Tajdar adil
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2010
- Messages
- 223
- Reaction score
- 0
Pakistan need to upgrade the rang of Babar and Raad missile.
Babur's New Prospectus ?
- Thread starter Windjammer
- Start date
Arsalan
THINK TANK CHAIRMAN
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 18,178
- Reaction score
- 65
- Country
- Location
nops!
it is wrong preception.
Raad is actaully an independent air launched cruise missile.
the air launcehed version of babur is something else, it may be dropped now as PAF might be happy enough just to improve on range of raad rather then working on a new missile system.
however the sea launched version is underdevelopment.
curently we have no VLS on our warships so it might not be as effective!
regards!
SnIPeR Xr
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2010
- Messages
- 188
- Reaction score
- 0
Pls explain how Ra'ad is an Independent CM.
How air launched version of Babur can be something else.
Both Ra'ad & Babur have same configuration:
1.Both uses turbo fan engine.
2.Both have same guidence systems.
3.Both can use nuclear or conventional warhead.
Ra'aD is made in Pakistan where all projects run under the one Umbrella 'NESCOM'.
Why would they be running two seaparate projects for same purpose under one roof????
Have they got so much money to do this or they dont have any other projects to work on them???
If Ra'ad was made in U.S By some company,running its projects separately from other organization then you can say that "Maybe some other company is working on the similar project".
Or
If Babur was to be product of some company & Raa'd came from a different company then you can say that the manufacturer of Babur is probably working on its airlaunched version.
But
This can only happen in countries like US,Russia & china not in Pakistan where all projects are handeled by one organization.Why would they be increasing their workload by running two projects of same Purpose & with both of them having same specifications???
I dont think that they are Mad enough to do this or they dont have any other work to do thats why they are doing this.
They just gave Ra'ad another name & designation & people start thinking that Ra'ad is something else
So it is Misperception that Ra'ad is not an air launched version of Babur but infact Ra'ad is air launched version of Babur.
& I am damn sure that when an Antiship version of Babur will come out it will also be given another name or designation(Although Antiship missiles do not share many similarities with Cruise missiles so in this case it deserves to give the Ashm another name).
& as i stated earlier that I read it in "Jung" news paper that "Air launched version of Babur CM has been given the name Ra'ad.".
Given the reputation of "JUNG" NP i dont think that they are fool enough to say such a thing without any confirmation.
redgriffin
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2005
- Messages
- 268
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Raad and Babur are two different missiles. Just look at their configuration and dimensions.
Raad is obviously designed for low observability. It's design is more in line with that of the Taurus and MUPSOW than Babur.
Anybody can see they are two different missiles from their configuration alone.
But everybody is entitled to their own views/delusions.
Raad is obviously designed for low observability. It's design is more in line with that of the Taurus and MUPSOW than Babur.
Anybody can see they are two different missiles from their configuration alone.
But everybody is entitled to their own views/delusions.
Quwa
Research Partner
- Joined
- May 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,538
- Reaction score
- 47
- Country
- Location
Ra'ad has a different airframe (low-observable, squarish, etc) than Babur (cylindrical & conventional)...Pls explain how Ra'ad is an Independent CM.
How air launched version of Babur can be something else.
Both Ra'ad & Babur have same configuration:
1.Both uses turbo fan engine.
2.Both have same guidence systems.
3.Both can use nuclear or conventional warhead.
Ra'aD is made in Pakistan where all projects run under the one Umbrella 'NESCOM'.
Why would they be running two seaparate projects for same purpose under one roof????
Have they got so much money to do this or they dont have any other projects to work on them???
If Ra'ad was made in U.S By some company,running its projects separately from other organization then you can say that "Maybe some other company is working on the similar project".
Or
If Babur was to be product of some company & Raa'd came from a different company then you can say that the manufacturer of Babur is probably working on its airlaunched version.
But
This can only happen in countries like US,Russia & china not in Pakistan where all projects are handeled by one organization.Why would they be increasing their workload by running two projects of same Purpose & with both of them having same specifications???
I dont think that they are Mad enough to do this or they dont have any other work to do thats why they are doing this.
They just gave Ra'ad another name & designation & people start thinking that Ra'ad is something else
So it is Misperception that Ra'ad is not an air launched version of Babur but infact Ra'ad is air launched version of Babur.
& I am damn sure that when an Antiship version of Babur will come out it will also be given another name or designation(Although Antiship missiles do not share many similarities with Cruise missiles so in this case it deserves to give the Ashm another name).
& as i stated earlier that I read it in "Jung" news paper that "Air launched version of Babur CM has been given the name Ra'ad.".
Given the reputation of "JUNG" NP i dont think that they are fool enough to say such a thing without any confirmation.
Ra'ad ALCM:
http://www.defence.pk/gallery/data/719/medium/DSC03062.JPG
Babur GLCM:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Babar_Cruise_Missle_at_Ideas_2008.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bb/BaburCruise.jpg/275px-BaburCruise.jpg
Clearly these are different missiles, even if they do share the same turbojet/turbofan and subsystems (its quite common for different missiles to share components). In the following years you'll see Ra'ad and Babur have different development paths. For example, Ra'ad will likely adopt more design attributes from MBDA Storm Shadow and Babur from the Tomahawk.
Regarding naval cruise missiles for launch from ships and submarines, these will be different from Ra'ad but might be variants of Babur. The Babur's design allows for it to be launched from VLS and horizontal submarine tubes. Even the MBDA SCALP Naval (based on the Storm Shadow but a different missile) is cylindrical.
Last edited:
nightcrawler
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,400
- Reaction score
- 0
@SnIPeR Xr
there occurs three visible differences
there occurs three visible differences
- Nosecone of Raad is much conical than babur
- As opposed to Babur; tailwings of Raad are horizontal with respect to missile; also there occurs vertical stabilizers airframe
- No solid booster joined in series with missile airframe in Raad
-
That is why Babur has a rounded shape because at initial stages booster give it much high speed relative to Raad; also Raad is designed to be launched by plane at high altitudes where thinning of air occurs which thereby reduces drag & resulting temp ; Babur at sea level has to face the air of greater density plus greater speed (via solid booster) makes rounded nosecone a necessity. - T-type* horizontal/vertical stabilizers in Raad controls its decent much more precisely than only vertical stabilisers available on Babur. Babur doesnt have T-type arrangement because it leads to excessive drag in ascent of missile
* - No need for inline booster arrangement in Raad as is already launched at higher altitudes (no ascent needed) often by a plane at supersonic speed. Do remember if in future Raad be converted to some Ramjet type engine a separate booster may/mayn't be required depending on the initial launching speed of missile platform. Figure urself out why??
SnIPeR Xr
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2010
- Messages
- 188
- Reaction score
- 0
Is it neccessary to make the airlaunched version of any CM almost same as ground version????
Yes there is a diference B/w the design of Babur and Ra'ad & both are totally different from each other but it is not necessary to always make the air launched version same as GLCM.
The only thing is that manufacturers decided to make the airlaunched version stealthy and maybe in order to Incorporate stealth on air Launched version the design of GL version was not fulfilling the demand of stealth so they decided to adopt a different design & maybe after looking at the designs and status of Taurus Kepd & Storm shadow they decided to make Ra'ad in that way.
But what are the Basic technologies used by Ra'ad and Babur i.e propulsion system & guidence system....
Propulsion system of Ra'ad:
Turbo Fan engine.
Babur also use Turbo fan engine for propulsion.
Guidance system of Ra'ad:
INS,TERCOM,DSMAC,GPS and COMPASS
Babur also use INS,TERCOM,DSMAC and GPS
When Babur was made there was a need of its Airlaunched version.So after making the preliminary analysis of the specifications and role of that missile the need for acquiring its basic technologies for that missile arrived But they were already present in the form of Babur i.e propulsion system & guidence system.So the guidence systems and propulsion system were taken from Babur But in order to make the missile highly stealthy the need for changing its design and the components of airframe arrived.So at that point engineers decided to make its design and Airframe different from the GL version and also in accordance with the launch platform,Atmosphere faced by missile & in accordance with the guidance systems.
Some members think that because UK/FRANCE/GERMANY/SWEDEN dont have any long-medium range GLCM & have assigned this role to Taurus Kepd & Storm Shadow So they are different dimension of ALCMS but this is totally wrong thinking
Now if any missile comes into their league it doesn't mean that it has to be a different missile or not to be based on any GLCM.
It is not the fault of that country who have a medium range GLCM & have made its air launched version similar(Different design from GLCM version) to the league of Taurus KEPD and Storm shadow so that the ALCM can not only fulfill the need of airstrike of that GLCM from airborne platforms but also to compete with the missiles present in the above mentioned league .
Such a wise decision from our defence authorities & decision makers & here some of our members(I am feeling no hesistance in calling them fools) are expecting the Highly IDIOTIC move from our defence authorities of making another sub sonic ALCM with same guidance systems & for the same purpose which Ra'ad is already fulfilling just because some of us wants our childish wish to be filled of having another ALCM to call that ALCM AL version of Babur.
And to call Ra'ad an ALCM similar to Storm shadow.
Some childs want the two same missiles in our arsenal just to compare one with storm shadow & other to call it the AL version of Babur.
& no one even knows or Appreciating our Defence authorities of taking the job of two with one Missile
They think that our NESCOM is like DRDO who will do this foolishness just to make some childs happy.
In the ends its all about that we want to keep our hopes alive of expecting another ALCM similar to the already we have.
And thats why some of us are consistently Believing in this rubbish that Ra'ad is not an AL version of Babur.
We can say that only in the case if Ra'ad was to be Using TURBO JET instead of TURBO FAN.This will make it different from Babur because propulsion system of Ra'ad which is currently TURBO FAN is based on Babur and this is among the basic technologies used by Ra'ad.
If any one wants to continue believing this rubbish that Ra'ad is not an AL version of Babur.
Then for god sake Please atleast admit that Ra'ad is based on Babur
So that the people browsing PDF should not make fun of us.
mjnaushad
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2008
- Messages
- 6,737
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Why not...If its not same in design then why would we call it Air Launched version of same missile....
If what you are saying is true then why dont Americans call AGM129 a AL version of Tomahawk......Both a just little different....
I think we should call JF17 a air launch version of Alkhalid....After all both not necessary needed to be same in shape, range, design, etc etc....
If they failed to make babur air launch version stealth and they changed the whole design then how come its the same babur anymore....
Some of the missile mentioned below also use turbo fan to fly....
BGM-109 Tomahawk (US)
TAURUS KEPD 350 (Germany/Sweden)
Hyunmoo III cruise missile (Japan)
DH-10 (China)
I think they are all version of our babur....Picture below...
sorry wrong image
Its Called using your experience to make new product different in many prospect....Not AL Version of that previous one....
Please enlighten us with teh right thinking.....
Now if any missile comes into their league it doesn't mean that it has to be a different missile or not to be based on any GLCM.
It is not the fault of that country who have a medium range GLCM & have made its air launched version similar(Different design from GLCM version) to the league of Taurus KEPD and Storm shadow so that the ALCM can not only fulfill the need of airstrike of that GLCM from airborne platforms but also to compete with the missiles present in the above mentioned league .
Such a wise decision from our defence authorities & decision makers & here some of our members(I am feeling no hesistance in calling them fools) are expecting the Highly IDIOTIC move from our defence authorities of making another sub sonic ALCM with same guidance systems & for the same purpose which Ra'ad is already fulfilling just because some of us wants our childish wish to be filled of having another ALCM to call that ALCM AL version of Babur.
And to call Ra'ad an ALCM similar to Storm shadow.
As i am one of the idiots which you just mentioned i would like to ask few idiot question....
As making Air Launch version of babur in shape of Raad they must have thought that its going to be flying with an aircraft so use a material which is less bulky and help the aircraft take more of the missile....Then why the AL Babur (Ra'ad) range is lower than Babur??
I know a kid who have different cruise missile.....Not the same one with AL version
I know another kid who have super sonic and working on sub sonic and also working on super sonic intercontinaltal all are different ....some fool kid eh
Another kid ...ohh man i cant count his different missile...
one more kid i can see....he is also a fool
The kids names are US, India, Russia, China....
& no one even knows or Appreciating our Defence authorities of taking the job of two with one Missile
We do appreciate our scientist for making TWO different products...
They think that our NESCOM is like DRDO who will do this foolishness just to make some childs happy.
Uncalled for comment.....
i'll stick with the rubbish part......
Answered it above...
If any one wants to continue believing this rubbish that Ra'ad is not an AL version of Babur.
Then for god sake Please atleast admit that Ra'ad is based on Babur
So that the people browsing PDF should not make fun of us.
Experience gained in Babur is used but doesn't mean it based on it....
I think there is no point of making fun ..... Its rather an achievement that we made two different products which are different from each other ...I dont know why are you feeling it as someone will make fun....And even if they do who give a damn.....
Quwa
Research Partner
- Joined
- May 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,538
- Reaction score
- 47
- Country
- Location
Sharing the same propulsion and guidance system doesn't equate to being the same missile. If the point is to hit targets on the ground, why develop an entirely new guidance system? We've already agreed that the airframe of Babur and Ra'ad are substantially different, so they're essentially different designs and different systems. As for calling it similar to the Storm Shadow, why not? They're both ALCM and seem to share some design characteristics, why should we stunt our development by not fully adopting some of the good characteristics of Storm Shadow later on?
SnIPeR Xr
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2010
- Messages
- 188
- Reaction score
- 0
Please explain how it doesn't equate to being the same missiles.
I think SAME PROPULSION & GUIDANCE system is the criteria used all around the world to call two missiles version of each other.
According to you its not then what is it???
Design???
This is Kh-55 ALCM:
This is RK-55 ground and sub launched missile:
Have you noticed how same they are in design???
Now you will think that Kh-55 is AL version of RK-55!!!
but it isn't
So According to "KID" Russia Kh-55 is not an AL version of RK-55.Even when both share same design .
Who the Heck said that Ra'ad uses different guidance system??
Ra'ad uses the same guidance systems which Babur uses.Earlier you agreed on that but now you are...
Why they should essentially be different systems????
How different design and airframe makes some missile not a AL version of its GL version.
Do you even know that how much there is a difference between launching some missile from ground and another from AIR.
How on earth a person can think that there is no difference in the movement of an object while starting its journey from air and when from ground.
Especially when a missile who start its flight from air and it has to be as or more stealthy like its ground based counterpart then it automatically alters for change in its design.
And thats why Ra'ad is not same in design with Babur.
Yes Ra'ad is similar to storm Shadow But it doesn't mean that if Storm shadow dont have any ground based counterpart then it is necessary for Ra'ad that it does not have to be based on any GLCM.
But you should also know that unlike Ra'ad Storm shadow use TURBOJET for propulsion instead of TURBOFAN which is Ra'ad 's propulsion system.
(and as i said earlier that the only case in which we can say that ra'ad is not an AL version of Babur is when Ra'ad was to be using TURBO JET instead of TURBOFAN which is propulsion system of Babur).
And also as per WIKI Ra'ad has 100 km range advantage over SS(SS have 250 Km range).
SnIPeR Xr
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2010
- Messages
- 188
- Reaction score
- 0
Why not...If its not same in design then why would we call it Air Launched version of same missile....
If what you are saying is true then why dont Americans call AGM129 a AL version of Tomahawk......Both a just little different....
.
So you also believe in that perception that only similarly designed missiles can be called as versions of each others...
Lets see what is the fate of that perception.
Now i have to repeat it.
Kh-55 ALCM:
RK-55 GLCM:
NOTE:I have posted the second pic of RK-55 so that you wont get confused with the warhead placed in the nose cone in the first pic.Dont worry its just warhead the view of nose cone is in 2nd pic.
SO RK-55 and KH-55.Former is ground and sublaunched version & latter is an ALCM.
Both have same design and you will be thinking
that KH-55 is an AL version of Rk-55 but before jumping into any conclusion just look at the links which i have posted in the reply to Mark sein in the above post.Those links are saying that Russians dont call KH-55 an AL version of RK-55 even when they both share similar design.
So if similar designs are not the criteria of calling a missile versions of each other than what else the criteria remains???
Surely only propulsion system and guidance system remains the criteria for calling the two missiles versions of each other.
We call Ra'ad Air Launched version of Babur because both have similar guidance and propulsion system.
& these two are the basis for calling two different dimensioned missiles version of each other.
Design is not the Base for calling two different dimensioned missiles version of each other.
Example is RK-55 and KH-55.
Coming back to your point of AGM-129 and Tom ahawk:
I think you dont know that AGM-129 is an AIR LAUNCHED version of BGM-109 G GRYPHON GROUND LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE which itself was a Ground Based variant of Tom ahawk.Tom Ahawk is used by USN while BGM-109 G GRYPHON GLCM was the land based GLCM with Range of 2500 km.
The BGM-109 G Gryphon served the US army from 1983-1981.It was removed from the service of US army after the INF treaty which was signed between USSR and US which reduced the number of warheads and thats why BGM-109 G was removed from the US army.
BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Variants of Tomahawk:
AGM-129 is based on Gryphon which was programmed to be launched from both air and ground but the changing threats compelled the AGM-129 into all aspect stealth ACM.
AGM-86 B was not able to penetrate into enemy airdefences so thats why the newly designed ACM was made with all aspect stealth long range.
The MRASM didn't got into the service but after that AGM 129-ACM was developed.
It uses the same W80 series warhead and Williams International F112-WR-100 Turbofan,whose different variants are used in Tomahawk family of missiles.
And your thinking that Tomahawk and ACM have same design is wrong.ACM has forward swepted wings,totally different Nosecone and different aft wings.While Tomahawks design is totally different from that of ACM.
The case of Ra'ad and Babur is very similar to the case of Tomahawk and ACM.
Tomahawk is also stealthy,But ACM has not adopted the tomahawks design.
ACM's all aspect stealth was made due to changing threat perceptions and so was of Ra'ad's.
HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA
Not so funny.
OH god looks like my bad time.I am debating with a person who can't differentiate a fighter jet and Tank
Its the same Babur's changed,Adopted & modified design according to the environment.
And design is not the base for Declaring a missile not based on other.
They are its Brothers not versions.
sorry wrong image
Oh Babur look with whom Naushad saheb are comparing to you .
Its called using your experience and Technologies gained from making a product to highly modify the product and make its another Dimensioned version.
But according to Mjnaushad We should only put the experience in the product leave the Propulsion system and guidance system.
Sorry man but you have to believe on me that if you will put only experience in an ALCM trust me it will not gonna fly because according to aerodynamics rules an air vehicle have to have wings and engine installed in it to fly.
I am enlightening you just listen to me carefully and use your brain you will get enlightened.
Yes you are an Idiot but i dont mind while answering to idiots.Just ask the question.
Ok here is the answer
Ra'ad has to be launched from air so it has to be light weight and in order to achieve stealth,composite materials should be used in air frame.
The answer of bolde part is that..
Ra'ads lenght is 4.85 m and Baburs lenght is 6.25 m(7m with booster).
As Babur is longer then Ra'ad so it can carry more bigger,powerful engine and more fuel.Thats why Ra'ads range is less than Babur.
I know your next Idiotic question will be that because Raad is shorter thats why it is not an AL version of Babur.
So before you will ask I am asking you an Idiotic Question that why AL Harpoon,AL Bra-samosa & AL club have shorter Lenght than GL versions???
No that kid have One technology of missile of which he has made AL and GL versions.Its just some of his illitrate family members who dont know anything about them.But dont worry they are in less numbers.
O ya I know that Kid too.Yes indeed he is a fool kid.Because for so many years that kid borrowed the supersonic garbage and he lied to the people that he have made it.But afteryears when his long hard work of making fool to the people that his SS garbage is worth something failed,so he decided to walk on the path of his Rival kid who has made the right choice of selecting right technology.
Oh NO NO NO.you are wrong except the second kid all other kids are very intelligent and brilliant in every field.
I also appreciate but Cap part is answered above.
Guts ,knowledge,logic and sources are needed to answer it.A person not having them should not waste our time.
Good for you,A person Should not forget the place from where he belongs.
SO you are trying to say that only EXPERIENCE of Babur is used in Ra'ad not the Engine,technlogy,Guidance system and stealth system.
Then how Ra'ad is flying because so far i have read that engine and wings are used to fly a vehicle..
Other people will surely gonna make fun of us.Because if we will continue our wishful thinkings then thay will start questning our scientist than how you guys are making such a good systems when you belongs to a nation who believs in nonsense...
Quwa
Research Partner
- Joined
- May 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,538
- Reaction score
- 47
- Country
- Location
Not only do RK-55 and KH-55 share a similar design, but according to YOUR own links, they have the same propulsion (R-95-300 turbofan) - hence they must be variants of one another according to both mine and your own logic. So please discard this example from your argument...
AGM-129 uses the following powerplant:
F112-WR-100 Turbofan
AGM-129 ACM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BGM-109 uses the following powerplant:
F107-WR-402 turbofan
BGM-109 Tomahawk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is interesting...so at some point they decided to further develop F107 for use on an ALCM? And so they went to develop basically a new turbofan as well as design for AGM-129, yet somehow AGM-129 is just a variant of BGM-109? BTW...I also went and did a search, and I couldn't find a source saying AGM-129 is based on BGM-109G...can you please give us that evidence please?
nightcrawler
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,400
- Reaction score
- 0
@SnIPeR Xr
Well there's a major difference of a solid booster(an integral part on GLCM)
Well there's a major difference of a solid booster(an integral part on GLCM)
SnIPeR Xr
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2010
- Messages
- 188
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes both RK-55 and KH-55 share a similar design and According to my links they have similar propulsion system.Still russia dont call them variants of each other.
Similar design theory is yours not mine.
Dont put your own perceptions on me after what you have got the clear cut answer of the rubbishery being believed by some members.
I thought you are an expert on Aeronautics but now it looks like that I have to change my view about you.
Both RK-55 and KH-55 are for long range strategic strike so they both must have TURBOFAN installed on them.Thats why they have similar propulsion system.
A simple reason.
But its your similar design theory which is proved wrong through this example.
Why discard this theory???
Just because of that it has proved you wrong...
This part is not Understandable.What F107 and ALCM are you talking about?From where this F107 comes?
The evidece is in my post in which I replied to Naushad.
The Evidence clearly says that there was a plan for AL version of BGM-109 First named MRASM for short range strike.But the removal of Gryphon from service and the study by the USAF showing AGM-86 not sufficient for penetration of soviet air defences results in the long range,low RCS AL ADVANCE CRUISE MISSILE-129.
And your engine point Is laughable.
All ALCM's in the world have different engines from their ground versions,'Smaller and Compact'(In some cases the difference is little).
After all they have to be carried on an air vehicle who have to fly,maneouvre and have to carry his and arnaments weight also.
SnIPeR Xr
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2010
- Messages
- 188
- Reaction score
- 0
What NoN sense...
All ALCM's in the world dont use solid Booster.Those are AIR LAUNCHED ANTISHIP MISSILES who use solid booster because of the different mode of their target i.e "MOVABLE".
Dont confuse cruise missiles with Antiship missiles.
For Strategic use of cruise missiles,For example against Stationary targets on Land TURBO JET or TURBO FAN engines are used and among them,TURBO FAN in AL missiles dont require solid booster until and unless Used for Antiship role but they are not used in Antiship missiles.TURBO JETs are preferred over Turbofans in Antiship missiles.
Similar threads
- Article
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Bajwa calls Bushra's allegations against Saudi Arabia 'baseless'
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts
-
Bajwa calls Bushra's allegations against Saudi Arabia 'baseless'
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
-
-
-
-
