegate yourself to accepting 'cheap and numerous' as a plausible solution to your problems, it is better to give up, rather than give form to your defeat through words that reek of desperation. The title of this thread should be changed to 'Pathetic options for poor, third world nations who really can't afford modern weapons'.

If this is indeed the level of our intelligentsia, then I suggest we raise the white flag now. These idiots who think they are somebody, will ruin this nation.

There was a time when I would see red when I encountered such discussions on the forum. And I countered with exactly what I thought such discussion deserves: choicest rebukes, freely given. These days, I can simply point out; read this and it will show you the mirror:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/pakistaniat-and-its-remedy.559533/

Sorry I guess , hi tech can be sourced from local graduates yet subcontinental bureaucracy stands in the way,
As for following stalins ideology I'm totally against it a cheap tank cannot counter a expensive tank especially if they're are more of the later, yet cheap asymmetric force multipliers can increase fire local fire superiority of fewer, equal to enemy armoured regiments

 

[Armchair]

Stalin's strategy defeated Nazi Germany, accounting for 80% of German WW2 losses, defeating one of the greatest militaries history has ever seen. Conquering a huge chunk of Europe. Not that the above replicates Soviet strategies, it brings a new paradigm, a new synthesis of ideas given disruptive technologies today.

For instance, an ATGM is not intelligent enough to know how expensive your tank was, and whether it was called Arjun or gai matha. Nor will an ATGM launched from a "cheap" infantry tank call back and say "alright commander, but exactly how much was that tank you launched me from? I've a reputation to maintain you know..."

 

[CriticalThought]

Stalin's strategy defeated Nazi Germany, accounting for 80% of German WW2 losses, defeating one of the greatest militaries history has ever seen. Conquering a huge chunk of Europe. Not that the above replicates Soviet strategies, it brings a new paradigm, a new synthesis of ideas given disruptive technologies today.

For instance, an ATGM is not intelligent enough to know how expensive your tank was, and whether it was called Arjun or gai matha. Nor will an ATGM launched from a "cheap" infantry tank call back and say "alright commander, but exactly how much was that tank you launched me from? I've a reputation to maintain you know..."

Except, a cheap ATGM wont be able to penetrate depleted uranium armor topped with ERA and guarded with active protection.

The future battlefield may even see something like Iron Dome optimized for ATGMs. In any case, we know for sure that robots will be used in large numbers.

Cheap on this thread is a compromise, versus cheap as in indigenously mass produced.

 

[Army research]

Stalin's strategy defeated Nazi Germany, accounting for 80% of German WW2 losses, defeating one of the greatest militaries history has ever seen. Conquering a huge chunk of Europe. Not that the above replicates Soviet strategies, it brings a new paradigm, a new synthesis of ideas given disruptive technologies today.

For instance, an ATGM is not intelligent enough to know how expensive your tank was, and whether it was called Arjun or gai matha. Nor will an ATGM launched from a "cheap" infantry tank call back and say "alright commander, but exactly how much was that tank you launched me from? I've a reputation to maintain you know..."

Sir cheap doesn't mean using less power full equipment assymetric tools are needed, systems designed to disable aps of s tank and destroy it's era from a long range would be a cheap but modern vehicle severely crippling a tanks defended allowing own tanks to establish local fire supremacy and by shock destroy enemy tank commanders moral which was inflated by his trust in his now disabled or destroyed defensive sub systems ,
I'm terribly sorry but simply going with cheap and mass produced will do nothing
When the machine gun was first produced a single machine gun which cost as much as 10 rifles was able to hold of attacks by hundreds of rifle men in 1914 1915

 

[Armchair]

Its always good to do your research about things like "ATGMs won't be able to penetrate". What tanks are you facing? What is the flight profile of ATGMs? What kind of results have been seen from recent conflicts of even Merkava, among the most heavily armored tanks in the world, against ATGMs?

How would T-90 tanks in the IA face such a threat? What is the tonnage of Turkish / Israeli tanks versus Indian tanks?

What was the results from the Ukrainian conflict? The Syrian conflict?

It is not a matter of being sorry, one should make proper arguments and try to learn from others, my friend.

T-34s were a "cheap" tank (military professionals never use such terms, these terms are used by civilians when they go to the market to buy their products) but was effective at what it did.

Anyhow, I would like this conversation to be more about employment, tactics and strategy rather than about price or specifications in a vacuum. This can help make the discussion more interesting and meaningful. @Signalian wouldn't you agree?

For instance, if the dominant paradigm has become that infantry must accompany tanks in battle, given the threat of ATGMs, at what speed does this happen? Do you need a tank that can go at 60 km / hour or one that can go at 30 km / hour ?

What kind of armor is suitable, given the threats in the 2010s and 2020s? For instance, there is an argument that tank armor could be designed from the ground up using spaced armor and ERA as integrated components, designed from the get-go. This could increase the effectiveness of ERA, say as embedded ERA membranes.

How effective can the armor be for a 35 ton tank with a relatively small (500 hp) engine and a light gun (76mm) and lighter ammo?

What are the benefits of mass production? How do costs go down, as production runs increase? What kind of Economies of Scale and Economies of Scope can be achieved?

Standardized components can also bring benefits to other important projects. For instance, a variation of the same 500 hp engine can be used for heavy trucks (critical for motorized infantry and logistics units), for APCs (important for mechanized infantry).

So, basically, one engine factory can supply the engine for a wide variety of vehicles, significantly lowering per unit costs.

Utilizing MBTs, Infantry tanks, APCs, mobile mortars, artillery, and air assault assets (CAS aircraft, helicopters, Y-5s), there could be some very interesting and innovative approaches that could be utilized tactically. And many benefits as well.

For instance, if opposing Indian MBTs chose to utilize their faster pace to flank such a unit how could own forces react?

When you use such maneuvers, it is difficult to do so with infantry support and with artillery. What has happened historically is the tanks alone go into such a confrontation.

Own forces could use its own MBTs, It could use its CAS aircraft, air assault teams to counter such a move. Contained, it could then proceed to use its Flex units to catchup, and decimate the enemy.

 

[Signalian]

Structure of the Brigade

The armored brigade currently in PA use 2 tank regiments each. Infantry is missing and added ad hoc from a separate infantry brigade. This is a pretty ridiculous situation to have, as the kind of close coordination and teamwork needed, that needs to be built over time, can never really be done adequately with that structure.

So for our new armored brigades, the following structure would be more appropriate:

1. 2 tank regiments per brigade, 1 mechanized infantry (APCs), 1 mobile artillery regiment. Since our tanks have 4 infantry within the tank each, this will provide close integration and cooperation of the units. Every 8th unit will be a mobile mortar NLOS. Every 10th tank will be an MBT.

As you can see, basically, each brigade is more like an independent brigade. This will allow significant flexibility in tactical combat. We will call these brigades "Flex" brigades.

There will be a total of 45 tanks, whether MBTs, NLOS or infantry tanks in each regiment. So each brigade will have 90 tanks.

2. Air component regiments will be held by the division command, with 1 air component regiment each

3. Each division will have two flex brigades and 1 motorized infantry brigade, along with 1 extra artillery regiment and 1 air component regiment. Each division thus has 180 tanks. With 4x infantry with each tank (other than the MBTs), that's 162x4 =648 contiguous infantry units, not counting the mechanized infantry.


With a total of 4500 tanks (infantry and NLOS combined), there is now a capacity for raising a maximum of 25 new Flex divisions!
But this is being optimistic as the necessary artillery and support components need to be raised or reassigned. Also the 1 in 10 MBT will mean about 500 MBTs are needed which have not been budgeted.

We have some spare cash left and some cooperation from the armed forces left, where traditional units can be cannibalized.

IABG's have 2 Armor + 1 mech inf Bat +1 SP Arty configuration. Problem is that they are only 7 or 8.

4500 Tanks need alot of support units like more APC's, more ATGM teams, more SP Arty, more SP AD, more utility trucks, more oil tankers, more EME wksp units, more ordnance units, more production of ammo by POF.

The tank friendly terrain will require these 25 flex divisions, where will you deploy them?

 

[Army research]

IABG's have 2 Armor + 1 mech inf Bat +1 SP Arty configuration. Problem is that they are only 7 or 8.

4500 Tanks need alot of support units like more APC's, more ATGM teams, more SP Arty, more SP AD, more utility trucks, more oil tankers, more EME wksp units, more ordnance units, more production of ammo by POF.

The tank friendly terrain will require these 25 flex divisions, where will you deploy them?

Imagine a drone with a reusable small and cheap drone with a single atgm on it and flight radius of 3-5 km, this is very very possible if the old bureaucratic men actually tap the computer and mechanical engineering talent in Pakistan rather than letting the West steal it.
My basic point is the situation of Pakistan is a unique one and requires unique solutions however they should be technologically advanced , no need to go back to old tech