Featured Pakistan's Shahpar II UAV Unveiled

[FuturePAF]

From the video (from 02:33 onward sequence), it is confirmed that the target was moving. Nice to see such a parameter in practical in the footage.

They should look at fitting that seeker (which can engage a moving target) on the YL-14 (Chinese equivalent to the SDB II Stormbreaker) and perhaps work on adding a MMW radar down the line, so this kind of drone (with its relatively small RCS) can take out a target 50-100 km away.

 

[khail007]

useless junk nothing serious in it . still making 2000s era drones in 2021

Sir G, AL-HAMDO-LILLAH, this is a good effort from Pakistan in reference to our infrastructure of education and manufacturing. Most of our graduated engineers are providing only supervisory/admin services to the nation. It is a great achievement of those who are working beside all odds.

 

[farooqbhai007]

Thats interesting, reason could be that older equipment is more resistant to jamming ?

The battery site still exists but site is now empty , meaning the Launchers have been put into storage since a few years.

 

[Bilal.]

They should look at fitting that seeker (which can engage a moving target) on the YL-14 (Chinese equivalent to the SDB II Stormbreaker) and perhaps work on adding a MMW radar down the line, so this kind of drone (with its relatively small RCS) can take out a target 50-100 km away.

Glide bombs depend on launch speed and altitude for range. UAV like this won’t get 50-100km range like a jet would.

 

[Pandora]

Agreed except its closer to a Reaper than a Predator, being a MALE and all.


The service ceiling is 20,000 feet, bit high for a piston, especially one of this size. A Cessna 172 is 14,000 feet, this is nearly 50% more. It would be the most advanced piston.
On the other hand its perfectly within the range of an okay Turboprop.

It falls between predartor and reaper bcz endurance is a bit low for armed version. All UCAV in its class can clock at least 14Hrs on an armed config. Although its more than enough for Pakistani need for a low cost armed drone.

 

[Vapnope]

LS-6 integration yay or nay?

 

[FuturePAF]

Glide bombs depend on launch speed and altitude for range. UAV like this won’t get 50-100km range like a jet would.

Fair point, perhaps develop the weapon and place it on a jet powered follow-on to this drone.

 

[PanzerKiel]

Thats interesting, reason could be that older equipment is more resistant to jamming ?

The lethality is not solely in its missile or missile range....even if the Mean Time Between Failure of the missiles themselves is absurdly low and dozens have to be fired to obtain one hit....

a SAM squadron costs little to operate and maintain, Its value is in deterrence, and the creation of complexities for the attacker. This is more important than the actual number of kills.

 

[ghazi52]

 

[JamD]

Something to think about:
Shahpar-I is powered by a 100hp Rotax 912 according to official specifications:

and a look at the aircraft's rear shows the engine taking up all of the space:

Now compare this to the rear end of Shahpar-II:

Shahpar-II is certainly much bigger, as we've already established, but look at how small the propeller cone looks relative to the airframe. Yes, the propeller disk is larger than Shahpar-I but you can see a lot of empty space in there. Furthermore, the airscoop is pretty large with an exhaust at the back. What I strongly suspect is that CURRENTLY Shahpar-II is being powered by the Rotax 912 from the Shahpar-I and that it has been designed with a larger engine in mind. This is speculation.


Furthermore, based on PAC's MALE's internal view here:

there is a section clearly designed for SATCOM but it is currently NOT installed. I believe the same is true for Shahpar-II. It is safe to assume that our SATCOM capability is not online yet. Therefore, Shahpar-II's (speculated) 100 hp engine isn't powering a SATCOM dish - and it probably can't. Yet another reason that I believe that Shahpar-II has been designed with a larger engine in mind.



Now the length and wingspan of this UAV is quite similar to TB-2. Furthermore, TB-2 is also powered by a 100hp engine, so it makes a natural comparison. Some specifications stick out:

	Length - Wingspan [m]	Engine Power [bhp]	Payload [kg]	Endurance

---

[TH]MTOW [kg][/TH]

---

[TR]
[TD]Shahpar-II[/TD]
[TD]6.2 - 9 to 12[/TD]
[TD]100[/TD]
[TD]120 + 50[/TD]
[TD]14 (unarmed variant for best case)[/TD]
[TD]850[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bayraktar TB2[/TD]
[TD]6.5 - 12[/TD]
[TD]100[/TD]
[TD]150[/TD]
[TD]27 (probably in clean configuration)[/TD]
[TD]650[/TD]
[/TR]

---

The airframes are similar in size but Shahpar-II is a good 200 kg heavier and has HALF the endurance. You could put this out to very primitive airframe design but I doubt that that is the case here. I know that pretty advanced/contemporary techniques are used for Shahpar-II. What is more likely is that Shahpar-II is currently flying with an undersized (for it) engine.

All of this would explain:
1. Why Shahpar-II has such a low endurance - it has to operate near or at maximum setting throttle, making it fuel inefficient.
2. Why Shahpar-II has a high MTOW - for reason 1 it has to carry more fuel to achieve a half-decent endurance

The fact that 50 kg internal payload is listed for Shahpar-II is also interesting. Part of this might be used for the future SATCOM installation.


So don't be shocked if in a couple of years we see a Shahpar-IIA or Shahpar-III that is a reengined Shahpar-II with an actual SATCOM. This isn't any insider info - just an educated guess on my part

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Something to think about:
Shahpar-I is powered by a 100hp Rotax 912 according to official specifications:
View attachment 797787
and a look at the aircraft's rear shows the engine taking up all of the space:
View attachment 797788

Now compare this to the rear end of Shahpar-II:
View attachment 797789
Shahpar-II is certainly much bigger, as we've already established, but look at how small the propeller cone looks relative to the airframe. Yes, the propeller disk is larger than Shahpar-I but you can see a lot of empty space in there. Furthermore, the airscoop is pretty large with an exhaust at the back. What I strongly suspect is that CURRENTLY Shahpar-II is being powered by the Rotax 912 from the Shahpar-I and that it has been designed with a larger engine in mind. This is speculation.


Furthermore, based on PAC's MALE's internal view here:
View attachment 797797
there is a section clearly designed for SATCOM but it is currently NOT installed. I believe the same is true for Shahpar-II. It is safe to assume that our SATCOM capability is not online yet. Therefore, Shahpar-II's (speculated) 100 hp engine isn't powering a SATCOM dish - and it probably can't. Yet another reason that I believe that Shahpar-II has been designed with a larger engine in mind.



Now the length and wingspan of this UAV is quite similar to TB-2. Furthermore, TB-2 is also powered by a 100hp engine, so it makes a natural comparison. Some specifications stick out:

	Length - Wingspan [m]	Engine Power [bhp]	Payload [kg]	Endurance

---

[TH]MTOW [kg][/TH]

---

[TR]
[TD]Shahpar-II[/TD]
[TD]6.2 - 9 to 12[/TD]
[TD]100[/TD]
[TD]120 + 50[/TD]
[TD]14 (unarmed variant for best case)[/TD]
[TD]850[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bayraktar TB2[/TD]
[TD]6.5 - 12[/TD]
[TD]100[/TD]
[TD]150[/TD]
[TD]27 (probably in clean configuration)[/TD]
[TD]650[/TD]
[/TR]

---

The airframes are similar in size but Shahpar-II is a good 200 kg heavier and has HALF the endurance. You could put this out to very primitive airframe design but I doubt that that is the case here. I know that pretty advanced/contemporary techniques are used for Shahpar-II. What is more likely is that Shahpar-II is currently flying with an undersized (for it) engine.

All of this would explain:
1. Why Shahpar-II has such a low endurance - it has to operate near or at maximum setting throttle, making it fuel inefficient.
2. Why Shahpar-II has a high MTOW - for reason 1 it has to carry more fuel to achieve a half-decent endurance

The fact that 50 kg internal payload is listed for Shahpar-II is also interesting. Part of this might be used for the future SATCOM installation.


So don't be shocked if in a couple of years we see a Shahpar-IIA or Shahpar-III that is a reengined Shahpar-II with an actual SATCOM. This isn't any insider info - just an educated guess on my part

---

I agree. I think a miniature turboprop program would fit really well here. It might be overkill for a design like the Shahpar-II, but it would create a lot of vertical room to build to through future UAV programs so that we don't have underpowered designs. You can also apply the turbine stack to turbofan and turboshaft engines for cruise missiles and VTOL UAVs, respectively. So, we can generate economies of scale as well.

 

[JamD]

I agree. I think a miniature turboprop program would fit really well here. It might be overkill for a design like the Shahpar-II, but it would create a lot of vertical room to build to through future UAV programs so that we don't have underpowered designs. You can also apply the turbine stack to turbofan and turboshaft engines for cruise missiles and VTOL UAVs, respectively. So, we can generate economies of scale as well.

Funny you should mention turboprop. The first draft of my post had speculated that Shahpar-II might be designed with a turboprop in mind due to the dual (top and bottom) intakes and very large exhaust, which looks overkill for a piston engine. However, I thought that this might be for cooling the 100 hp engine running at max setting, so I deleted the turboprop from my post. That being said, there is no reason that BOTH of those things aren't true.

 

[sparten]

@JamD you are forgetting the square cube law.

Square–cube law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Shahpar II is approximately twice the length of the original Shahpar. Surface area increases at the square of the multiplier, so it will have 4 times the surface are and volume increases at the cube of the multiplier so it will have 8 times the volume.
There is absolutely zilch chance that the Shahpar II uses the same engine. It would never take off.
And I agree, the pictures suggest a turboprop.
Turboprops usually have huge exhaust pipe and this has it.

How can I tell whether an aircraft is piston prop or turboprop by appearance only?

Answer (1 of 6): A turboprop will have one or two stainless steel exhaust ducts not far behind the prop pointing out and towards the back. A piston engine's exhaust will be further back , typically coming out the bottom and much smaller. See that pipe coming out the side of the cowling just behin...

www.quora.com

 

[Bratva]

@Ark_Angel

 

[JamD]

@JamD you are forgetting the square cube law.

Square–cube law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Shahpar II is approximately twice the length of the original Shahpar. Surface area increases at the square of the multiplier, so it will have 4 times the surface are and volume increases at the cube of the multiplier so it will have 8 times the volume. There is absolutely zilch chance that the Shahpar II uses the same engine. It would never take off.

No, I am not forgetting the square-cube law.

If Shahpar-II with the Rotax 912 has "absolutely zilch chance" of taking off, how do you explain the Bayratkar TB-2 taking off, which as I pointed out, has almost the same same dimensions and a 100 hp piston engine?

To further my point, a 100 hp engine on aircraft cruising at 80 kts will produce 1600 N of thrust. Now consider the absolute worst case weight of Shahpar-II: MTOW of 800 kg. This yields a T/W of 0.2. A little low T/W, yes; "absolutely zilch chance" of taking off, no. Many aircraft have T/W of 0.2.

@JamD you are forgetting the square cube law.

Square–cube law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And I agree, the pictures suggest a turboprop.

Of course, I can be wrong and there already is a turboprop in there, or it may be designed with one in mind and is currently flying with a piston engine. The reason that I would be suspicious of a turboprop is that we haven't seen that yet. But of course, there's always a first time. I don't know for sure, is what I'm saying.

@Ark_Angel

View attachment 797824

View attachment 797823


View attachment 797822

I believe he was referring to the PAC MALE UAV since Shahpar-II is definitely a NESCOM product (albeit by AWC) and Shahpar-II is carrying a payload identical to the CH-3/Burraq.