1 evidence is already presented in the my earlier post in points 1 2 and 5
A PGM with IR have to be tested agist a target to get actual CEP and for that it would need a target which the terminal guidance system have to indentify from the cluster around the targets and for the very reason PGM can be tested against the sea target. For the same reason India has add IR guidance to it Brahmos missile to make it capable of use against land targets accurately. Pakistan is having air force for is decades and is testing weapons on grounds and Pakistan has tested long range to short range missiles with ranges of 2000 km + so the argument of so called civilian protests hold no ground at all unless you think of Pakistan as European nation having movements like green peace
Did they test the weapon over the sea in South Africa or in Pakistan?
If they did test a BVRAAM, where is the proof that H-2 is this BVRAAM?
In your second point you first say that Radar was integrated because they only want to find targets only? What will these aircrafts do once they find their aircrafts? In same point you also agree that they wanted BVRAAM and thats why they upgraded so decide what you really want to say here Upgrade was for BVRAAM or it was not?
Infact the point you raised that PAF waned the MICA for Mirages and later on decided not to go far it also shows that PAF got the BackUp plan in form of T- Dater and once they go the TOT offer for the R-Dater they decided in favor of local BVRAAM instead of importing one
Why were radars first put in aircraft? To find enemy aircraft. Why are radars upgraded? To improve the ability to find enemy aircraft.
The upgrade may have been for a BVRAAM, PAF may well have got TOT on T-darter but
where is the proof that H-2 is a BVRAAM?
Thirdly if you search a bit you will find out that you need targeting capability to use the PGM and that the reason we all associate the Rose-II/III with the PGM
I never said that H-2 is IR guided and neither do the article
The H-4 infrared device is said to be comparable to that of the AA11, AA12 and Python 4 in the Indian arsenal.
Yes I am saying that H-2 is BVRAAM and H-4 is PGM
In fifth point you are missing the fact that PAF officials are calling it as BVR missile not the bombs or PGM as reporters did due to their lack of knowledge
ROSE II/III use FLIR for night-time operations, low-level flying (there is a video where you can clearly see a small monitor showing the FLIR image just under the HUD), not just for targeting. I have also read the ROSE Mirage FLIRs have laser range-finders, perhaps they are simply for low-level flying and range finding, not targeting. Any proof that the FLIR is required for targeting?
If the PGM uses a data-link to send target images from its IR seeker back to the pilot, why does the pilot need an onboard FLIR to guide the bomb?
PAF officials compare the seeker of H-4 and H-2 with the seekers of AA-12, Python 4, etc. Where do PAF officials call it a BVR missile?
In the end would say that n H-2 is not compared to the AA-11 but to the AA-12. Now please explain what would they putt the AA-12 reference if Both H-2 is PGM???
Grifo-7 is used on most of the F-7s and Grifo-PG is only on the F-7PGs and Grifo-7s are small radars with no capability due to short range but Grifo-M3 is larger diameter radar with more power to support BVRAAM and you did agree on that
May argument should not look lousiest to you if you have knowledge of importance of capability required and how desperate PAF was at that time Do you seriously want to believe that PAF was ready to sit around and do nothing when IAF had BVRAAMs you really got to be kidding because I dont think that you can be so
..
The South African PGMs can also be fitted with
radar seekers according to their website, similar to the R-77/AA-12. Didn't the PAF officials compare the seekers and not the missiles?
I read that all F-7P have been upgraded with the Grifo-7PG radar.
Your argument is lousy because you keep saying "PAF needed a BVRAAM so H-2 must be a BVRAAM," even though according to the newspaper they said it is a PGM.
You are pointing out the mistake made by these dumb journalists the very reason we are arguing today is because of their super mistakes that they made in this report.
In the end your points of AA-11 and AA-12 make you theory of Both H-2 and H-4 as PGM even more less likely option then mine of H-2 BVRAAM and H-4 as PGM
Wrong. H-2 and H-4 being PGM makes perfect sense - one is un-powered, smaller, lighter, cheaper and has a 60 km range, the other is powered, more expensive but more capable with longer 120 km range.
On the other hand, H-2 being a BVRAAM makes no sense at all. Why spend so much money developing a new BVRAAM just for two squadrons of 30-40 year old Mirage III, then tell the Chinese you want SD-10 on the JF-17?
I'm pointing out the mistakes you are making. You are basically saying:
- "Grifo M3 is BVRAAM capable so H-2 must be a BVRAAM" - even though you admit PAF had no decent airborne radars at the time and needed the Grifo M3 just for patrolling.
- "PAF tested missiles over the sea in South Africa, so H-2 must be a BVRAAM" - even though you don't know any of the details.
- "PAF compared the H-2's seeker to a BVRAAM missile seeker so it must be a BVRAAM" - even though you know that the South African PGMs are offered with a choice of TV, IR, radar and anti-radiation seekers so you could compare them to any guided missile seeker if you wanted to.
Just read this:
A Pakistani Newspaper said:
ISLAMABAD, Dec 17: Pakistan Air Force has integrated the H-4 out-of-sight target bombs in its arsenal of fighter aircraft, official sources said.
The incorporation of H-4 bombs have added to the capability of the PAF to hit out-of-sight targets from a distance of up to 120 kilometres to evade enemy radars during air strikes. A lighter version of the bomb, H-2 model, can hit the out-of-sight targets from a range of up to 60 kilometres.
I have a picture of this missile. It was modified by Pakistan. Picture clearly shows that it is a missile and not a bomb.
I did not realize that it was such a big mystery and no one has ever seen this missile before.
May be there is a reason that PAF has never released one. I Will check before posting it on the net. But until then, please be rest assured that it is a Fire & Forget BVRAAM with the reported range of 120km.
PGM and AAM look very different. When you see the picture, it will end all speculation.
Thank you for your input sir. Are you referring to H-2, H-4 or T-darter? As far as I'm aware, nobody has posted pictures of H-2 or H-4 on the internet, most have simply assumed they are versions of the Denel Raptor I and II after comparing range and other specifications (
Raptor I (H-2),
Raptor II (H-4?)). I'm sure the posters at PakDef have also concluded that H-2 and H-4 are PGM also.
It seems to me that reports like this one (
Denel offers Pakistan missile deal-24/02/1999-Flight International) plus the badly worded newspaper articles cause people to believe H-2/H-4 are BVRAAM, even though there is nothing concrete.
