Bilal Khan (Quwa)
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2016
- Messages
- 7,004
- Reaction score
- 97
- Country
- Location
Yeah I think 1-4 are all on point.Right, I agree they are not a 1 to 1 replacement. Yes, H4's range is comparable to the REK-III, but as you said REK-III is a different kind of system (cheaper, possibly less accurate). This of course implies that H4's true replacement needs to be longer ranged, while maintaining the same capability. Like I said earlier I think theres a capability gap of a cheap 350km SOW.
I have some ideas on how to achieve this (not sure how realistic):
1. Using AESA radar's capability to form tight beams to establish relatively secure data links with this (let's call it) H-6. This data link can keep updating the position in a Beidou denied environment allowing longer ranges on INS. Kind of like an A2A missile.
2. Use dual-pulse rocket motor instead of a turbofan to keep costs low.
3. Use an IR/TV seeker that can automously identify and track targets so a person isn't needed to steer to target.
4. Maybe sacrifice to a smaller Mk82 boom to achieve the range.
Considering they were selling REK kits for a million dollars each, I shudder to think what they'll sell us this badboy for. Cue the I-GB-6
Damn that looks like it was made my Hamas in a Gaza basement.
@Bilal Khan (Quwa) it uses a Mk82. They're stealing my designs already lol.
The only thing I'd consider adding is an optional miniature turbojet. It would basically be an appendage and, in turn, be our low-cost ALCM solution if we need it.
You can see what I mean with the Denel Raptor III: