ghazi52
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 102,927
- Reaction score
- 106
- Country
- Location
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.
Possible advantages terminal IIR would have over terminal active radar homing:PAF has been wanting a long Range BVR with IIR ( imaging infrared ) for a long long long long time now - you only have to look how how many times it tried to get the Mica IIR to see what they think of that capability.
The H-4 still has a few unique qualities (e.g., optional terminal-stage seeker, manual remote operator, etc) that make it a useful niche heavyweight SOW. If anything, I'd say that the AZB-VI for MK-84s makes heavy precision strikes more cost-effective for the PAF. It's probably cheaper to build REKs and fit them onto the MK-84s vs. producing H-4s.GIDS also announced the Range Extension Kit for Mk-84 Bombs which weighs 2000lbs. These kits can also be integrated with EO/IR guidance in future. With such heavy payload having REK option, need for H-4 SOW will be further limited as AZB-VI will be PAF's next heavy category PGM
This is probably the most detailed picture of any type of Ra'ad that we've ever seen. This does NOT appear to be the mockups seen on 23rd March parades.
Yeah, this seems to be...better built? Uses higher quality materials?This is probably the most detailed picture of any type of Ra'ad that we've ever seen. This does NOT appear to be the mockups seen on 23rd March parades.
@Bilal Khan (Quwa)
I think it's just that we're seeing an actual missile in anything but a video shot by a potato.Yeah, this seems to be...better built? Uses higher quality materials?
The H-4 still has a few unique qualities (e.g., optional terminal-stage seeker, manual remote operator, etc) that make it a useful niche heavyweight SOW. If anything, I'd say that the AZB-VI for MK-84s makes heavy precision strikes more cost-effective for the PAF. It's probably cheaper to build REKs and fit them onto the MK-84s vs. producing H-4s.
Ironically, the weapon that'll replace the H-4 might be a smaller munition, i.e., a sub-500 kg cruise missile with autonomous or smart targeting capabilities. So, in this case, the idea isn't to knock something out with sheer force (e.g., a 600 kg warhead), but precision and specific warhead types (e.g., AP, Dual, etc). Ideally, the PAF would reach a point where you can deploy a bunch of said small cruise missiles from the internal bay of a NGFA or UCAV, or, in the PA's case, a 4x4 truck or 8x8 AFV. @SQ8