What's new

Best BVR Capable Fighter in South Asia

Status
Not open for further replies.
and you are one who just cant bear the truth are'nt you.....he in no way degraded the PAF .....just stated simple facts......its always good to have your feet on the ground

Facts What facts. We know what type of fan boy Mr Storm Force is. Many of his threads are useless and are a waste of space of this forum. Most of his threads and post are based on egoistic emotions and that's the biggest reason that his threads got deleted because of this immature behaviour. Or else we know the "truth" better than anyone like Storm Force.
 
and you are one who just cant bear the truth are'nt you.....he in no way degraded the PAF .....just stated simple facts......its always good to have your feet on the ground

oh my bad:confused:
i must have misunderstood mr.storm force post. he was praising the PAF wasnt he:coffee:
n yeah, i hve my feet on the ground, may be you r the one who is flying too high.
 
I know some of those threads, also his posts, but so does many of the Pakistani members that still have doubts about it, because there are no official proofs, or sources that this missile is ready and integrated on any PAF fighter.

Even I don't rule out that there is such a missile development, but I think that the claimed performance is simply a misinterpretation of those various rumors. You said:

People who know about the thing have no doubts, but those who are not familiar with the stuff or what's being talked about have doubts.

And its a general thing, people need an official statement for proof, they may not rely on someone who says he has inside information, but people who may know the inside stuff through some other sources, don't need official proof, and then there are some who believe the source due to its reputation/respect/seniority and credibility, even though they don't need official sources for believing what is told by the source with inside information.

R - Darter is a BVR missile by South African Denel, most likely a co-development with Israeli Rafaels Derby missile like some sources say. According to you, PAF got ToT of R - Darter and modfied the seeker, but by modifying the seeker you won't get 120Km range right? How should such a performance be possible, if PAF didn't changed the propulsion and even the original R-Darter and Derby missiles have only 60Km range? Do you really think PAF was able to do something, that not even these more experienced South African and Israeli companies was able to do till now?

Plz read the posts by pshamim, he posted one pic of the Pakistan made/assembled missile, but he clearly said, he is not allowed to post the original product which is being made by AWC, meaning the whole missile including its seeker may have been modified. Its body may have been lengthened, diameter increased to get the required result. Once you get the tech, then its easy to play around with it by changing its aerodynamic profile. So, what are the looks of the original missile made by AWC is not available. pshamim sb posted that pic just for a proof that this pic is of a Pak version of the R-darter, taken inside Pakistan, and by himself, but due to secrecy reasons he can't post the pic of the real missile. So since we don't know how the real missile looks like, you are right that the performance parameters as told are just rumored and not trustable, but since i live among PAF serving and retired personnel and out of 5 pilot friends, 3 are on ROSE upgraded Mirages, i am pretty sure about what pshamim sb said and what are the performance parameters of the missile. Sorry, i don't have official sources to proof that, but i guess knowing this stuff is OK for my own consumption as these things are state secret, which are good to be kept that way. But i can assure you, i have seen the pic of a PAF Mirage loaded with the missile with my friend standing beside it.

And I am pretty sure the Israeli & South Africans would have come with a 100+KM range missile, had they wanted it. Just as an example, though R-darter and Derby have nearly same specifications, but still Derby is advertised with 50KM range envelope, while R-Darter is advertised with a 60+Km range envelope.

Moreover, you said that the Chinese had access to the same ToT too and that it could influenced SD 10 also, but again, if PAF was able to upgrade the missile to 120Km ranges, why couldn't the Chinese with more know how, experience and fundings achieve the same with SD 10, which has a range of 70+ Km only?

SD-10A is advertised with 70+Km range envelope, have they or is there any official source gives the maximum range for the missile ?? Even some Chinese sources, good ones though, claim it has a 100+KM range, so my point is, we have the 70+KM range, but what is the real range is not known as the + sign can mean many things. And we all know, certain capabilities of the missile system may not be known in public, only the manufacturer and the user might know about them. So hiding the real range would be a good factor for surprise purposes.

And have you seen the specifications of both missiles, Derby/R_darter & SD-10A. SD-10A is much more heavier, lengthier, 2 inch difference in diameter and still only a 10KM range difference, well that may mean that Chinese tech is inferior to the SA/Israeli one OR may be the Chinese are not giving up the real range for obvious reasons.

And pshamim sb is not the only one to have said that SD-10 may had help from South Africans, there are many sources, which tell of SD-10 getting either Israeli help or South African help.

And i believe the SD-10A has much more range then advertised.

Lets be honest, this is more than unlikely and is one reason why these rumors are not reliable!

Yes, you are right, the specifications would be unreliable for some or may be most of them, but reliable enough for some, and I am one of those for whom it is reliable.

According to the points you and several other members made, it's more likely that this mysterious missile is just a basic R - Darter with a different seeker only. That would explain why the pic pshamim posted looks like an exact copy of R - Darter, so you might get ToT of the missile including the propulsion, but modified the seekers. India did the same with Brahmos, where Russia provides the basicYakhont missile including the propulsion system, but India adds new seekers, navigation systems and mission computers. So by simple logic, H-4 might just be a different version of R - Darter and obviously must have the same range of around 60 Km. That means that the rumors mixed up the specs of H-4 AAM and H-2 AGM that then should have up to 120Km standoff missile range.

Nops, its not just a basic R-Darter, body as well as seeker both have been modified. Real missile is not exactly like R-Darter. pshamim sb did mentioned it as told above, that the pic is of not what the real missile looks like. As said, once you get the tech, then it is easy to play around with it and make changes as per your likeness and requirements. And as for H-2, by adding just the rocket booster to increase the range, there is no logic to give it a new name. H-2 & H-4 are separate programs, with different specifications.


Unlikely again, because from a comercial point of view, it would make even more sense to offer a variety of missiles to export customers. China would have integrated SD 10 on JFT / FC1 for other export customers anyway, because it is their standard BVR missile that they will use in high numbers, so they don't need PAF to use it just for comercial reasons. On the other hand, if H-4 AAM would have been available and integrated besides SD 10, any export customer could choose which missile they want. For example, if Turkey would want to buy JFT and could choose between H-4 and SD 10 with comparable ranges and seeker techs, would they prefer the Pakistani H-4, or the Chinese SD 10?

Had Pakistan wanted to export its own BVR missile, it would have offered it on the market, but may be due to some reasons, it was just for local consumption and not for export, who knows the South Africans may have put restrictions with respect to export as it would have damaged their sales prospective or the SA's gave the ToT on the basis that it is for local PAF requirements and not for export purposes. PAF going for any new Chinese tech, does gives the platform considerable exposure in the international market and increases the prospects of its sale. Plus, as I and another member had told, the H-4 program may have been for stop gap purposes to get us BVR capability till some other suitable platform is not inducted, as H-4 program would be an expensive proposition since we have no requirements for it in numbers and no exports, would make its costs high, which by inducting SD-10 could be reduced, since China would be making them in numbers for its own use as well as export purposes. So anything is possible, SA's putting restrictions, economic problems or H-4 just for local consumption etc.

I hope you are aware what you are saying here, because this means PAF was ready to buy a BVR missile at much higher costs, not because they need it, but because they needed the radar and avionics. If that is true, what does it tell us about PAFs opinion on the Chinese radar and avionics in JFT B1 if they want RC 400 so bad?

Who said PAF wanted the RC-400 radar that bad ?? Had they wanted it, they would have bought it long time ago. RC-400 was one of the options, with Italian one and the Chinese option, from which we would have chosen. And the Chinese option suited best. I hope you know the stories about French trying to sell their weapons in packages, as it is a known fact. We would be interested in a French Radar, and they would have proposed that it should be a package deal including the missiles too, so its very natural PAF would have analyzed the package and seen does it suits them or not and can we financially afford it. Did PAF test the RC-400 ?? Was the Mica tested ?? Did any official statement about purchasing Mica system came from PAF ?? Don't think so, but interest or wish may have been told about such a deal, as being one of the option among many. Selex Galileo Grifo series radar was also one of the contenders with RC-400 and the Chinese one and in the end the Chinese option won and the recent statement by PAF chief with respect to acquiring avionics and radar and weapons from China for JF-17 is further proof that Chinese option is more better compared to western ones, and even on technical basis the Chinese radar may be more better for us then the RC-400 or Italian option. So the PAF CAS statement about Chinese systems is a testament to the confidence PAF has in Chinese systems, which may have lacked previously and RC-400 and Italian radars were being sought. There is no fact which gives us the impression that PAF wanted the RC-400 and Mica that badly, we showed interest in some radar and the French offered their terms and conditions, which has not been finalized nor even tested. So, i think its pretty clear that PAF was not wanting RC-400 or Mica that badly.

That's what I meant, you base your believe on some unofficial sources, but you don't know it for sure, because there are no official proofs and that's the reason why so many people still have a different opinion. In my personal opinion, the H-4 development might have started in the early 2000s based on R - darter, but the missile is either not operational yet, or does not offer comparable performance like SD 10, otherwise there is simply no reason for PAF to import SD 10, or MICA over H-4 on JFT B1.

I base my believe on unofficial sources as well as personal accounts, which i just mentioned above. You wish to trust it, is ok with me, don't wanna trust and need an official source or wish to wait for it, sorry for now can't help you in that.

The missile is operational, but its future is not yet certain as i have no one in the higher hierarchy who can tell me what is its future and for what exactly reasons are we going for other missile systems, but i do know H-4 has a 100+Km range, its not exactly as per the R-Darter specifications, its different and PAF is not buying Mica missile for now, it was part of the RC-400 radar package, which we have not pursued for now due to certain reasons and may be French reluctance for now.

And diversification is one major reason for acquiring different sourced BVR missiles as it gives more options as we would be very vulnerable with just one kind of BVR missile.
 
this thread started as ''Best BVR Capable Fighter in South Asia'' and as transformed into bvr missile contest. i request people to move back to the orriginal subject otherwise the mods should close this thread
 
Well, ... H-4 was in reality an A2A BVR missile with 120 KM range, based on rather ToT version of R-darter missile, ToT given by South African company, the package included other PGM techs also in it and China was a partner to this deal, meaning it got the tech also since it was under sanctions during that era, so it was the silent partner. H-2 was the 60KM PGM and just by adding the rocket booster, the range can go to 120KM, which doesn't needs to be given any new name to it.

Hi TaimiKhan, I would have few doubts..
Looking it range,it seems H4 should be one of the best AtoA missile in the world.
1. why the African's(if Israili tech used, then their approval required also) would give u better missile then their own.
2.Even a joint venture required a lot of fund insertion and still the original player never gives out the critical tech.
3.It needs a very strong and experienced industrial base.It's not that anybody can get its missile range increased as they want.That's why almost all the famous successful missiles still have less than 100km range(having all their skilled experienced technicians) and growing its range slowly.

And as for Mica missile, it was or is being considered or PAF rumored to be showing interest due to the RC-400, meaning a package deal. We may not have shown our interest, but most probably the seller may have said to give the radar, if we have a package deal which involves weapons also, as it gives boost to their sales. So, out of necessity, PAF may have been evaluating the Mica missile. Not out of its own option.

Nicee..When at ist PAF was considering mica, I have read so many qualities about it from senior pakistani members.Look IAF is fool to have its upgraded mirages having very less ranged mica and sending it in front of a paf mirages with much greater H4 missiles.

Also, since South Africa gave the missile tech to China also, its very likely that the same or improved seeker tech or other missile tech has been used in the newer variants of SD-10 also, as we did heard little from Chinese news sources that the latest variant has some new seeker, not based on the Russian tech as previous missiles had.

All ur words are only assumptions..may be correct may not be..Can u please tell me whats the range difference between new sd-10 and old h4 missiles..

And one of the other reason for going with SD-10 would be, to give it more chances of commercial success, as PAF using SD-10 with JF-17s, will give it a good boost to score any export success. So the SD-10 sale to PAF may be for commercial purposes, rather then for actual war purposes,...

Greattttt..sound so rosy..

And the reason for getting Pak made BVR missile was to have a stop gap measure for the time till more capable missiles come into service, so who knows may be with Mirages going out of service, the Pak made BVR missile also goes out of service as they may have served their purpose.

Its more unrealistic..
1.Having a 120km range already, what better missiles you would think get from others.
2.Unfortunately the economics doesn't work like as simple.U just don't develop something to scrap again later.And that also for very limited budget PAF..
3. having that TOT and range PAF can itself develop a better range missile..right?



At last I would say think logically...So u r telling that paf had indeed modified to get 120km range in A TO A domain(one of the highest in the world till today)for a 3rd generation A to G specialist paf old mirage,who itself using a very limited radar.Even till now world's best dedicated air superiority fighters also using less ranged missiles than paf old mirages.
 
At last I would say think logically...So u r telling that paf had indeed modified to get 120km range in A TO A domain(one of the highest in the world till today)for a 3rd generation A to G specialist paf old mirage,who itself using a very limited radar.Even till now world's best dedicated air superiority fighters also using less ranged missiles than paf old mirages.

This statement is incorrect the Griffo M being used on the Mirages is a very capable radar and with the induction of SD-10 missiles more than 50% of PAF fighters without any doubt shall be BVR capable.
 
You need the source code of the fire control radar in order to integrate a BVR missile(correct me if I'm wrong)

Its like a sniper rifle, You need a bullet(BVR Missile) to fire at distance, telescopic sights(Radar with good range) and a good rifle(Air craft)

If the bullet doesn't fit to the gun, or the telescopic sight cannot incorporate to the weapon or less ranged telescopic sight, you could not fire the weapon.

Rgds,
 
You need the source code of the fire control radar in order to integrate a BVR missile(correct me if I'm wrong)

Its like a sniper rifle, You need a bullet(BVR Missile) to fire at distance, telescopic sights(Radar with good range) and a good rifle(Air craft)

If the bullet doesn't fit to the gun, or the telescopic sight cannot incorporate to the weapon or less ranged telescopic sight, you could not fire the weapon.

Rgds,

I have already tried to have a discussion on this aspect.

First of all yes the source code is required to integrate the missile. May it be a BVR missile or a third generation IR missile such as AIM 9-L which can take information from the aircrafts radar.

The way around it to create gateways and protocol neutralizers which convert missile and radar communication messages into formats which both can understand.

When we integrated the AIM 9-L with Mirages and F-7s the US did not give us the source code. We achieved compatibility through indigenously developed data gateways.

PAF hence has the capability to integrate missiles without obtaining source code from Original Equipment Manufacturer

In case of the SD-10 being integrated with Mirages however it is expected that we will purchase the integration software from China, we already have the required protocols for the Grifo because right from the begining we had plans to use it with a BVR missile.
 
according to softtec Even a joint venture required a lot of fund insertion and still the original player never gives out the critical tech.
so it means SU30 is russian supplied indian assembled fighter is without its critical tech and without crtical tech a fighter is not as much capable as it advertised
 
if radar detection range is greator in one fighter to the other but with less ranged and less capable BVRAAM is not an invincible fighter detection range 150 km n bvr range 100km while the other fighter which hav detection range of 140 km and missile range is 120 km which one is best during the fight both jets gona fly into eachother
 
according to softtec Even a joint venture required a lot of fund insertion and still the original player never gives out the critical tech.
so it means SU30 is russian supplied indian assembled fighter is without its critical tech and without crtical tech a fighter is not as much capable as it advertised

Do some search, MKI is the best Su-30 variant in the world. Check its specifications.
 
according to softtec Even a joint venture required a lot of fund insertion and still the original player never gives out the critical tech.
so it means SU30 is russian supplied indian assembled fighter is without its critical tech and without crtical tech a fighter is not as much capable as it advertised

may I know what are you trying to Imply??? Because Su 30 MKI Carries Indian Components aswell.... Ranging from its HUD's to Electronic Warfare Suits and What makes U feel that The Su 30 MKI is Not good, Just because its Indian?
 
I have already tried to have a discussion on this aspect.

First of all yes the source code is required to integrate the missile. May it be a BVR missile or a third generation IR missile such as AIM 9-L which can take information from the aircrafts radar.

The way around it to create gateways and protocol neutralizers which convert missile and radar communication messages into formats which both can understand.
When we integrated the AIM 9-L with Mirages and F-7s the US did not give us the source code. We achieved compatibility through indigenously developed data gateways.

PAF hence has the capability to integrate missiles without obtaining source code from Original Equipment Manufacturer

In case of the SD-10 being integrated with Mirages however it is expected that we will purchase the integration software from China, we already have the required protocols for the Grifo because right from the begining we had plans to use it with a BVR missile.

I'm not a software expert, but I'm not convinced...:coffee:
 
if radar detection range is greator in one fighter to the other but with less ranged and less capable BVRAAM is not an invincible fighter detection range 150 km n bvr range 100km while the other fighter which hav detection range of 140 km and missile range is 120 km which one is best during the fight both jets gona fly into eachother

I'm lost in between the line, please enlighten me:woot:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom