What's new

Pakistani GIDS TAKBIR Series Satellite Aided Inertially Guided Bomb

Any idea how we put an IREK together? Do we (or OEM) manufacture the kits separately and configure the GPB at the base? Or do we pair the kit to the GPB at the production line (meaning we ship complete PGBs to the front)?
I don't know for sure but I would imagine the kits are made by AWC and the bombs by POF, and the two are paired at the base.

At least i hope it is that plug-and-play.
 
Do we actually think IREK is from Pakistan and not just another Chinese rebranded kit that we are producing in Pakistan?
I have seen pictures of very similar bombs in some African countries too when I was searching for K-8 users a few months back.

This is from Zambian AF and the caption identified them as ZAG 1,500kg bombs. (they also operate the Hongdu L-15s besides K-8s)
1623014400166.png
 
Do we actually think IREK is from Pakistan and not just another Chinese rebranded kit that we are producing in Pakistan?
I have seen pictures of very similar bombs in some African countries too when I was searching for K-8 users a few months back.

This is from Zambian AF and the caption identified them as ZAG 1,500kg bombs. (they also operate the Hongdu L-15s besides K-8s)
1623014400166.png
Let's hope that we're at least producing a Chinese rebranded kit, and not simply importing and re-naming it.
 
I don't know for sure but I would imagine the kits are made by AWC and the bombs by POF, and the two are paired at the base.

At least i hope it is that plug-and-play.
Bombs are made at POF and two other contractors
Do we actually think IREK is from Pakistan and not just another Chinese rebranded kit that we are producing in Pakistan?
I have seen pictures of very similar bombs in some African countries too when I was searching for K-8 users a few months back.

This is from Zambian AF and the caption identified them as ZAG 1,500kg bombs. (they also operate the Hongdu L-15s besides K-8s)
1623014400166.png
Probably doesn’t have to be - Pakistani military R&D will not spend on local development unless absolutely necessary.
 
Do we actually think IREK is from Pakistan and not just another Chinese rebranded kit that we are producing in Pakistan?
I have seen pictures of very similar bombs in some African countries too when I was searching for K-8 users a few months back.

This is from Zambian AF and the caption identified them as ZAG 1,500kg bombs. (they also operate the Hongdu L-15s besides K-8s)
1623014400166.png
Omg.....not again
 
Do we actually think IREK is from Pakistan and not just another Chinese rebranded kit that we are producing in Pakistan?
I have seen pictures of very similar bombs in some African countries too when I was searching for K-8 users a few months back.

This is from Zambian AF and the caption identified them as ZAG 1,500kg bombs. (they also operate the Hongdu L-15s besides K-8s)
1623014400166.png
I believe IREK is indeed a Pakistani product for several reasons:
1. That picture is very different from the IREK - most kits look similar so it's hard to tell them apart.
2. 2017-2018 MoDP Report lists the purchase of 100 REK kits for a whopping 100 million dollars:
so that's a major incentive to have a lower-cost, local alternative.
3. Again in the MoDP 2017-2018 report there are distinct references to REK and IREK:
@Bilal Khan (Quwa) I don't think anyone has noticed this yet but there are two distinct range extension kits.

EDIT: Evidence for why there are two distinct REK:
View attachment 578945
EDIT: The I is for ingenious for sure. Confirmed it.
4. Believe it or not, in 2014-2015 I helped out a friend in writing some glide flight dynamics code, which I later understood to be for analyzing the IREK so we were certainly working on this.


Of course, I can't say for certain, but there are several pieces of evidence that suggest that the IREK is indeed a local product.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone have info and pic of Daudson’s PGB500 guided bomb?

 
I believe IREK is indeed a Pakistani product for several reasons:
1. That picture is very different from the IREK - most kits look similar so it's hard to tell them apart.
2. 2017-2018 MoDP Report lists the purchase of 100 REK kits for a whopping 100 million dollars:

so that's a major incentive to have a lower-cost, local alternative.
3. Again in the MoDP 2017-2018 report there are distinct references to REK and IREK:

4. Believe it or not, in 2014-2015 I helped out a friend in writing some glide flight dynamics code, which I later understood to be for analyzing the IREK so we were certainly working on this.


Of course, I can't say for certain, but there are several pieces of evidence that suggest that the IREK is indeed a local product.
Thanks, I had believed it was something from Pakistan until I saw those images and thus asked the question.
Might be something to do with form following function.
 
Infrared/imaging Range extended kit or IREK diff from REK, diff is added infrared /imaging sensor for last leg tracking video or or IR image to target
 
I in IREK is for indigenous, nothing to do with IR.

You are right I just remember asking someone and he explained initial one had foreign ins/imu equipment now everything is indigenous

But there is a trend to add a seeker on the nose to add additional capability like on latest jdms so now gps, imu and ir/image to make it weather and jam proof
 
You are right I just remember asking someone and he explained initial one had foreign ins/imu equipment now everything is indigenous

But there is a trend to add a seeker on the nose to add additional capability like on latest jdms so now gps, imu and ir/image to make it weather and jam proof
Yes, I was just discussing the exact same point on new doctrine thread :)
 
A question that I can ask is, is it worth maintaining that capability?

Is it worth having a dedicated jet (a Mirage or a future heavy) carrying a single weapon, or can I get the job done by launching 4 REK-III's from 2 JF-17s? The PAF might be asking what I just asked.

The capability gap that we have is hitting a large number of targets at 300-400 km to hit IAF bases. If wishes were horses I'd want a REK-IV with a 350 km range that is only marginally more expensive and heavier than the REK-III. We can't afford to launch hundreds of Ra'ads at India, we are not the USA.
Continue here @Bilal Khan (Quwa)
 
So basically, I think the IREK and H2/H4 aren't analogous at a 1:1 level. By design they serve two different roles.

The IREK -- or JDAM-type -- weapons are meant to be more cost-effective. Yes there's the risk of losing accuracy, but you still retain range and should (especially with INS) get closer to a target versus a GPB. You want to build economies-of-scale, we want these to be affordable and available in numbers.

The H2/H4 is for targeted strikes.

You want to make sure you are hitting the target (or avoiding it in Swift Retort's case) no matter what. E.g., we may want to knock out the S-400's radar if we find it.

In this case, terminal-stage seekers and remote-operability is key. It will add to the cost, but we'll keep these SOWs for very specific situations anyways (as we have IREK for most duties).

I think the natural evolution of the H2/H4 is a JSOW-type of weapon. In this case, we can design both the seeker options and even warhead options into the weapon from the start.

We can, for example, use tandem warheads, a penetrator warhead, or sub-munitions dispenser.

I think we should be able to develop this SOW locally.

It is like taking a smaller Ra'ad airframe minus the cruise missile functionality, and instead, making it into a glider. In addition, we add a rocket motor for range extension.

That said, China is offering us such a weapon.

1623081710707.png
 
So basically, I think the IREK and H2/H4 aren't analogous at a 1:1 level. By design they serve two different roles.

The IREK -- or JDAM-type -- weapons are meant to be more cost-effective. Yes there's the risk of losing accuracy, but you still retain range and should (especially with INS) get closer to a target versus a GPB. You want to build economies-of-scale, we want these to be affordable and available in numbers.

The H2/H4 is for targeted strikes.

You want to make sure you are hitting the target (or avoiding it in Swift Retort's case) no matter what. E.g., we may want to knock out the S-400's radar if we find it.
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.

That said, China is offering us such a weapon.

View attachment 751430
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 :)
Dardo-II type simple SOW could e an answer to our need
View attachment 751421View attachment 751423

Fuselage/Air frame and Engine
View attachment 751424

Specifications(Rang=200 km)
View attachment 751427

View attachment 751432
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.
 

Back
Top Bottom