H2 And H4 are AAM Or AGM?

[lahori]

THIS IS MYSTERY SINCE 2003. ANY ONE LIKE TO SOVE IT

 

[hj786]

No mystery, they are glide bombs. More info:
PAF adds new bombs to its arsenal -DAWN - Top Stories; December 18, 2003
Tecna Corporation: Defense Products and Technologies > Aerospace
The South African Air Force - Raptor I (H-2)
The South African Air Force - Raptor II (H-4?)

Some people have said that H-4 has been modified with a turbojet engine instead of the rocket booster, which means it might be more comparable to this:
The South African Air Force - Torgos

 

[lahori]

thank you very much hj786 for such an informative reply.

 

[jawadqamar]

PAF adds new bombs to its arsenal
ISLAMABAD, Dec 17: Pakistan Air Force has integrated the H-4 out-of-sight target bombs in its arsenal of fighter aircraft, official sources said.

The incorporation of H-4 bombs have added to the capability of the PAF to hit out-of-sight targets from a distance of up to 120 kilometres to evade enemy radars during air strikes. A lighter version of the bomb, H-2 model, can hit the out-of-sight targets from a range of up to 60 kilometres.

“It is a step towards adding the Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles to our arsenal for defensive purposes and to address the strategic imbalance in the region,” sources said.

The indigenously produced H-4 bombs is an achievement of the National Engineering and Scientific Commission (NESCOM), which works in close collaboration with Pakistan Missile Organization and the Air Weapons Complex.

“Three successful tests of H-4, with the latest conducted this year, produced satisfactory results leading to addition of arsenal in the fighter jets,” the sources said.

The H-4 bombs have been made through indigenous efforts by modifying the technological design of South African T-Darter BVR missiles. Till the induction of JF-17 Thunder in 2006, with a provision for BVRs, the H-2 and H-4 bombs could be carried by Mirage fighter jets. The H-4 infrared device is said to be comparable to that of the AA11, AA12 and Python 4 in the Indian arsenal.
Moreover, the sources said, fighter aircraft in PAF’s arsenal have the “provision” to be fitted with precision-guided munitions and BVR missiles.

When asked about advantages of BVR in Indian arsenal, PAF spokesperson Air Commodore Sarfaraz said: “We are aggressively trying to utilize whatever equipment we have to its optimum operational limits through professional training and by pursuing high standards of maintenance.”

Mr Sarfaraz said: “We are aware of our technological needs and are vigorously trying to meet those requirements either through procurements or indigenous developments.”

The European and the US suppliers were currently not willing to share the technology with Pakistan. However, contacts were being established with China, defence sources said, adding that JF-17 Thunder (to be inducted in 2006), F-16s and the Mirage aircraft in Pakistan’s fleet all had the provision to be fitted with BVRs once the technology and the missiles would be acquired. DAWN

let me try to explaine this issue

In February 1996, soon after the PAF concluded a US$50 million deal with Italy’s Galileo Avionica for the supply of 30 Grifo-M3 airborne multi-mode pulse-Doppler radars for the upgraded Mirage IIIEAs, contractual negotiations began on a $160 million contract with Kentron to cover the licenced-production by AERO of the latter’s U-Darter within-visual-range air-to-air missile (a reverse-engineered R550 Magic-2 missile developed by MBDA). Following this, the PAF by April 1999 had commenced contractual negotiations with Denel Aerospace for co-development of a beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM) under a project codenamed H-2, as well as a family of ALCMs under Project H-4. Flight tests of the BVRAAM got underway in 2001 and the resultant missile is now the AERO-produced variant of Kentron’s 60km-range R-Darter missile, which in turn is a derivative of the Derby BVRAAM developed by Israel’s RAFAEL Armament Authority.

1. Missile was fired on its target from a Mirage (ROSE-I with Italy’s Grifo-M3 airborne multi-mode pulse-Doppler radars /some even said these were 2 South African "Cheetah" Fighters which were sold to PAF to ease the testing of BVRAAM) plane over the Arabian Sea. If Mirages pointed towards South Africa than one can only think of BVRAAM test over sea as there will be no point in testing the PGM over sea, so every thing pointed toward South African T-Darter BVR AAM missile.
   
2. BVRAAM also explains why PAF opted for the Grifo-M3 airborne multi-mode pulse-Doppler radars for Mirage-III Rose-1 which in case of PGMs makes little sense
   
3. H-2 is described to have a range of 60 Km and South African T-Darter BVR AAM missile too had a range of 60 kms and was offered to PAF with some TOT in BVR technology[/B]
   .
   
4. It was said that H-4 missiles which was an infra-red device and H-4 PGM (Raptor II /Torgos/MUPSOW ALCM)carries that for terminal guidance to achieve 3 meter CEP.
   
   .
5. "It is a step towards adding the Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles to our arsenal for defensive purposes and to address the strategic imbalance in the region," Pakistan daily Dawn quoted PAF officials as saying.
   
   
6. Now this statement is extremely important as this is in quoting PAF officials and it doesn’t have a blend of super journalism by these ---- journalists.
   
   .
7. It clearly states Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles not Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Bombs as described by them. It further goes on to say that These are to address the strategic imbalance in the region, now we know that there is no strategic imbalance in PGM in IAF favor category as PAF already have and is continuing to improve its PGM advantage over IAF, so PAF official is referring to words BVRAAM advantage that IAF had at that time over the PAF. So while H-4 long range PGM increased the PAFs attack capabilities it is H-2 that address the strategic imbalance in the region so to me H-2 is a BVRAAM with 60km range is basically a (T-Dater)

So i would say that H-2 is a BVRAAM with 60km range is basically a (T-Dater) which is an improved version of R-Dater with data link and some other improvements to meet PAF requirements. On the other hand H-4 is a 120km-range PGM Which could have been based on Raptor II /Torgos/MUPSOW ALCM.Kentron displayed details and a model of a new air-to-surface missile called Torgos in November 1999.This missile is described as an evolutionary development of the Improved MUPSOW.The turbojet engine gives Torgos a cruise speed of M 0.7 and a range of 300 km.So I would say that H-4 is either based on Raptor II or MUPSOW not on the Torgos as it falls in class of Raad because of its 300km range


South African BVRAAM with ramjet engine technology is called the Long Range Air-to-Air Missile (LRAAM) or S-Dater and was offered to PAF as joint development project as a long term solution to PAF requirements on the other hand T-Dater was offered as short to medium term solution. T-Dater was an improved version of R-Dater with data link and some other improvements to meet PAF requirements

There is no other explanation of purchase Grifo-M3 airborne multi-mode pulse-Doppler radars for the upgraded Mirage IIIEAs on the time when Pakistan had very good defense relations with South Africa. This also explains the fact that PAF tested but did not went on to purchase the Shenyang J-8 II / F-8 Finback which was capable of beyond visual range combat (BVR) with R-27 (AA-10) which could be obtained from Ukraine whose relations with Pakistan were very good at that time and Chinese PL-11 (PiLi-11) semi-active radar-homing medium-range air-to-air missile (MRAAM)[/B

MUPSOW is a multi-purpose, surgical-strike weapon, designed to neutralise enemy targets such as airfields, bunkers and command-and-control centres at stand-off ranges. Pinpoint accuracy is achieved by using advanced navigation and terminal-guidance technology. MultiPurpose StandOff Weapon (MUPSOW) design was first reported in 1993 and was being developed by Denel (Kentron Division). MUPSOW was 4.5 m long, had a launch weight of 850 kg and a range of 50 km. The missile had a warhead weight of 415 kg. It is reported that both TV and imaging IR seekers were planned. A series of captive carry and drop tests was reported in 1996, with an in-service date originally planned for 2000. An improved MUPSOW was proposed in 1995, with a length increased to 4.92 m, a launch weight of 1,200 kg and a range increased to 120 km. This version was similar in appearance to the German/Swedish Taurus KEPD-150 missile, with a turbojet engine. The improved MUPSOW would use INS/GPS guidance, with a choice of TV, IIR or MMW active radar seekers.

Raptor 2 is an upgrade of the Raptor 1 system, fitted with a rocket pod giving it greater range and manoeuvrability than the original glide bomb. Raptor 2 has range of 120km

 

[Shiji]

It's an IR guided glide bomb, Indian Media just for sake of propaganda has called it a BVRAAM. Just to make my point clear here is a small fragment of NEWS one from DAWN and other from Indian Site.
Pakistani Source (The Real Article):

ISLAMABAD, Dec 17: Pakistan Air Force has integrated the H-4 out-of-sight target bombs in its arsenal of fighter aircraft, official sources said.
The incorporation of H-4 bombs have added to the capability of the PAF to hit out-of-sight targets from a distance of up to 120 kilometres to evade enemy radars during air strikes. A lighter version of the bomb, H-2 model, can hit the out-of-sight targets from a range of up to 60 kilometres.
“It is a step towards adding the Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles to our arsenal for defensive purposes and to address the strategic imbalance in the region,” sources said.
The indigenously produced H-4 bombs is an achievement of the National Engineering and Scientific Commission (NESCOM), which works in close collaboration with Pakistan Missile Organization and the Air Weapons Complex.
“Three successful tests of H-4, with the latest conducted this year, produced satisfactory results leading to addition of arsenal in the fighter jets,” the sources said.
The H-4 bombs have been made through indigenous efforts by modifying the technological design of South African T-Darter BVR missiles. Till the induction of JF-17 Thunder in 2006, with a provision for BVRs, the H-2 and H-4 bombs could be carried by Mirage fighter jets. The H-4 infrared device is said to be comparable to that of the AA11, AA12 and Python 4 in the Indian arsenal.
Moreover, the sources said, fighter aircraft in PAF’s arsenal have the “provision” to be fitted with precision-guided munitions and BVR missiles.
When asked about advantages of BVR in Indian arsenal, PAF spokesperson Air Commodore Sarfaraz said: “We are aggressively trying to utilize whatever equipment we have to its optimum operational limits through professional training and by pursuing high standards of maintenance.”
Mr Sarfaraz said: “We are aware of our technological needs and are vigorously trying to meet those requirements either through procurements or indigenous developments.”
The European and the US suppliers were currently not willing to share the technology with Pakistan. However, contacts were being established with China, defence sources said, adding that JF-17 Thunder (to be inducted in 2006), F-16s and the Mirage aircraft in Pakistan’s fleet all had the provision to be fitted with BVRs once the technology and the missiles would be acquired.

Indian Source (The Altered Article):

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Air Force has inducted H-4 Beyond Visual Range missile which could strike a target from a distance of 120 km without visually
citing it, evading enemy radars.
"It is a step towards adding the Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles to our arsenal for defensive purposes and to address the strategic imbalance in the region," Pakistan daily Dawn quoted PAF officials as saying.
The officials claimed that the missile was developed by the National Engineering and Scientific Commission (NESCOM), which works in close collaboration with Pakistan Missile Organisation and the Air Weapons Complex.
"Three successful tests of H-4, with the latest conducted this year, produced satisfactory results leading to addition of arsenal in the fighter jets," they said, adding the missiles were modified version of the South African T-Darter BVR missiles. The PAF claims to have H-2 BVR missiles which could hit targets up to 60 km.
Reports of Pakistan seeking the BVR technology appeared in the South African media. In the face of protests from India, the South African government blamed "rogue" elements to collaborate with Pakistan to develop BVRs.
PAF officials said the H-4 missiles which was an infra-red device and comparable to that of the AA11, AA12 and Python 4 missiles of the IAF would be fitted on to the PAF's Mirage aircraft until the induction of new plane JF-17 Thunder, jointly developed by Pakistan and China, in 2006.
They said European and the US suppliers were currently not willing to share the technology with Pakistan but PAF was managing with whatever technology at its disposal.

Do you see the similarities between the two? It is just Indian Media Propaganda at its best, showing that Pakistan is starting an arm race so that US may try to pressure Pakistan.

 

[jawadqamar]

I have raised five to six points from Dawn News Article please show me where I am illogical in my analysis of that news before saying that it’s just Indian media that is claiming that it’s BVRAAM. What arms race India had that BVRAAM loge time ago

 

[jawadqamar]

And lastly why PAF officials will compare the H-2 with Indian AA-12 if it was a PGM?

 

[hj786]

let me try to explaine this issue

1. Missile was fired on its target from a Mirage (ROSE-I with Italy’s Grifo-M3 airborne multi-mode pulse-Doppler radars /some even said these were 2 South African "Cheetah" Fighters which were sold to PAF to ease the testing of BVRAAM) plane over the Arabian Sea. If Mirages pointed towards South Africa than one can only think of BVRAAM test over sea as there will be no point in testing the PGM over sea, so every thing pointed toward South African T-Darter BVR AAM missile.
   
2. BVRAAM also explains why PAF opted for the Grifo-M3 airborne multi-mode pulse-Doppler radars for Mirage-III Rose-1 which in case of PGMs makes little sense
   
3. H-2 is described to have a range of 60 Km and South African T-Darter BVR AAM missile too had a range of 60 kms and was offered to PAF with some TOT in BVR technology[/B]
   .
   
4. It was said that H-4 missiles which was an infra-red device and H-4 PGM (Raptor II /Torgos/MUPSOW ALCM)carries that for terminal guidance to achieve 3 meter CEP.
   
   .
5. "It is a step towards adding the Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles to our arsenal for defensive purposes and to address the strategic imbalance in the region," Pakistan daily Dawn quoted PAF officials as saying.
   
   
6. Now this statement is extremely important as this is in quoting PAF officials and it doesn’t have a blend of super journalism by these ---- journalists.
   
   .
7. It clearly states Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles not Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Bombs as described by them. It further goes on to say that These are to address the strategic imbalance in the region, now we know that there is no strategic imbalance in PGM in IAF favor category as PAF already have and is continuing to improve its PGM advantage over IAF, so PAF official is referring to words BVRAAM advantage that IAF had at that time over the PAF. So while H-4 long range PGM increased the PAFs attack capabilities it is H-2 that address the strategic imbalance in the region so to me H-2 is a BVRAAM with 60km range is basically a (T-Dater)

1. Of course they could have tested BVRAAM(s), where is the evidence that H-2 and H-4 are BVRAAMs?
   Actually yes, they could have tested PGM over the sea. Test ranges on land are often protested against by civilians.
   
2. Firstly, one of the main reasons ROSE I have good radars is PAF had no fighters with radars good enough for patrolling - only F-16, and those had to be grounded due to lack of spare parts. Radars are for finding the enemy first, not just for firing BVRAAMs.
   Secondly, according to some, PAF was planning to integrate MICA with these ROSE I fighters but they abandoned it because JF-17 was nearly ready and it would have been costly.
   Thirdly, PGMs can still be integrated to the ROSE I fighters. The only difference between ROSE I and ROSE II/III is that the latter have FLIR instead of radar. You don't need FLIR to launch and guide PGMs.
   
3. Is H-2 radar guided or IR guided? Show me an IR guided air-to-air missile with a range of 60 km? Last time I checked, there aren't any. Of course they got TOT in BVR technology, they used it to make stand-off glide bombs. These newspapers keep saying "BVR bomb" instead of "stand-off bomb".
   
4. "It was said that H-4 missiles which was an infra-red device and H-4 PGM (Raptor II /Torgos/MUPSOW ALCM)carries that for terminal guidance to achieve 3 meter CEP."
   What is your point here? This means H-4 is a stand-off PGM.
   
5. "It is a step towards adding the Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles to our arsenal for defensive purposes and to address the strategic imbalance in the region," Pakistan daily Dawn quoted PAF officials as saying.
   So they said it is a step towards adding them, not that they have already added them? This also indicates that H-2 and H-4 are stand-off PGM.
   
6. 
   

   It clearly states Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles not Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Bombs as described by them. It further goes on to say that These are to address the strategic imbalance in the region, now we know that there is no strategic imbalance in PGM in IAF favor category as PAF already have and is continuing to improve its PGM advantage over IAF, so PAF official is referring to words BVRAAM advantage that IAF had at that time over the PAF. So while H-4 long range PGM increased the PAFs attack capabilities it is H-2 that address the strategic imbalance in the region so to me H-2 is a BVRAAM with 60km range is basically a (T-Dater)

   
   No it does not clearly state anything about missiles instead of bombs. If it clearly stated missiles, there would be no argument. He is talking about a strategic imbalance because stand-off weapons allow PAF to strike strategic targets without having to expose themselves to Indian defenses.
   

So i would say that H-2 is a BVRAAM with 60km range is basically a (T-Dater) which is an improved version of R-Dater with data link and some other improvements to meet PAF requirements.

T-darter is radar guided, isn't it? If H-2 is a radar guided BVRAAM, why do they compare it to short range IR guided missiles?

South African BVRAAM with ramjet engine technology is called the Long Range Air-to-Air Missile (LRAAM) or S-Dater and was offered to PAF as joint development project as a long term solution to PAF requirements on the other hand T-Dater was offered as short to medium term solution. T-Dater was an improved version of R-Dater with data link and some other improvements to meet PAF requirements

It's easy to claim all that stuff, but where's the proof? Where are the PAF's ramjet LRAAMs? Is PAF involved in every single South African missile project?

There is no other explanation of purchase Grifo-M3 airborne multi-mode pulse-Doppler radars on the time when Pakistan had very good defense relations with South Africa.

Yes there is an explanation. PAF's only decent airborne radars were in 32 F-16. Grifo M3 gave them 30 more. Grifo 7PG gave them another 180 or so.

This also explains the fact that PAF tested but did not went on to purchase the Shenyang J-8 II / F-8 Finback which was capable of beyond visual range combat (BVR) with R-27 (AA-10) which could be obtained from Ukraine whose relations with Pakistan were very good at that time and Chinese PL-11 (PiLi-11) semi-active radar-homing medium-range air-to-air missile (MRAAM)[/B

Are you seriously telling us that just because they refused to buy J-8II, they must have BVRAAMs? That's the lousiest argument I've ever heard.

PL-11 was obsolete by the mid 90s, why would PAF want it? Same with J-8II. AA-10 had a crappy combat record in some African conflicts according to what I read, why would they want that too?

And lastly why PAF officials will compare the H-2 with Indian AA-12 if it was a PGM?

This is what the article actually says:
"PAF officials said the H-4 missiles which was an infra-red device and comparable to that of the AA11, AA12 and Python 4 missiles of the IAF would be fitted on to the PAF's Mirage aircraft until the induction of new plane JF-17 Thunder, jointly developed by Pakistan and China, in 2006."

In other words, the H-4 "missile" is an infra-red device that is ALSO comparable to short range infra-red guided missiles (AA-11, Python 4) AND a medium range (or Beyond Visual Range) radar guided missile (AA-12)? How does that work?

How can an infra-red guided missile be comparable to a pair of short range infra-red guided missiles and a BVR radar guided missile? I have an explanation:
You can't trust a single thing these Pakistani journalists report, they have absolutely NO idea what they are talking about. Simple.

Anyways, H-4 could have a radar guided version, so in a way you could say this version is comparable to radar guided missile like AA-12. According to your previous post, "the improved MUPSOW would use INS/GPS guidance, with a choice of TV, IIR or MMW active radar seekers." MMW normally means millimetre wave radar, the same kind of radar used by attack helicopter radars like the one fitted to Apache Longbow. This would allow the seeker to take accurate radar pictures of the area, transmit them back to the Mirage and allow the pilot to lock it onto a target or guide it all the way to the target.


H-2 and H-4 aren't BVRAAMs just because you want them to be. With BVRAAMs, PAF has to go up against every single enemy fighter to win, all 700 of them. With stand-off weapons, PAF just has to find the right targets.

 

[pshamim]

Has any one ever seen a picture of H-4 It should clearly indicate whether it is a bomb or an AAM.

 

[jawadqamar]

1 evidence is already presented in the my earlier post in points 1 2 and 5
A PGM with IR have to be tested agist a target to get actual CEP and for that it would need a target which the terminal guidance system have to indentify from the cluster around the targets and for the very reason PGM can be tested against the sea target. For the same reason India has add IR guidance to it Brahmos missile to make it capable of use against land targets accurately. Pakistan is having air force for is decades and is testing weapons on grounds and Pakistan has tested long range to short range missiles with ranges of 2000 km + so the argument of so called civilian protests hold no ground at all unless you think of Pakistan as European nation having movements like green peace
In your second point you first say that Radar was integrated because they only want to find targets only? What will these aircrafts do once they find their aircrafts? In same point you also agree that they wanted BVRAAM and that’s why they upgraded so decide what you really want to say here Upgrade was for BVRAAM or it was not?
Infact the point you raised that PAF waned the MICA for Mirages and later on decided not to go far it also shows that PAF got the BackUp plan in form of T- Dater and once they go the TOT offer for the R-Dater they decided in favor of local BVRAAM instead of importing one
Thirdly if you search a bit you will find out that you need targeting capability to use the PGM and that the reason we all associate the Rose-II/III with the PGM
I never said that H-2 is IR guided and neither do the article
The H-4 infrared device is said to be comparable to that of the AA11, AA12 and Python 4 in the Indian arsenal.
Yes I am saying that H-2 is BVRAAM and H-4 is PGM
In fifth point you are missing the fact that PAF officials are calling it as BVR missile not the bombs or PGM as reporters did due to their lack of knowledge
In the end would say that n H-2 is not compared to the AA-11 but to the AA-12. Now please explain what would they putt the AA-12 reference if Both H-2 is PGM???
Grifo-7 is used on most of the F-7s and Grifo-PG is only on the F-7PGs and Grifo-7s are small radars with no capability due to short range but Grifo-M3 is larger diameter radar with more power to support BVRAAM and you did agree on that
May argument should not look lousiest to you if you have knowledge of importance of capability required and how desperate PAF was at that time Do you seriously want to believe that PAF was ready to sit around and do nothing when IAF had BVRAAMs you really got to be kidding because I don’t think that you can be so…..

You are pointing out the mistake made by these dumb journalists the very reason we are arguing today is because of their super mistakes that they made in this report.
In the end your points of AA-11 and AA-12 make you theory of Both H-2 and H-4 as PGM even more less likely option then mine of H-2 BVRAAM and H-4 as PGM

 

[jawadqamar]

Has any one ever seen a picture of H-4 It should clearly indicate whether it is a bomb or an AAM.

No one have seen the picture sir that why we simply can’t say anything with certainty
But janes did mention that Pakistan did had a BVRAAM program

 

[pshamim]

I have a picture of this missile. It was modified by Pakistan. Picture clearly shows that it is a missile and not a bomb.

I did not realize that it was such a big mystery and no one has ever seen this missile before.

May be there is a reason that PAF has never released one. I Will check before posting it on the net. But until then, please be rest assured that it is a Fire & Forget BVRAAM with the reported range of 120km.

PGM and AAM look very different. When you see the picture, it will end all speculation.

 

[Shiji]

Are you sure that the public viewing of the missile is allowed? Because if it was PAF itself would publicize it but they didn't.

 

[jawadqamar]

I have a picture of this missile. It was modified by Pakistan. Picture clearly shows that it is a missile and not a bomb.

I did not realize that it was such a big mystery and no one has ever seen this missile before.

May be there is a reason that PAF has never released one. I Will check before posting it on the net. But until then, please be rest assured that it is a Fire & Forget BVRAAM with the reported range of 120km.

PGM and AAM look very different. When you see the picture, it will end all speculation.

You are right that this discussion can only end when we will see a picture and I will waiting for you to post the picture

 

[jawadqamar]

AiR International - March 2006

FEATURES CRESCENT WINGS - AN EVALUATION OF THE PAKISTAN AIR FORCE

This issue contains information about the H-2 and H-4