Featured Pakistan's Shahpar II UAV Unveiled

[ghazi52]

Size comparison between Shahpar-1 & Shahpar-II UAVs by GIDS

 

[dBSPL]

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'd like to add a few minor additions to help you compare: TB2 acceptance tests were conducted in 2014. TB2 completed its first fully autonomous flight test on April 29, 2014. In tests on 14 June 2014, an altitude of 27,030 feet (8,240 m) was reached with MTOW / full load. In the flight test carried out on 5-6 August in the same year, it traveled 4,040 km at an altitude of 18,000 feet (5,500 m) with full load and remained in the air for 24 hours and 35 mins. However, over the past 7 years, the TB2 system has undergone major enhancements several times. Over time, improvements were achieved in load capacity and flying time.

With these improvements, a wide range of uses emerged, from the communication/signal, navigation relay to the classic air support role. These systems are inexpensive, easily available, and truly hard-to-detect tactical systems. So I have full faith that Shahpar-II will have a great career; as long as the PAF can put forward a correct doctrine that can make the most of these planes for its unique circumstances and geography.

We defense industry enthusiasts always like to talk about numbers, but if you ask me, the most important factor that increases the power multiplier of these weapons is unique doctrinal approaches which specialized for UAVs.

 

[JamD]

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?
View attachment 797820


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.





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.

Also, let me just add that I would expect a bigger payload and a higher cruise speed with a turboprop.

I'd like to add a few minor additions to help you compare: TB2 acceptance tests were conducted in 2014. TB2 completed its first fully autonomous flight test on April 29, 2014. In tests on 14 June 2014, an altitude of 27,030 feet (8,240 m) was reached with MTOW / full load. In the flight test carried out on 5-6 August in the same year, it traveled 4,040 km at an altitude of 18,000 feet (5,500 m) with full load and remained in the air for 24 hours and 35 mins. However, over the past 7 years, the TB2 system has undergone major enhancements several times. Over time, improvements were achieved in load capacity and flying time.

With these improvements, a wide range of uses emerged, from the communication/signal, navigation relay to the classic air support role. These systems are inexpensive, easily available, and truly hard-to-detect tactical systems. So I have full faith that Shahpar-II will have a great career; as long as the Pakistani military can put forward a correct doctrine that can make the most of these planes for its unique circumstances and geography.

We defense industry enthusiasts always like to talk about numbers, but if you ask me, the most important factor that increases the power multiplier of these weapons is unique doctrinal approaches which specialized for UAVs.

Thank you for those details! They are certainly insightful! The TB-2 makes a natural comparison for the Shahpar-II and presents where it may go in the future. I do wonder how the TB-2 is able to squeeze out that much performance for its size/engine. Can you comment on that?

 

[Bratva]

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

---

Your assumption about future of Shahpar or rest of drones has a higher chance of becoming correct because China is manufacturing lot of engines which Pakistan can pick and choose and put it into its next gen class of drones.

AECC
https://720yun.com/t/68vkz7p7sdh?scene_id=81322704

AEP500发动机

WZ-16

YULONG

AEP60

AEP80

https://twitter.com/x/status/1464500242271780864

As @Bilal Khan (Quwa) guesstimated, No complete Chinese knock-offs for pakistan instead Local products with Chinese sub-systems

 

[Bilal.]

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.

When you first broke the news about Shahpar II before it’s unveiling I remember you also spoke of indigenous weapons to go with it. So when are we going to see those instead of Chinese knock-offs?

 

[JamD]

Your assumption about future of Shahpar or rest of drones has a higher chance of becoming correct because China is manufacturing lot of engines which Pakistan can pick and choose and put it into its next gen class of drones.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1464500242271780864

As @Bilal Khan (Quwa) guesstimated, No complete Chinese knock-offs for pakistan instead Local products with Chinese sub-systems

That is precisely what I was thinking about. Thank you for posting those brochures, I had gotten lazy trying to find them.

When you first broke the news about Shahpar II before it’s unveiling I remember you also spoke of indigenous weapons to go with it. So when are we going to see those instead of Chinese knock-offs?

People tell me less and less the more I break news haha. It is only natural. To answer your question, I have no idea. Honestly, I was a little surprised to see the Burq/AR-1 on the Shahpar series. But things change. Honestly, I don't know what the current situation is.

 

[dBSPL]

Also, let me just add that I would expect a bigger payload and a higher cruise speed with a turboprop.

Thank you for those details! They are certainly insightful! The TB-2 makes a natural comparison for the Shahpar-II and presents where it may go in the future. I do wonder how the TB-2 is able to squeeze out that much performance for its size/engine. Can you comment on that?

IMHO, the Shahpar-II could go beyond the specs you wrote above in a few years. This is the nature of aircraft engineering. You can improve the flying algorithms, or , for example, you can cool the engine better, or, for example, improve the aerodynamics, thereby improving flight time.

The story of Tactical Blok Baykar goes back to 2007. The first flight for Block A was made in 2009, contract negotiations started in 2010 and acceptance tests were carried out in 2014. (Meanwhile, there were some political crises and Baykar tried to be eliminated by NATO gladio cliques) Today, the system has left behind 400,000 hours of flight, and more than 280 TB2s are serving in the world armies so that this system gained combat proven feature in 4 different wars. Baykar is still looking for ways to improve this system. In the coming years, it will start flying with much more powerful engines and SATCOM, and the ability to land on naval platforms will be added. Frankly, I don't want to take the topic out of context by suffocating it with TB2, but if you can be more specific in your questions, I can find you content from Turkish sources.

To conclude, IMO these tactical systems are an asymmetric force multiplier in some certain conditions, that can change the course of the tactical field in today's warfares. And also the domestic production of these weapons is very strategic and should not be underestimated, TAF neutralized 7 Pantsir systems in a few days with a similar system, which is probably a world record. The lost TB' system was replaced within hours. This was not even reported in the media, but if a fighter jet had crashed there, the public pressure would have been incredible. Of course, tactical aircraft is not the only factor here, which is why I say right doctrine is so important. From the ammunition you use to the control station and all other military elements within the command and control structure, they are all part of the big picture. Pakistani engineers have done a great job, now it's time for the PAF staff to come up with the warfare model that can best use this system.

 

[Pappa Alpha]

Any idea what kind of data link will be used for this? Different companies are developing indigenous software defined radio for JF-B3 but I reckon that will be too heavy for this drone.

 

[JamD]

@Bilal Khan (Quwa)
Is the reduction in the endurance of the armed version an MTCR thing? It could also be just the replacement of the armament weight with internal fuel weight. Or both.

 

[Rank]

Useless.. too late and nothing Wow.. Chinese already offered a much better platform, more payload, much lesser cost.. failed to understand why we need this... already operating many combat drones...

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Proud Moment for many Pakistanis to see this Machine made in Pakistan
Capability Enhancer in remote areas



Congrats to Engineers who worked on this completed Project
While it is not using a Jet Engine but the lessons learned from Design will pave way for Next version

The missiles on this bird can knock out 12-16 party Troop formation
Dent a Armored vehicle cause serious casualties
Knock out a Enemy fortified building

 

[White Lion]

@Bilal Khan (Quwa)
Is the reduction in the endurance of the armed version an MTCR thing? It could also be just the replacement of the armament weight with internal fuel weight. Or both.

Though this question is asked to a very senior member still ill like to reply.
The internal fuel capacity remains the same but the aerodynamics change with the addition of armament hence more fuel is consumed as drag increases. This also has a secondary effect i.e reduction is the height it can fly as the engines need more power to operate at higher altitude with increased drag.

 

[JamD]

Chinese already offered a much better platform, more payload,

That is true of course.

...much lesser cost...

doubt this very much. Chinese equipment is cheaper compared to western alternatives but it is not dirt cheap. I recall seeing quite a ridiculous cost for the import of 100 Chinese REK's. I suspect that their high cost was one of the reasons for the development of the I-REK.

Useless.. too late and nothing Wow... failed to understand why we need this... already operating many combat drones...

It is less to do with platform that we see today and more to do with what it can become in the future. When we buy a Chinese UCAV, we are the operators. When a new model comes up, we buy that. We buy the payloads that the Chinese sell us. We buy their spares. It's the spares where they get you.

Shahpar-II is where TB2 was 2014 (see posts by @dBSPL). I'm sure nobody was talking about the TB-2 back then. Now look at the status and utility that it has. Our own joint chiefs made it a point to visit their facility:

With our own system we can make modifications at will, we can make it as specific to our needs as possible, we can adapt it to our doctrines, we can induct it in large numbers, we can integrate whatever we want on it - we have all the data on it - we own the IP. Most importantly, we can handle attrition/maintenance for much cheaper than an import.

Who knows, in a decade Shahpar-III becomes an export success like the Super Mushaak is right now. Of course, that might not happen. At the very least it will give our military exactly what they want at a fraction of the cost - procurement and more importantly operational costs. If we just buy Chinese UCAVs because they are better in capability right now, then there's no chance of a Shahpar-III being an export success (because it doesn't exist), and our military is at the mercy of Chinese support to keep our UCAV fleet up.

It's a matter of short-term vs long-term thinking. What you say is correct in the short-term. I am thinking more of the long-term.

 

[JamD]

Though this question is asked to a very senior member still ill like to reply.
The internal fuel capacity remains the same but the aerodynamics change with the addition of armament hence more fuel is consumed as drag increases. This also has a secondary effect i.e reduction is the height it can fly as the engines need more power to operate at higher altitude with increased drag.

Thank you for your reply regardless!

I agree with what you said, and I did think about it. However, the reason I was curious was that the addition of two missiles should NOT halve the endurance merely due to aerodynamic effects. An equation for endurance used for preliminary design is:

With all other things being equal, for the endurance to be halved, the coefficient of drag needs to double. I very much doubt that the coefficient drag of Shahpar-II doubles due to the addition of two missiles/pylons.

In my opinion the more plausible explanation is that the MTOW is limited by engine power and that 120kg weight is replaced by fuel (for which there is excess volume I'm assuming). 120kg of fuel should be around 37 gallons and the Rotax 912 can run 8 hours on that. Of course, the actual calculation isn't this simplistic but it should be ok for a rough idea.

 

[Sayfullah]

We should look into making a dual engine variant of shahpar II that can carry a mini cruise missile so when we have a 27 Feb type situation again instead of sending mirages in to do the strike we can send a couple shahpar’s with mini cruise missiles that have range of 100 kms to knock out Indian targets. Even if a couple shahpar get shot down it won’t be a issue since we can build more at a cheap price