nightcrawler
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,400
- Reaction score
- 0
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
BABUR Missile
The Babur’s twin-spool RD95-300 turbofan, derived from the 36MT engine developed by Russia’s NPO Saturn, is embedded in the tail and uses a ventral air inlet duct (which pops out after missile launch) and tailcone exhaust. The missile’s rear section also mounts a four-surface tail control assembly with anhedral on the stabilators. The 700lb thrust engine with a thrust-to-weight ratio of 4.8:1 comprises a single-stage centrifugal compressor, two-stage fan with a two-stage low-pressure booster, a reverse-flow annular combustor with rotary injection, a turbine section with one high-pressure and two low-pressure stages.
It uses a special high-density blended aviation turbine fuel that has more energy for a given volume than standard fuels, and can endure harsh weather conditions and long storage periods.
The Babur has a length of 7.2 metres, diameter of 0.52 metres, wingspan of 2.67 metres, and a 450kg HE blast/FAE warhead. After its launch by a solid-fuel booster, the cruise turbofan cuts in, giving the Babur a cruising height of 1km (that drops to 200 metres in the terminal phase), speed of 880kph and a range of 600km.
it have IIR terminal seeker—offering a CEP of 10 metres
Raad ALCM:
As part of its efforts to bolster its offensive firepower the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has begun inducting into service the Hatf-8 (also known as ‘Raad’ or ‘thunder’ in Arabic) air-launched cruise missile (ALCM). Described as having a range of 350km (220 miles) and equipped with an imaging infra-red (IIR) seeker with digital scene-matching capability, the conventionally armed ALCM has been under development since 2003 and will be capable of being launched by the PAF’s fleet of F-16, upgraded Mirage IIIEA and JF-17 ‘Thunder’ combat aircraft. Military-industrial entities responsible for developing the ‘Raad’ are Pakistan’s Wah Cantonment-based Advanced Engineering Research Organisation, or AERO (previously known as the Air Weapons Complex) and the Kentron subsidiary of South Africa’s Denel Aerospace Group.
Typically, two ALCMs will be carried by the combat aircraft’s two inboard underwing pylons, each of which is rated at 2,041kg for manoeuvring flights at up to 5.5 g. Targets to be engaged by the ‘Raad’ include static targets like hardened aircraft shelters, bunkers and command-and-control centres, bridges, airspace surveillance radar stations, as well as strategic industrial infrastructure such as telecommunications nodes, ports and petrochemicals refineries.
The missile weighs 1,200kg, has a 450kg (9,92lb) high-explosive fragmentation warhead, has a length of 5.1 metres, diameter of 0.17 metres and a wingspan of 3 metres (with its twin horizontal fins deployed), is powered by a turbojet (a reverse-engineered Microturbo TRI 60-30 turbojet producing 5.4kN thrust), cruises at a speed of Mach 0.8, and is a fire-and-forget missile optimised for pre-planned attacks.
Example of DECISIVE EVIDENCE - i.e. Jane's Air Launched Weapons]
Ra'ad (Hatf-8) (Pakistan), Air-to-surface missiles - Stand-off and cruise
Type
Land-attack cruise missile.
Development
Pakistan has developed an indigenous air-launched cruise missile known as Ra'ad (Hatf 8). It is part of Pakistan's wide-reaching strategic missile development programme that includes short-, medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles and ground-launched cruise missiles. Each of these weapons has a numerical designation under the Hatf programme, and often an individual system name. The Ra'ad (meaning Thunder) was preceded by the Hatf-7 (Babur) ground launched cruise missile, first tested in 2005. The Ra'ad (Hatf-8) is not an air-launched derivative of the Babur. Instead, it is a new design, specially developed for the air-launched role and with several cues to foreign technology input. All of Pakistan's strategic missiles have benefited from external design assistance to one degree or another. The Babur/Hatf-7 is being developed in close co-operation with China. The Ra'ad (Hatf-8) represents another strand in Pakistan's cruise missile capabilities, but one that may have benefited from South African engineering know-how. Pakistan and South Africa have previously forged links in advanced weapons development and the Ra'ad bears a resemblance to several proposed South African stand-off weapon projects such as MUPSOW and Torgos. South Africa's Kentron (now Denel) has already supplied its Raptor powered glide bomb to the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) and the extension of that relationship to include more advanced weapons would seem to be a logical step. Another pointer to possible South African involvement in the Ra'ad programme is the fact that its first announced test launch, in 2007, was undertaken by a PAF Dassault Mirage IIIEA (upgraded ROSE-1 aircraft).
Ra'ad (Hatf-8) (Pakistan) - Jane's Air-Launched Weapons
AND AGAIN, Janes affirming that the RK-55 and KH-55 are from the same family (i.e. variants of one another):
RK-55 (SSC-X-4 'Slingshot' and 3K10 Granat) (Russian Federation)
Type
Intermediate-range, road mobile, turbofan-powered, single warhead cruise missile.
Development
The RK-55 Granat (3K10) was one of a family of three cruise missiles developed in the 1970s and early 1980s; the air-launched Kh-55 (AS-15 'Kent'), the submarine-launched RK-55 (SS-N-21 'Sampson') and the ground-launched RK-55. The ground-launched version had the NATO designator SSC-X-4 'Slingshot'. It is believed that the ground- and submarine-launched versions were similar, but the air-launched Kh-55 was different in appearance. The RK-55 ground-launched missiles were designed for carriage on an eight-wheeled Transporter-Erector-Launcher (TEL) vehicle, with six missiles, carried in launch canisters, per vehicle. The TEL were based upon the R-17 (SS-1 'Scud B') MAZ 543 TEL design.
RK-55 (SSC-X-4 'Slingshot' and 3K10 Granat) (Russian Federation) - Jane's Strategic Weapon Systems
@SniperXr
Better you re-read my post before negating the characteristics of turbojet/turbofan...
They are true; you simply have negated them & said the same things in a different manner.
@Turbofans
This is same what I have said
@Turbojets
Points i had given; not a single of them go against what you have pasted from WIKI...Re-read my post
Hehe..
Maneuvering a greater speed object is easy or a lower one?? Better you get urself acquainted with the phenomenon of inertia
OK.
You really am getting scared of me
Greater be the Mach number (supersonic regime) more work has to be done to step down the incoming air speed to sonic levels for appropriate combustion in turbofan engine.... I never said turbofan never can be used in these regimes. I only pointed out relative performance of different engines in various speed regimes
IIR terminal seekeroffering a CEP of 10 metres
digital scene-matching capability
Raad ALCM
been under development since 2003
I am getting curious.Please post the link.Raad
manoeuvring flights at up to 5.5 g
Ra'ad
turbojet (a reverse-engineered Microturbo TRI 60-30 turbojet producing 5.4kN thrust),
Sniper
I never I said I was an authoritative source, and for everyone's convenience I gave an example of an authoritative source (Janes)..
Now I don't know who the hell you think you are, but I exposed you on a few fronts:
1. You've been changing your argument back and forth.
2. A source like Janes agreed with very first opinion of Ra'ad and Babur not being variants of one another. That said, regarding the Kh-55's wiki-page...I did check out the Janes links posted below...care to tell me which one of the links actually work right now???
3. And you're just arguing for the sake of it...
Oh sorry sir I thought the discussion is still on.Please forgive me if I dont agree with your thoughts.I proved my point on the issue
Better to behave., so all I ask you is to suck it up
and move on with what little respect you have here.
There are many who believe in this misconception but the one you have posted appears to be a Blogspot.there are plenty of proffs available confirming the Raadis not the air launched Babur.
.navy and air force are working on there versions of Babur missile
And again you are right.Pakistan's cruise missile program basically revolves around three missiles GLCM Babur,Space launched Ra'ad and an AL babur.the air force variants may now have been put on hold after Raad success
but this do not makes Raad an air launched Babus missilem by anymeans...
The Janes article is already decisive in saying that Ra'ad is NOT a variant of Babur, everything else you have posted is saying it is uncertain or possible - but not firm. I have no idea which hole you're getting your claims about Babur and Ra'ad being variants from, because all you have (as shown) is showing uncertainty - while mine (Janes) is claiming that they're not variants in a decisive manner.It is not.I am going to show you.
So what.Tommorow if we will show the pictures of a missile similar to ICBM.& after some time we announce that we have test fired an ICBM.
What proof does Janes have that the described missile is ICBM or not?
Janes is not god of Information.
Even WIKI has leaved a roam for deciding the Raa'ds variancy with babur:
----------------------------------------------
After a successful test-launch in 2005 of the Babur (also known as Hatf VII), Pakistan's first cruise missile, it was stated by officials that the Babur would be modified to be launched from airborne platforms. But the Ra'ad ALCM, developed by Pakistan's Air Weapons Complex and NESCOM,[3] appears to be an entirely new missile, as is evident by the new name and a new official designation of Hatf VIII.
----------------------------------------------
Not a confirmed statement but a statement with doubt that Ra'ad APPEARS TO BE a different missile.
The confirmed statement is not added because it is not confirmed that whether Ra'ad is variant of Babur or not.
A roam for change is in the statement so that in future if any credible news from reliable source,comes about the variancy of Ra'ad,so then they will edit the statement.
If they include a clear statement about RA"ADS VARIANCY & if in future that statement is proved wrong then the Justifications of Wiki will not help to lower the reliability damage.
Why there is not a confirmed statement about ra'ads variancy in Wiki Article??
OK...give me the source where you found out or believe Ra'ad and Babur are variants of one another.It is not because WIKI do not give information based on only one source.
There are also other reliable sources,and wiki writes comprehensive articles based on that Information,Research Facts and figures given by those sources.
As I said earlier references of the sources used while writing articles are given at the end of each article.
That is your deduction that Babur may be a variant of Ra'ad, but that is not authoritative proof on the matter - just a guess. Tell me where you got the information about Ra'ad being a variant of Babur in plain, no deductions or your guesses...After a successful test-launch in 2005 of the Babur (also known as Hatf VII), Pakistan's first cruise missile, it was stated by officials that the Babur would be modified to be launched from airborne platforms
----------------------------------------
Babur would be modified !!!
MODIFIED !!!
What does that mean???
I think it means that Modification in Babur will be made in Areas such as Design,Engine and Maybe in guidence system.
Janes has good reason to believe that Pakistan benefited from South African technology for Ra'ad, why not? At the end of the day, Ra'ad is a stand-off weapon that there has bound to been some indirect or direct support in certain areas. In any case, this is besides the point, you claimed Ra'ad and Babur are variants of one another...Janes denied it explicitly...and all you have to show for it is an informal deduction. Please give me a source that states both are variants of one another...And now the FLAW in Janes Article:
In the End they Gave a so called fact in support of there argument that Ra'ad is derived from South african Stand OFF programs.
------------------------------------------
Another pointer to possible South African involvement in the Ra'ad programme is the fact that its first announced test launch, in 2007, was undertaken by a PAF Dassault Mirage IIIEA (upgraded ROSE-1 aircraft).
-----------------------------------------
Their pointer is saying that because Ra'ad is fired from Mirage III thats why it indicates the south african involvement.
Now how can a French made Aircraft equipped with Italian Radars points it.
I know that PAF widely use Helmet mounted systems of Denel but those are minor technological inputs.
No big technological inputs are being used in any PAF's aircraft from south africa.
Because the speaker stated that "they" (i.e. twin brothers) + "their parents" = "a family"... I don't get how anyone would think otherwise.You seriously need to consult a dictionary.The word FAMILY doesnt mean that they are variants of each other.Writing it yourself then putting i.e Variants of each other will not make them Variants of each other.
Now take a example of a real human family.
"If two twin brothers are present in one family.And a person says that "They and their Parents are a Family".Then how does this sentence indicates or give any clue to the listner that there are two twin brothers present in this family."
Your own deductive reasoning backfired on you when you claimed KH-55 and RK-55 are not variants, even though they share the exact same engine (which according to your LAST theory made Ra'ad and Babur variants of one another)...and then you switched to saying that Kh-55 and Rk-55 are different because they're from different manufacturings DESPITE the fact they shared the exact same engine and according to you a similar design. And now you've return to relying on deductive reasoning to support your arguments INSTEAD of a decisive or authoriative source explicitly stating that Ra'ad and Babur are variants of one another.When you didnt found any source in the Internet to prove me wrong,
You picked the Janes article,edited it with your own view and now you are forcing me to believe in your own edited article of janes.
You are firing the gun by putting it on Janes shoulder
Give me a decisive link saying that both are not variants of each other.
Like I gave you the link saying it in clear statement with reasons.
But isnt the Ra'ad similar to Babur
there are plenty of proffs available confirming the Raadis not the air launched Babur.
navy and air force are working on there versions of Babur missile. the air force variants may now have been put on hold after Raad success but this do not makes Raad an air launched Babus missilem by anymeans...
for Ra'ad,
Ukraine's Illicit Weapons Sales to Iran and China
On February 2, 2005, Hryhoriy Omelchenko, Deputy Chair of the Ukrainian parliament’s Committee on the Fight against Organized Crime and Corruption, made public information about ongoing investigations into the alleged illegal export of 12 Kh-55 (NATO designation AS-15A) and Kh-55SM (AS-15B) nuclear-capable air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) from Ukraine to Iran and China. [1]The transfer of the missiles was in violation of Kiev’s START I Treaty obligations. Under the treaty, to which Ukraine became a party by signing the Lisbon Protocol in 1992, Ukraine committed to dismantling or returning to Russia the Tu-160 and Tu-95MS bombers and accompanying Kh-55 ALCMs that remained in the country after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. [2] However, according to Omelchenko, the Progress trading firm (a subsidiary of the state arms trader Ukrspetseksport) illegally transferred missiles to China in April 2000 and to Iran in May 2001. In addition, Progress supplied Iran with an associated ground targeting system, referred to as the KNO-120. [1]Omelchenko’s letter began with a request to arrest Valeriy Shmarov, head of Ukraine’s arms export company Ukrspetseksport. According to the letter, a criminal case regarding the missile sale was opened in February 2004. Director of the air cargo company UkrAviaZakaz and former Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) staffer V.V. Yevdokymov, along with three Russian citizens (Oleg G. Orlov, Ye. V. Shilenko, and G.K. Shkinov) stand accused of collaborating with S.M. Samoylenko, then director of Progress, in the missile sale. [1] Orlov, a Russian arms trader accused by the U.N. Security Council in 2001 of selling illegal weapons to Angola, and Shilenko approached Ukrspetseksport in early 2000 regarding the sale. [1,3] The Russians had fictitious documents from the Russian Ministry of De fense and the state-owned Rosvooruzheniye arms trading company, as well as end-user certificates to support their request to purchase 20 Kh-55 missiles. These false documents were evidently accepted by Ukraine’s State Export Control Service, which allowed the sale to move forward. Yevdokymov arranged for the missiles to be transported by air from Ukraine to China in April 2000. [1] He provided customs with documents indicating that the flight was departing for an airport in Russia, but instead the six missiles were flown to China. [4] Former Ukrspetseksport head V.I. Malyev reportedly knew that the paperwork was fictitious and that the missiles were headed for China. Progress was paid US$600,000; the payment was made by two firms based in Cyprus via the U.S. firm Technocality Inc. through the Central European International Bank in Budapest. [1] Six missiles destined for Iran similarly were sold for US$600,000, and related ground targeting equipment for an additional US$200,000, also paid through Technocality Inc. This time, a fictitious contract between a Cypriot firm and Iranian firm for the provision of equipment to oil refineries was used as a cover for the money transfer. Further, the Iranian deal included servicing of the missiles; Ukrainian specialists visited Iran for this purpose several times in 2001-2003.In October 2004, the SBU opened a criminal case regarding the embezzlement of more than US$13 million by Ukrspetseksport staff, including Director Shmarov, through these and other illegal weapons sales. Omelchenko related that it was only in the fall of 2003, when SBU head Leonid Derkach was replaced by Ihor Smeshko, that the SBU began to investigate illegal exports, including the Kh-55 sales as well as other illegal arms sales to Sierre Leone and Eritrea. [1] The Kh-55 missile, also known in the West as a “Kent” missile, is a strategic ALCM (a missile with a range exceeding 600 km) under START I rules. The Kh-55SM is a long-range variant of the missile, with a maximum range of 3,000 km. The Kh-55 and Kh-55SM are designed to carry a 200-kt nuclear warhead; the conventional variant of the Kh -55 was never adopted into service; the conventional variant of the Kh-55SM missile is the Kh -555. [5] Several Kh-55—as well as short-range Kh-22—missiles remained in Ukraine after Russia purchased most heavy bombers and related weapons from Ukraine after the breakup of the Soviet Union. It is likely that the missiles were purchased for parts and possibly also reverse engineering of the Kh-55’s highly efficient turbofan engine, the R95-300. Kh-55s were designed only for nuclear warheads and only for heavy bombers (Tu-95MS and Tu-160). Iran or China would have to modify their Kh-55s to make them capable of being launched from underneath the wing of an aircraft. Although such a conversion is conceivable, given the small number of missiles, it hardly seems worth the effort.
Sources:
“Deputatskiy zapit” [Deputy’s Request], Sobor website, February 2, 2005, <http://www.sobor.org.ua/vr/dep020205_2.htm>.
“Protocol to the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Arms,” in NIS Nuclear and Missile Database, Nuclear Threat Initiative website, <http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/fulltext/treaties/start1/s1lis.htm>.
Pavel Felgenhauer, “Great Weapons for Rogues,” Moscow Times, February 15, 2005, <http://www.themoscowtimes.com>.
“Utechka informatsii iz Apellyatsionnogo suda Kieva: rakety iz Ukrainy okazalis v Kitaye i Irane!” (Leaked information from Kiev’s Appellate Court: Missiles from Ukraine turn out to be in China and Iran!), Obozrevatel (Kiev),February 3, 2005, in Integrum Techno, <http://www.integrum.com>.
“Russian Heavy-Bomber Delivered Missiles,” NIS Nuclear and Missile Database, Nuclear Threat Initiative website, <http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/weapons/bombers/bombers.htm>.