Featured Pakistan's Shahpar II UAV Unveiled

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

The American assessment of our UCAV is that Burraq is approximately the level of a Predator and Shahpar II is that of a Reaper.(Key word here approximate, before you start jumping on me).
(We seem to have gone for a short and fat UAV design).
The fact that the Shahpar II is significantly bigger in size, makes me think that it’s a Turboprop rather than a piston engine.

The overall capability of the Shahpar II is likely in-between the Predator and Reaper. I think our real shot at developing a Reaper-class UAV is furthering the PAC MALE UAV program. The current version of the latter is approximately in the range of the MQ-1C. However, if and when PAC gets a handle on that design, they can (like China and Turkey are doing) enlarge it into a 3-4-ton class drone analogous to the MQ-9.

Looking at the NESCOM and PAC designs, it's starting to seem that the Shahpar-series -- if enlarged to an MQ-9-sized drone -- would go twin-engine, while the PAC drone would follow the Predator-to-Reaper development closely with a single-engine design.

The powerplant would probably be the main bottleneck as, at that point, the US will shutter any option using ITAR inputs (as it has sanctioned many of our major defence R&D organizations). Ukraine and Turkey would likely be our main potential engine suppliers at that point (I think China is unlikely as they wouldn't back a competing drone).

We could potentially get a 500 kW-ish turboprop from Ukraine, but ideally, we'd take in-house development a lot more seriously at that point. If we can't do 500 kW, we ought to at least get a start with a 100-150 kW design. In this case, we could have a dual-engine MQ-9-sized UAV as well as even upgrade our smaller designs and explore other projects, like a small twin-engine helicopter or a next-gen successor to the Mushshak-series. That said, the capacity building and expertise that leads a 100-150 kW design could lead to a 500 kW design and, 10-15 years from there, a 1,000-to-1,500 kW design.

Perseverance is key.

 

[Muhammad Saftain Anjum]

The overall capability of the Shahpar II is likely in-between the Predator and Reaper. I think our real shot at developing a Reaper-class UAV is furthering the PAC MALE UAV program. The current version of the latter is approximately in the range of the MQ-1C. However, if and when PAC gets a handle on that design, they can (like China and Turkey are doing) enlarge it into a 3-4-ton class drone analogous to the MQ-9.

Looking at the NESCOM and PAC designs, it's starting to seem that the Shahpar-series -- if enlarged to an MQ-9-sized drone -- would go twin-engine, while the PAC drone would follow the Predator-to-Reaper development closely with a single-engine design.

The powerplant would probably be the main bottleneck as, at that point, the US will shutter any option using ITAR inputs (as it has sanctioned many of our major defence R&D organizations). Ukraine and Turkey would likely be our main potential engine suppliers at that point (I think China is unlikely as they wouldn't back a competing drone).

We could potentially get a 500 kW-ish turboprop from Ukraine, but ideally, we'd take in-house development a lot more seriously at that point. If we can't do 500 kW, we ought to at least get a start with a 100-150 kW design. In this case, we could have a dual-engine MQ-9-sized UAV as well as even upgrade our smaller designs and explore other projects, like a small twin-engine helicopter or a next-gen successor to the Mushshak-series. That said, the capacity building and expertise that leads a 100-150 kW design could lead to a 500 kW design and, 10-15 years from there, a 1,000-to-1,500 kW design.

Perseverance is key.

Imagine if AWC with experience of shahpar 2, PAC with azm, NESCOM with anka s,some day join hands to develop something like National HALE UCAV,i am sure they can bring Reaper class UCAV for us.
But I know they will not come together for such projects

 

[sparten]

The overall capability of the Shahpar II is likely in-between the Predator and Reaper. I think our real shot at developing a Reaper-class UAV is furthering the PAC MALE UAV program. The current version of the latter is approximately in the range of the MQ-1C. However, if and when PAC gets a handle on that design, they can (like China and Turkey are doing) enlarge it into a 3-4-ton class drone analogous to the MQ-9.

Its a big drone and its dimensions are guesswork at this stage (since we have a picture on a truck with a soldier for comparison), but the Predator/Reaper approximations/role hold. Agreed its probably got more capability than the Predator and less than a Reaper, although some of the numbers of Reaper are dependant on loadout, for very long range missions it can't carry much ordnance for instance

Looking at the NESCOM and PAC designs, it's starting to seem that the Shahpar-series -- if enlarged to an MQ-9-sized drone -- would go twin-engine, while the PAC drone would follow the Predator-to-Reaper development closely with a single-engine design.

I think the NESCOM/PAC design differences are due mainly to the fact their customers are different services, with different requirements. NESCOM makes them for the Army, who want long loiter time and payload, not so much range. The PAC designs are for the Navy and PAF and they are very interested in long-range.

The powerplant would probably be the main bottleneck as, at that point, the US will shutter any option using ITAR inputs (as it has sanctioned many of our major defence R&D organizations). Ukraine and Turkey would likely be our main potential engine suppliers at that point (I think China is unlikely as they wouldn't back a competing drone).

We could potentially get a 500 kW-ish turboprop from Ukraine, but ideally, we'd take in-house development a lot more seriously at that point. If we can't do 500 kW, we ought to at least get a start with a 100-150 kW design. In this case, we could have a dual-engine MQ-9-sized UAV as well as even upgrade our smaller designs and explore other projects, like a small twin-engine helicopter or a next-gen successor to the Mushshak-series. That said, the capacity building and expertise that leads a 100-150 kW design could lead to a 500 kW design and, 10-15 years from there, a 1,000-to-1,500 kW design.

Perseverance is key.

Totally agreed. Propulsion is one area where we have lacked and we need to remedy that ASAP. Fortunately, Turboprops aren't that hard to make, especially for a UAV, which does not need cutting-edge stuff, you can for more conservative designs. Turboprops and Turbofans were a bottleneck for Cruise Missile development as well until recently.


Generally, we tend to be most secretive for UAV's. Shahpar I, Burraq and now Shahpar II were in service for a while before they were publically acknowledged.

 

[Marker]

Shahpar:

Burraq:

Why do they look alike?

 

[Syed_Adeel]

It was quite a while ago.
Here's the detailed video about Shahpar-II

 

[DJ_Viper]

It was quite a while ago.
Here's the detailed video about Shahpar-II

Can't understand the Urdu but the pics tell me it's an ISR drone? Why not armed to make it a UCAV?

 

[Bossman]

Private companies in Pakistan have a lot of stuff to offer...and great thing is they are working with Military too..

GIDS is not private. It is a front for NESCOM

 

[Sifar zero]

If Shahpar 2 has a payload of 200kg it can easily carry 4 or more MAM L missiles.

 

[sparten]

If Shahpar 2 has a payload of 200kg it can easily carry 4 or more MAM L missiles.

Payload can vary according to the mission parameters. You can reduce fuel and add more ordnance. You can also put in a fuckton of fuel and get much longer endurance. Or add mission-specific modules.

 

[KaiserX]

Shahpar:

View attachment 777979

Burraq:

View attachment 777980

Why do they look alike?

Shahpur 1- Unarmed reconissance drone
Burraq 1- Armed version of shahpur 1

Taking this into consideration Burraq 2 will be an armed version of Shahpur 2.

 

[Muhammad Saftain Anjum]

Shahpur 1- Unarmed reconissance drone
Burraq 1- Armed version of shahpur 1

Taking this into consideration Burraq 2 will be an armed version of Shahpur 2.

I think Nescom first made Burraq ,and then went for Anka S instead of improving burraq.

AWC designed Shahpar,and then went for shahpar 2 (good approch)

PAC built Falco and then went for Azm Ucav ( again good approach)

 

[Syed_Adeel]

Can't understand the Urdu but the pics tell me it's an ISR drone? Why not armed to make it a UCAV?

Yes its a medium range drone for ISR activities.
Although there is another similar drone BURRAQ developed by NESCOM with Armed with BURQ laser guided missile as well. So i see lesser scope for this drone in Pakistan even if it gets armed.

 

[S A L M A N.]

According to GIDS brochure Shapar is a product of GIDS and Zumr-1 is developed by AERO on of the seven or eight companies including SUPARCO forming the GIDS consortium. There is no info available on net which may reveal involvement of AWC in developing Shahpar and Zumer-1.

The National Engineering & Scientific Commission (NESCOM) is a Pakistani missile manufacturer and civilian research organisation of Pakistan, under the administrative control of the Strategic Plans Division of Pakistan's National Command Authority and is headquartered in Islamabad, Pakistan.

National Engineering & Scientific Commission (NESCOM) was formed in 2000 by amalgamating the National Development Complex, Air Weapons Complex, Maritime Technologies Complex and the Project Management Organisation.

Interestingly, Project Management Organisation is responsible for the development of UAV and UCAV systems for use by the Pakistan Armed Forces. Buraq and now Anka are being developed and produced by this organisation.

If you have any other source which contradict the above info, please do share with us.
Sources:

GIDS - Products

www.gids.com.pk

https://www.nti.org/learn/facilities/586/Interestingly.

DEPO

ideaspakistan.gov.pk

I won't be bragging when I say that what I'm writing below is the summary of around 4-5 years of looking at publicly available info about these orgs.

NESCOM -> civilian org responsible for BMs, CMs, UAVs and basically any other strategic systems (including warhead development)
NDC, AWC, MTC -> subsidiaries of NESCOM in the areas of BMs, CMs & UAVs and naval systems respectively
PMO -> probably UAVs (Uqab is known to be a PMO project)

GIDS -> a front company for NESCOM and all its subsidiaries, you will see GIDS at defence exhibitions marketing products made by NESCOM and its subsidiaries

AERO and many others -> front companies for NESCOM subsidiaries

I'll recommend that you Google 'Project Alpha King's College London' and look at the report which details all of the above.
I won't link the report here

 

[Syed_Adeel]

Imagine if it can be converted into a suicide drone ...

its capabilities are equivalent to armed BURRAQ drone.
Imagine if it can reach it target then it better to fire its weapons on them and come back for next mission instead of loosing the whole bird once and forever as a suicide drone.

 

[KaiserX]

I think Nescom first made Burraq ,and then went for Anka S instead of improving burraq.

AWC designed Shahpar,and then went for shahpar 2 (good approch)

PAC built Falco and then went for Azm Ucav ( again good approach)

Nescom didnt desing the burraq. They took the Shahpur 1 and made it armed.

Same for the Shahpur 2 the armed version will most likely be called Burraq 2.

The fact that 3 other people liked your none-relevant post shows the quality of discussion on this forum.

Anyone with 2 eyes can see that the Burraq resembled the Shahpur 1----150%

Some helpful info for newbies: