The Janes article is already decisive in saying that Ra'ad is NOT a variant of Babur, everything else you have posted is saying it is uncertain or possible - but not firm. I have no idea which hole you're getting your claims about Babur and Ra'ad being variants from, because all you have (as shown) is showing uncertainty - while mine (Janes) is claiming that they're not variants in a decisive manner. ,
Janes article didn't clearly said that both are variants.
Nither janes niether wiki or Misssilethreat.com has clearly said that both are variants.
All they says is an assumption that
it seems that both are not variants of each other.The emphasize is on
SEEMS
Since their is no official confirmation about Ra'ads variancy so they are not fool to say anything firmly about their variancy.
The words:
It seems to be.
It appears to be.
It looks like.
Are used by every source.Not a confirmed statement.
the Ra'ad ALCM, developed by Pakistan's Air Weapons Complex and NESCOM,[3] appears to be an entirely new missile,
and it seems uncertain if this is a genuinely new missile or a variation of the Hatf-7.
None of them is saying it clearly.
You have given only one source Janes(although its article have many mistakes)
And I have given you two sources & apart from them all of other sources have also not given any clear statement.
Only janes cannot decide it.
Other sources also have some wieght.
& alone janes is not credible enough that we should consider alone janes weight & neglect all others.
Marksien:I have no idea which hole you're getting your claims about Babur and Ra'ad being variants
Read my first post in the thread.
Mark Sien;OK...give me the source where you found out or believe Ra'ad and Babur are variants of one another.
Read my first post in the thread.
I first read that on JUNG NEWSPAPER's 8 may 2010's edition(when launch of Two ghaznavi SRBM's was conducted).
It was written there that both are variants of each other.
After that I researched my self and now I have posted all the Points on which I researched and those points on which the variancy of both can be decided.
Now problem is that the report was in urdu version and thats why that report is not present on Internet.
I searched the net but i couldn't found that report any where.
If you have that edition or you can find it then please read it.
it was written clearly on that report if you can post the link or any picture related to it then do share.
Mark Sien;That is your deduction that Babur may be a variant of Ra'ad, but that is not authoritative proof on the matter - just a guess
.
Not the deduction and niether it is a geuss.
Answered above that read my first post in the thread.
Mark Sien;Tell me where you got the information about Ra'ad being a variant of Babur in plain, no deductions or your guesses...
Answered above.
Mark Sien;Janes has good reason to believe that Pakistan benefited from South African technology for Ra'ad, why not? At the end of the day, Ra'ad is a stand-off weapon that there has bound to been some indirect or direct support in certain areas.
I am not saying that Janes is wrong regarding south african involvement.May be there is any involvement or maybe it is not.
But the fact they have given in support of their claim is completely wrong.
How does Ra'ads Launch from a French aircraft equipped with Italian Radar proves any south african involvement in Ra'ads progrm???
What south african Input is in Mirage III on which janes are claiming this?
Apart from tech inputs like HMS and some minor inputs, what big southafrican input is in mirage III?(& that also is a possibility.There is no Information available regarding any thing SA an in the aircraft.Possibly there is no input.If any member know something about it then please share)
Simply Mirage III ROSE has nothing to do with southafrica.
So how does Ra'ads launch from it proves any thing.
Mark Sien;In any case, this is besides the point, you claimed Ra'ad and Babur are variants of one another..
Reason given above.
Mark Sien;Janes denied it explicitly.
Janes didn't denied it.They are saying the best possible condition regarding it.
They didn't said it clearly.
Mark Sien;..and all you have to show for it is an informal deduction. Please give me a source that states both are variants of one another...
Answered above.
Mark Sien;Because the speaker stated that "they" (i.e. twin brothers) + "their parents" = "a family"... I don't get how anyone would think otherwise.
If Two cars of different colours are in front of me.And i will tell any one that Both of these cars are from the family of ABC model and belongs to XYZ company.
Does this sentence will give any clue about the colour of the cars to the listener.
The example given in my earlier post is much clearer than this.
If you dont want to accept then i cannot do any thing.
Mark Sien;Your own deductive reasoning backfired on you
There is nothing which is Backfired on me
Mark Sien;when you claimed KH-55 and RK-55 are not variants, even though they share the exact same engine (which according to your LAST theory made Ra'ad and Babur variants of one another)...and then you switched to saying that Kh-55 and Rk-55 are different because they're from different manufacturings DESPITE the fact they shared the exact same engine and according to you a similar design. And now you've return to relying on deductive reasoning to support your arguments INSTEAD of a decisive or authoriative source explicitly stating that Ra'ad and Babur are variants of one another.
Now for the last time i am clearing this.
You are blaming me with no valid reason and so far i couldn't understand that on which basis you are blaming me.
There is nothing in the posts which is backfired on me but you are creating an imaginary backfiring scenario.
Its not me its wiki who is saying that because of the difference in manufacturers of both missiles they are not variants of each others:
The RK-55 is very similar to the air-launched Kh-55 (AS-15 'Kent') but the Kh-55 has a drop-down turbofan engine[3] and was designed by MKB Raduga.RK-55 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NOVATOR is manufacturer of RK-55.
So its wiki who is saying that manufacturers of both are different thats why they are not variants of each other.
I just said that,In my second post in this thread i said the similar thing.
And wiki is also approving it.
This has proved my point.
Now assume what you want.
But wait there is also a variants section in RK-55's article and KH-55 is not present there.
Variants
RK-55 (SSC-X-4 'Slingshot') - ground-based version
S-10 or RK-55 (SS-N-21 'Sampson') - submarine-launched version
RK-55 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Same situation is on Kh-55's article:
Variants
Kh-55 (NATO 'Kent-A', RKV-500A, Izdeliye 120) - original model with 2,500 km range.
Kh-55-OK - development name of Kh-55SM
Kh-55SM (NATO 'Kent-B', RKV-500B, Izdeliye 121) - with TERCOM (Terrain Contour Matching) navigation and extra fuel tanks to extend range to 3000 km.
Kh-101/102 (Izdeliye 111) - developed as a more stealthy replacement for the Kh-55SM in the late 1980s, the Kh-101 has a conventional warhead and the Kh-102 is nuclear.[3] A propfan version with 5000 km range was cancelled in 2000.[3] Accuracy is reportedly 69 m.[4]
Kh-65SE - tactical version announced in 1992 with 410 kg conventional warhead and restricted to the 600 km range[6] limit of the INF treaty.
Kh-SD (средней дальности Srednei Dalnosti - 'Medium Range') - 300 km range conventional version announced in 1995, possibly for export. Shared components with the Kh-101, range reportedly increased to 600 km with a high-altitude approach, but the Kh-SD was apparently shelved in 2001.[1] An alternative active radar seeker was proposed for anti-shipping use.
Kh-555 (NATO 'Kent-C', Kh-55SE, Kh-55Sh)[6] - conventionally-armed version with an improved guidance system and warhead developed in response to the lessons of the NATO air offensive against Yugoslavia in 1999. It became operational in 2000.[
Now is it clear to you or not?
Wiki has not said it single time but multiple times in different articles:
It was believed originally that the RK-55 (SSC-X-4 'Slingshot' and SS-N-21 'Sampson') were land- and submarine-launched derivatives of the Kh-55, but it is now known that the Kh-55 is different from the other two as its motor drops down below the missile during flight.
Mark Sien;And now you're baselessly accusing me of EDITING an article I just copy & pasted WITH a link. Tell me, WHERE did I edit the Janes articles...what did I omit or add to the work
Janes said them Family you added a sentence i.e variants of each other to force the reader to accept that word family means variants.
The word family doesn't mean Variants:
As posted above the variants of RK-55 and KH-55 are different:
KH-55 has its own family of missiles:
Kh-55 Granat / AS-15 Kent
Three aircraft versions of this missile are known as: Kh-55 (Article 120, alias RKV-500, NATO's AS-15a), Kh-55-OK (article 124), Kh-55SM (Article 125, alias RKV-500B, NATO's AS-15B)
Kh-55 Granat / AS-15 Kent.
Production of a stretched-range version, the "Kh-55SM", began in 1986. The improved Kh-55MS, AS-15B Kent reported NATO-codename, version was fielded in the 1990s. The X-55SM modification provided for increased range with the installation of expendable conformal external fuel tanks, giving it an estimated range of 3,000 kilometers (1,860 miles)
Kh-55 Granat / AS-15 Kent.
This weapon began with work by Raduga Mechanical Design Bureau (MKB Raduga) in 1968 on a long-range, subsonic antiship cruise missile. American sources claim this missile was based on the US Tomahawk, the blueprints of which the Soviets acquired at an early design stage. It does resemble the Tomahawk SLCM, leading it to be called "Tomahawkski"
Kh-55 Granat
So much sources to post.
Now i think it is pretty much cleared.Isn't it?
