Pakistan interested in Hurkus C Low cost COIN aircraft

[Basel]

Yes, they are. That is exactly the reason why we did not employ any such 'grasshoppers' in Angola as they could be taken out by RPG-7 i the hands of cubans. I am not joking - one mission we had Dak come back with an RPG 7 hung in its tail. Impalas were there for that mission - in same league as K-8s as SA-7s were constantly a threat; flying in always at around 100m or lower.

For low level insurgency it is an overkill if mission is using standoff weapons. Ahrlac will do the job fine. Cheap and effective.
http://www.ahrlac.com/technical-overview.html
http://www.ahrlac.com/platform-overview.html

This look replacement of SMs, don't look in class of Super Tucano etc.

If a UCAV version is made it will be very good to have.

IOMAX Archangle looks better option

It's complicated situation as there are many similar systems are available, but with systems Maritime option available it will be good to have.

 

[war&peace]

Ultimately, COIN needs to be in the hands of the Ministry of Interior and Pakistan's paramilitary forces. Yes, that means vastly raising the quality of capability of the Frontier Corps (and others), but it has to happen. The armed forces proper should only be tuned for conventional warfare, leave internal security to internal forces.

If they can't be amalgamated, then I believe the Frontier Corps (both KP and Baluchistan) and Rangers (both Sindh and Punjab) should be downsized to make room for a separate National Guard.

Give the National Guard its own organic officer corps and NCO cadres. Give them the mandate to address high-risk internal security problems, including COIN. Equip them with Hürkuş-C, UAV, attack and transport helicopters, ISR assets, light armoured vehicles, etc. In conventional war, these same forces can be pivoted to guard infrastructure - such as energy sites, dockyards, shipyards, roads, etc.

I agree. But I think it should not be under an exclusive civilian control otherwise it will be politicised until and unless we have a mature political system (that may take decades) decides on merits instead of whims and desires of power hungry politicians. But I totally second that there should be a dedicated force with its own sub-command that is autonomous in operational and medium term decision making but army controls appointments and other strategic policies to avoid conflict. But army solely focusses on the international borders and LOC.

 

[Aasimkhan]

K8 is jet air craft, have lesser range & loiter time plus more maintenance prone compared to propeller air craft.
S Mushak is light trainer with limited payload. It becomes unstable while delivering bombs. Both K8 & Mushak will need several upgrades for carrying precise munitions. Idea of COIN specific light air support air craft is new & unique which is now followed by several nations around the Globe, have growing market as insurgency threats are increasing with passing days. Its actually a smart & pro active decision taken by army, we should appreciate that.......

You cannot buy a new plane for each and every role. You have to indigenize and evolve. Jet engines are more reliable than piston engines. K8 is a good platform to develop. You have mastered its technology. Try to master a few platforms than to be jack of so many.

 

[denel]

You cannot buy a new plane for each and every role. You have to indigenize and evolve. Jet engines are more reliable than piston engines. K8 is a good platform to develop. You have mastered its technology. Try to master a few platforms than to be jack of so many.

No friend, the push is towards turbo props not piston. Hurkus, Tucano, Pilatus all have turbo props which give then close to jet performance yet efficiencies. K8 is good no doubt, the issue has been a complete abandonment of will to pursue R&D projects on it for a decade now which i have mentioned

I do concur there is no need to have too many specialised models. For example, we had Impalas fullfiling multiple roles which K-8 can do no doubted well.

 

[Aasimkhan]

No friend, the push is towards turbo props not piston. Hurkus, Tucano, Pilatus all have turbo props which give then close to jet performance yet efficiencies. K8 is good no doubt, the issue has been a complete abandonment of will to pursue R&D projects on it for a decade now which i have mentioned

I do concur there is no need to have too many specialised models. For example, we had Impalas fullfiling multiple roles which K-8 can do no doubted well.

You are right, it takes 10 years for an air force to master the technology of a machine. K8 platform has fairly matured with us. We are the designers and manufacturers of these machines. We must enhance, improve, improvise these machines to our needs. Buying a new machine means wasting another 10 years at an exorbitant cost and further dependency on foreign supply chain.

 

[mrrehan]

T-37s.

Why we have received 34 T-37 from Turkey then? I would say its better to have jet then turbo prop.

 

[Aasimkhan]

Why we have received 34 T-37 from Turkey then? I would say its better to have jet then turbo prop.

We are already using T37s for last 40 years. It makes sense to get old T37s and use them either after refurbishment or for cannibalization.

 

[mrrehan]

I do concur there is no need to have too many specialised models. For example, we had Impalas fullfiling multiple roles which K-8 can do no doubted well.

Even K-8 is in use for a long time now why cant we make K-8 newer Block. To achieve better wing loading, fuel capacity better engine. while maintaining the K-8 as well. In recent scenario where US equipment are harder to be available Pakistan or to maintain. Pakistan have to keep use K-8 instead of F-16's for COIN. Upgrading an existing K-8 platform would be easier then inducting a new one.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Why we have received 34 T-37 from Turkey then? I would say its better to have jet then turbo prop.

Even K-8 is in use for a long time now why cant we make K-8 newer Block. To achieve better wing loading, fuel capacity better engine. while maintaining the K-8 as well. In recent scenario where US equipment are harder to be available Pakistan or to maintain. Pakistan have to keep use K-8 instead of F-16's for COIN. Upgrading an existing K-8 platform would be easier then inducting a new one.

The Turkish T-37s were sought to replace some old PAF T-37s and for spare parts. But at some point, operating very old planes itself becomes very cost prohibitive due to shortage of spare parts and increasing frequency of necessary maintenance and servicing. That's why new trainers are apparently being looked at.

As for why the Hürkuş and not the K-8. As a turboprop the Hürkuş has lower fuel costs than the K-8. If Pakistan decides to buy the Hürkuş with local production of spare parts and local servicing (it's already working on a MRO site for the Pratt & Whitney PT6 engine which powers the Hürkuş), then it may be cheaper to fly than the K-8.

If you're supporting the platform at home, then the lower fuel costs may be an advantage when it comes to training - the cost of dealing with failure/attrition pilots is lower and you can afford them more flying hours before they go on to jets like the K-8.

If the Hürkuş is in place for training with local parts production and MRO, then the infrastructure would be in place to induct the Hürkuş-C with relatively minimal added strain.

 

[mrrehan]

The Turkish T-37s were sought to replace some old PAF T-37s and for spare parts. But at some point, operating very old planes itself becomes very cost prohibitive due to shortage of spare parts and increasing frequency of necessary maintenance and servicing. That's why new trainers are apparently being looked at.

As for why the Hürkuş and not the K-8. As a turboprop the Hürkuş has lower fuel costs than the K-8. If Pakistan decides to buy the Hürkuş with local production of spare parts and local servicing (it's already working on a MRO site for the Pratt & Whitney PT6 engine which powers the Hürkuş), then it may be cheaper to fly than the K-8.

If you're supporting the platform at home, then the lower fuel costs may be an advantage when it comes to training - the cost of dealing with failure/attrition pilots is lower and you can afford them more flying hours before they go on to jets like the K-8.

If the Hürkuş is in place for training with local parts production and MRO, then the infrastructure would be in place to induct the Hürkuş-C with relatively minimal added strain.

Why should we leave the existing infrastructure of K-8. Then you probably ask for the same for MASSHAQ. We need smart light wight, more powerful, flue efficient, non US origin jet engines with a possibility of TOT. This is will be smart thing to do. then implementing a new infrastructure. We need to work on turbo gear engines with collaboration with China and Turkey. Engine is a serious business we need to get into sooner or later.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Why should we leave the existing infrastructure of K-8. Then you probably ask for the same for MASSHAQ. We need smart light wight, more powerful, flue efficient, non US origin jet engines with a possibility of TOT. This is will be smart thing to do. then implementing a new infrastructure. We need to work on turbo gear engines with collaboration with China and Turkey. Engine is a serious business we need to get into sooner or later.

1. The reason why the Hürkuş is being looked at (to replace the T-37) is lower flying costs than the K-8. Yes, the cost will be higher initially when the new plane is bought, but the savings from fuel cost over a period of 15-20+ years will make up for it.

2. The Hürkuş is very different from the Mushshak. The Hürkuş is turboprop powered with performance relatively close to an old jet like T-37 but with much lower flying costs, and the Mushshak is a piston trainer for basic training.

3. Pakistan already has experience and infrastructure for the Hürkuş' engine - the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6 via the Cessna Grand Caravan EX, King Air 350ER, etc. PAC began working on a MRO site for the PT6 in 2015. So the engine maintenance, which makes up a big portion of servicing, is already in place.

4. If the Hürkuş is bought it won't replace K-8, but take the role of the T-37 before K-8. Pilots from the Hürkuş will move to the K-8. Why not go straight from Mushshak? That will be costly in long-term operating costs, it might be cheaper to have Hürkuş in the middle to provide most training (and more flying hours) before sending to K-8.

 

[CriticalThought]

The Turkish T-37s were sought to replace some old PAF T-37s and for spare parts. But at some point, operating very old planes itself becomes very cost prohibitive due to shortage of spare parts and increasing frequency of necessary maintenance and servicing. That's why new trainers are apparently being looked at.

As for why the Hürkuş and not the K-8. As a turboprop the Hürkuş has lower fuel costs than the K-8. If Pakistan decides to buy the Hürkuş with local production of spare parts and local servicing (it's already working on a MRO site for the Pratt & Whitney PT6 engine which powers the Hürkuş), then it may be cheaper to fly than the K-8.

If you're supporting the platform at home, then the lower fuel costs may be an advantage when it comes to training - the cost of dealing with failure/attrition pilots is lower and you can afford them more flying hours before they go on to jets like the K-8.

If the Hürkuş is in place for training with local parts production and MRO, then the infrastructure would be in place to induct the Hürkuş-C with relatively minimal added strain.

Sir, do you see a pattern here? Pakistan supplying them Super Mashshak, getting Horkus in returning, there are talks about Turkey producing Thunder to beef up numbers, and we are partnering with them on 5th Gen. Of course it helps that there are very good reasons for Pakistan to go for Horkus as well. A lot brotherly support in a very expensive field of technology.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Sir, do you see a pattern here? Pakistan supplying them Super Mashshak, getting Horkus in returning, there are talks about Turkey producing Thunder to beef up numbers, and we are partnering with them on 5th Gen. Of course it helps that there are very good reasons for Pakistan to go for Horkus as well. A lot brotherly support in a very expensive field of technology.

Trading goods is OK but the real aim should be industry linkage such that Pakistan ends up exporting lots of parts, sub-assemblies and services to Turkey (and vice-versa). Something akin to US-UK trade relations. We want to keep the trade balance pretty close to evenly reciprocal (albeit over 40-50 years).

 

[CriticalThought]

Trading goods is OK but the real aim should be industry linkage such that Pakistan ends up exporting lots of parts, sub-assemblies and services to Turkey (and vice-versa). Something akin to US-UK trade relations. We want to keep the trade balance pretty close to evenly reciprocal (albeit over 40-50 years).

I hope this partnership expands to other military AND civilian areas as well.

 

[Aasimkhan]

Sir, do you see a pattern here? Pakistan supplying them Super Mashshak, getting Horkus in returning, there are talks about Turkey producing Thunder to beef up numbers, and we are partnering with them on 5th Gen. Of course it helps that there are very good reasons for Pakistan to go for Horkus as well. A lot brotherly support in a very expensive field of technology.

First you decide its going to be a military decision based on capability and requirement or a political decision based on brotherly relations ? these are two different things I am afraid.