I know some of those threads, also his posts, but so does many of the Pakistani members that still have doubts about it, because there are no official proofs, or sources that this missile is ready and integrated on any PAF fighter.
Even I don't rule out that there is such a missile development, but I think that the claimed performance is simply a misinterpretation of those various rumors. You said:
People who know about the thing have no doubts, but those who are not familiar with the stuff or what's being talked about have doubts.
And its a general thing, people need an official statement for proof, they may not rely on someone who says he has inside information, but people who may know the inside stuff through some other sources, don't need official proof, and then there are some who believe the source due to its reputation/respect/seniority and credibility, even though they don't need official sources for believing what is told by the source with inside information.
R - Darter is a BVR missile by South African Denel, most likely a co-development with Israeli Rafaels Derby missile like some sources say. According to you, PAF got ToT of R - Darter and modfied the seeker, but by modifying the seeker you won't get 120Km range right? How should such a performance be possible, if PAF didn't changed the propulsion and even the original R-Darter and Derby missiles have only 60Km range? Do you really think PAF was able to do something, that not even these more experienced South African and Israeli companies was able to do till now?
Plz read the posts by pshamim, he posted one pic of the Pakistan made/assembled missile, but he clearly said, he is not allowed to post the original product which is being made by AWC, meaning the whole missile including its seeker may have been modified. Its body may have been lengthened, diameter increased to get the required result. Once you get the tech, then its easy to play around with it by changing its aerodynamic profile. So, what are the looks of the original missile made by AWC is not available. pshamim sb posted that pic just for a proof that this pic is of a Pak version of the R-darter, taken inside Pakistan, and by himself, but due to secrecy reasons he can't post the pic of the real missile. So since we don't know how the real missile looks like, you are right that the performance parameters as told are just rumored and not trustable, but since i live among PAF serving and retired personnel and out of 5 pilot friends, 3 are on ROSE upgraded Mirages, i am pretty sure about what pshamim sb said and what are the performance parameters of the missile. Sorry, i don't have official sources to proof that, but i guess knowing this stuff is OK for my own consumption as these things are state secret, which are good to be kept that way. But i can assure you, i have seen the pic of a PAF Mirage loaded with the missile with my friend standing beside it.
And I am pretty sure the Israeli & South Africans would have come with a 100+KM range missile, had they wanted it. Just as an example, though R-darter and Derby have nearly same specifications, but still Derby is advertised with 50KM range envelope, while R-Darter is advertised with a 60+Km range envelope.
Moreover, you said that the Chinese had access to the same ToT too and that it could influenced SD 10 also, but again, if PAF was able to upgrade the missile to 120Km ranges, why couldn't the Chinese with more know how, experience and fundings achieve the same with SD 10, which has a range of 70+ Km only?
SD-10A is advertised with 70+Km range envelope, have they or is there any official source gives the maximum range for the missile ?? Even some Chinese sources, good ones though, claim it has a 100+KM range, so my point is, we have the 70+KM range, but what is the real range is not known as the + sign can mean many things. And we all know, certain capabilities of the missile system may not be known in public, only the manufacturer and the user might know about them. So hiding the real range would be a good factor for surprise purposes.
And have you seen the specifications of both missiles, Derby/R_darter & SD-10A. SD-10A is much more heavier, lengthier, 2 inch difference in diameter and still only a 10KM range difference, well that may mean that Chinese tech is inferior to the SA/Israeli one OR may be the Chinese are not giving up the real range for obvious reasons.
And pshamim sb is not the only one to have said that SD-10 may had help from South Africans, there are many sources, which tell of SD-10 getting either Israeli help or South African help.
And i believe the SD-10A has much more range then advertised.
Lets be honest, this is more than unlikely and is one reason why these rumors are not reliable!
Yes, you are right, the specifications would be unreliable for some or may be most of them, but reliable enough for some, and I am one of those for whom it is reliable.
According to the points you and several other members made, it's more likely that this mysterious missile is just a basic R - Darter with a different seeker only. That would explain why the pic pshamim posted looks like an exact copy of R - Darter, so you might get ToT of the missile including the propulsion, but modified the seekers. India did the same with Brahmos, where Russia provides the basicYakhont missile including the propulsion system, but India adds new seekers, navigation systems and mission computers. So by simple logic, H-4 might just be a different version of R - Darter and obviously must have the same range of around 60 Km. That means that the rumors mixed up the specs of H-4 AAM and H-2 AGM that then should have up to 120Km standoff missile range.
Nops, its not just a basic R-Darter, body as well as seeker both have been modified. Real missile is not exactly like R-Darter. pshamim sb did mentioned it as told above, that the pic is of not what the real missile looks like. As said, once you get the tech, then it is easy to play around with it and make changes as per your likeness and requirements. And as for H-2, by adding just the rocket booster to increase the range, there is no logic to give it a new name. H-2 & H-4 are separate programs, with different specifications.
Unlikely again, because from a comercial point of view, it would make even more sense to offer a variety of missiles to export customers. China would have integrated SD 10 on JFT / FC1 for other export customers anyway, because it is their standard BVR missile that they will use in high numbers, so they don't need PAF to use it just for comercial reasons. On the other hand, if H-4 AAM would have been available and integrated besides SD 10, any export customer could choose which missile they want. For example, if Turkey would want to buy JFT and could choose between H-4 and SD 10 with comparable ranges and seeker techs, would they prefer the Pakistani H-4, or the Chinese SD 10?
Had Pakistan wanted to export its own BVR missile, it would have offered it on the market, but may be due to some reasons, it was just for local consumption and not for export, who knows the South Africans may have put restrictions with respect to export as it would have damaged their sales prospective or the SA's gave the ToT on the basis that it is for local PAF requirements and not for export purposes. PAF going for any new Chinese tech, does gives the platform considerable exposure in the international market and increases the prospects of its sale. Plus, as I and another member had told, the H-4 program may have been for stop gap purposes to get us BVR capability till some other suitable platform is not inducted, as H-4 program would be an expensive proposition since we have no requirements for it in numbers and no exports, would make its costs high, which by inducting SD-10 could be reduced, since China would be making them in numbers for its own use as well as export purposes. So anything is possible, SA's putting restrictions, economic problems or H-4 just for local consumption etc.
I hope you are aware what you are saying here, because this means PAF was ready to buy a BVR missile at much higher costs, not because they need it, but because they needed the radar and avionics. If that is true, what does it tell us about PAFs opinion on the Chinese radar and avionics in JFT B1 if they want RC 400 so bad?
Who said PAF wanted the RC-400 radar that bad ?? Had they wanted it, they would have bought it long time ago. RC-400 was one of the options, with Italian one and the Chinese option, from which we would have chosen. And the Chinese option suited best. I hope you know the stories about French trying to sell their weapons in packages, as it is a known fact. We would be interested in a French Radar, and they would have proposed that it should be a package deal including the missiles too, so its very natural PAF would have analyzed the package and seen does it suits them or not and can we financially afford it. Did PAF test the RC-400 ?? Was the Mica tested ?? Did any official statement about purchasing Mica system came from PAF ?? Don't think so, but interest or wish may have been told about such a deal, as being one of the option among many. Selex Galileo Grifo series radar was also one of the contenders with RC-400 and the Chinese one and in the end the Chinese option won and the recent statement by PAF chief with respect to acquiring avionics and radar and weapons from China for JF-17 is further proof that Chinese option is more better compared to western ones, and even on technical basis the Chinese radar may be more better for us then the RC-400 or Italian option. So the PAF CAS statement about Chinese systems is a testament to the confidence PAF has in Chinese systems, which may have lacked previously and RC-400 and Italian radars were being sought. There is no fact which gives us the impression that PAF wanted the RC-400 and Mica that badly, we showed interest in some radar and the French offered their terms and conditions, which has not been finalized nor even tested. So, i think its pretty clear that PAF was not wanting RC-400 or Mica that badly.
That's what I meant, you base your believe on some unofficial sources, but you don't know it for sure, because there are no official proofs and that's the reason why so many people still have a different opinion. In my personal opinion, the H-4 development might have started in the early 2000s based on R - darter, but the missile is either not operational yet, or does not offer comparable performance like SD 10, otherwise there is simply no reason for PAF to import SD 10, or MICA over H-4 on JFT B1.
I base my believe on unofficial sources as well as personal accounts, which i just mentioned above. You wish to trust it, is ok with me, don't wanna trust and need an official source or wish to wait for it, sorry for now can't help you in that.
The missile is operational, but its future is not yet certain as i have no one in the higher hierarchy who can tell me what is its future and for what exactly reasons are we going for other missile systems, but i do know H-4 has a 100+Km range, its not exactly as per the R-Darter specifications, its different and PAF is not buying Mica missile for now, it was part of the RC-400 radar package, which we have not pursued for now due to certain reasons and may be French reluctance for now.
And diversification is one major reason for acquiring different sourced BVR missiles as it gives more options as we would be very vulnerable with just one kind of BVR missile.
