Quwa
Research Partner
- Joined
- May 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,538
- Reaction score
- 47
- Country
- Location
Bro, this is the problem. Everything you just wrote (about Ra'ad II) is a good analysis, but it isn't fact, it's just your perspective. Yes, it's well informed, but such a perspective can never replace a hard fact unless it is confirmed by the authorities. Also, nothing you wrote actually disputes my points - what about the Ra'ad weight? Why hasn't been cleared for the JF-17 yet? What, we don't want to show it off even though we showed off having ALCMs to begin with?Calm down dude...there is a lot going on the Ra'ad project and that's much better than any other option including the SOM. Ra'ad uses more advanced systems of navigation and with nuke capability, it is hell of a weapon. However one major area where more can be done is the engine development. Ra'ad has a stated range of 350 km with current engine which as an ALCM is not bad but should be improved.
Ra'ad II will fit J-31's internal bays.
If tomorrow we see this Ra'ad II with a lighter body and more range, then yes, I will embrace it for what it is and stop my fingers from typing about the SOM. However, until that is the case, we can't use an analysis of the Ra'ad program as a means to disqualify the SOM or other options.
For example, I can claim that because the Ra'ad's range is 350km, it is possible that we are producing its micro turbojet, which is a huge plus since Turkey currently imports the turbojet for SOM. But this is just a claim. It makes lots of sense and could be true, but until NESCOM or AWC confirm this is to be the case, I can't go around throwing this above the SOM.
Last edited: