H2 And H4 are AAM Or AGM?

[TaimiKhan]

...or it might be the Pakistani name for SD-10 development, which might be occurring simultaneously in China and Pakistan, considering it will be a prime BVR missile for both nations with up coming high tech jets?

Dude SD-10 is a chinese BVR missile..... H4,H-2 are made my Pakistan.... they have no bloody link..... so please dont insult our engineers .........H-2,H-4= 100% PAKISTANI.

Chinese SD-10 has some technological input of the tech which was transferred from the South African's through their R-Darter BVR missile, which they developed with the cooperation of Israelis and seems to have been developed from the Israeli Derby BVR missile.

Proper agreements were done for the transfer tech, Pakistan got lot of missile transfer tech from South Africa of their missiles, PGMs as well as A2A BVR missile tech.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Thanks for the info TK.

 

[naumananjum]

nice info

 

[TaimiKhan]

this is a bit difficult to admit,
all statements and information points in other direction.
the H-2 as AAM and H-4 as AGM.
the ranges for instance, H-2 in BVRAAM role with range of 60km is pretty impressive. if we do have H-4 as BVRAAM with range of 120km what is point in goint for SD-10 and AIM-120.

regards!

Sir, plzzz open the links i had posted and read them one by one. They are from pshamim sb, he clearly asks in his first post that has anyone seen the pic of H-4, then in the second post, he clearly states that it is a missile and not a bomb and that it, meaning H-4 is an AAM-BVR missile with 120KM range, not the rocket assisted Raptor series missile or a PGM.

In his 3rd post, he clearly then posts the pictures with the Pakistan-made copy of the R-darter series missile, and you can keep reading the subsequent posts by pshamim sb and he can state the name as well as the tech transfer and the Pakistani efforts of modification of the missile seeker as per its own need and making it more deadlier and even the missile tech transfer thing with the Chinese.

And recently i did came into contact with some former AWC related person, who did confirm what pshamim sb had said.

Giving H-2 & H-4 designation to same kind of a bombs with the only difference of a rocket booster under one and the other havng none does not makes sense.

So, H-2 is the PGM program, while H-4 is the AAM-BVR missile.

And the point of having multiple BVR capable missiles is very simple, diversity and capability to have not your single BVR platform neutralized by the enemy. If one BVR platform is neutralized, others might keep on working. As we would be having AIM-120s, which can be neutralized as info can be leaked out to the enemy by some country, but for Chinese and especially for the one which we have developed on our own, the enemy may not know what's the tech being used in them, so a fail safe option.

 

[redgriffin]

Taimi sahib what you people are posting is also correct. Just that the designation for the BVR I was given was V-4 withe range bandied about as being 80 kms, more than once by more than one person and most recently in Islamabad at a family wedding in August. Almost 2/3 rds of my extended family either is or has served in our army, airforce and strategic defence development organisations. I get most of my information from them and the relevant ones confirmed what was posted at that defunct forum.
I'm not contesting what you guys have posted, was just throwing in my own $0.02.
Thank you

 

[TaimiKhan]

Taimi sahib what you people are posting is also correct. Just that the designation for the BVR I was given was V-4 withe range bandied about as being 80 kms, more than once by more than one person and most recently in Islamabad at a family wedding in August. Almost 2/3 rds of my extended family either is or has served in our army, airforce and strategic defence development organisations. I get most of my information from them and the relevant ones confirmed what was posted at that defunct forum.
I'm not contesting what you guys have posted, was just throwing in my own $0.02.
Thank you

Yes, there has been some misunderstanding as well as miss communication, and the major reason behind that is, V-4 was the program name given by the South Africans to their R-Darter missile program, while H-2 was for the Raptor series.

So people assume that what South Africans gave the name, PAF/AWC would have given it also. So that is why we have ambiguity.

But H-2 & H-4 are the most named designations by the AWC and from credible sources we have heard that H-2 is the PGM, while H-4 is the BVR missile.

 

[Arsalan]

Chinese SD-10 has some technological input of the tech which was transferred from the South African's through their R-Darter BVR missile, which they developed with the cooperation of Israelis and seems to have been developed from the Israeli Derby BVR missile.

Proper agreements were done for the transfer tech, Pakistan got lot of missile transfer tech from South Africa of their missiles, PGMs as well as A2A BVR missile tech.

but these are two seprate incedients/projects. this do not link the H-2/H-4 project with the chines SD-10 program.
moreover we have been listening about the H-2/H-4 for quite some whereas the SD-10 is relatively new!

@Sir Fatman.
sir with due respect,the categories that you stated with AIM-129 for vipers and SD-10 for JFT and H-4 for Mirages also is not very true, i mean, i dont see a point that if we can develop a 120 Km BVRAAM indegeniously why would we be getting a 80~100Km SD-10, specially for home produced JFT.

one last thing, the BVRAAM that arm Mirages (ROSE upgrades) are are also on a range of >70 Km as reported. we did seriously lacked medium-long range BVR capability before the induction of JFT and F-16 blk 52. this also is available on varios forums..

best regards!
Arsalan Aslam

 

[redgriffin]

A technical point the range of the Derby and R-Darter is stated to be >60 kms. I have always been given the range for our undeclared bvr at round about 80 kms as I posted before. This makes me more inclined to think that the H-2 is the V-4 not the H-4. Ah well lets not rock the boat. What is more important is that we have all the munitions mentioned and the capability granted hereto. Raptor 1 or 2 ne H-2 ya H-4 ka naara laga ker apnay target per nahi girna na hi R-Darter nay V-4 ya H-4 chillatay huay kisi pilot ka din kharab kerna hay.
The capability is what counts, not the designation. A rose called by any name will still be a rose.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

... Raptor 1 or 2 ne H-2 ya H-4 ka naara laga ker apnay target per nahi girna ...

... Raptor 1 or 2 ko H-2 ya H-4 ka naara laga ker apnay target per nahi girna ...

Thanks brother for understanding this irrelevant interjection.

 

[redgriffin]

It depends BP. In Lahore and north central Punjab, it is ne we almost never use ko.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

It depends BP. In Lahore and north central Punjab, it is ne we almost never use ko.

I know brother that this is a carryover from Punjabi especially your Majhi dialect. But ne is a word that is used ONLY in the past tense.

Sorry for the digression. We'll get back to PGMs!

 

[TaimiKhan]

but these are two seprate incedients/projects. this do not link the H*2/H*4 project with the chines SD*10 program.
moreover we have been listening about the H*2/H*4 for quite some whereas the SD*10 is relatively new!

I did not linked the two projects, i just said, the SD*10/PL*12 may also have tech input from the South African technology transfer at some time in its making or later on when the missile was in development. SD*10 started in the late 90s, while the Pak*Kentron deal also seems to have been done in the last 90s, thus the time periods match. SD*10 was rumored to be having a Russian*helped seeker manufactured by the Chinese, but later on may have gotten a new seeker based on some other technological input, either from the South Africans through Pakistan or directly from the Israelis, and pshamim sb, did confirm that Chinese were involved in the tech transfer deal and proper paperwork had been done. Do remember, China was under arms embargo at that time, so it couldn't have done the deal directly if it had wanted to. So its very likely that China did get the tech and may have developed two seekers, one for export purposes and the other for its local use.

Here read this:

PiLi*12 Medium*Range Air*to*Air Missile * SinoDefence.com

sir with due respect,the categories that you stated with AIM*129 for vipers and SD*10 for JFT and H*4 for Mirages also is not very true, i mean, i dont see a point that if we can develop a 120 Km BVRAAM indegeniously why would we be getting a 80~100Km SD*10, specially for home produced JFT.

one last thing, the BVRAAM that arm Mirages (ROSE upgrades) are are also on a range of >70 Km as reported. we did seriously lacked medium*long range BVR capability before the induction of JFT and F*16 blk 52. this also is available on varios forums..

best regards!
Arsalan Aslam

Have we gotten the SD*10 ?? Has it been confirmed we would be getting the SD*10 ?? Not yet, so don't take it as a real deal. Read my post again, i said, the major reason is diversity, multiple BVR platforms, less likely that all will be neutralized by the enemy jammers. If we have just one BVR platform, more chances of getting it jammed. So with different platforms, comes diversity.

Plus, as time progresses, technological changes occur. We may had the local BVR at range of 70+KM, but as time passes by, changes would have come and more efficient rocket engine tech would have been developed, thus range of the missile increasing. Same can be said for the Chinese, its reported range may be, 80*100KM, but real range would not be known, as specifications of missiles would be kept secret to the maximum, or export variant and local usage variant may have different specifications.

And who knows, we may get a few SD*10s, to give it more chances of export potential, since Pakistan, primary user of JF*17 using SD*10s would make the whole package more appealing. While PAF keeps the local missile for real fight or use.

Read post #29 & 38, H Khan & Usman S being well known and reliable sources also confirmed, H*4 being a BVR AAM:

http://www.pakdef.info/forum/showth...us*quot*H*4*quot*BVR*Air*to*Air*Missile/page2

Post # 65 & 67:

http://www.pakdef.info/forum/showth...us*quot*H*4*quot*BVR*Air*to*Air*Missile/page3

 

[truepakistani17]

i cant say much regarding if H2 will be a BVRAAM or it will be the H4 but one thing makes sense for sure, the BVRAAM will be in a range of 60Km whereas the land attack Missile will be of 120Km range or something close to it.

the point is a valid one that if we have a 120Km BVRAAM then why are we focusing on AIM120 and SD-10. Variation is not the idea as we dont have big money pockets to go spending just for diversity.
if we have the technology to develop a 120Km BVRAAAM we surely can diversify it on our own as well.
this makes sense that either H2 or H4, which every is the BVRAAM will be the one with the range of around 60Km.

secondly we all know that the range of F-7PG and Mirage ROSE Upgrade BVRAAM range is also in this league and not something staggering like 120Km. if this would have been the case we would have been on par with the IAF in terms of BVRAAM ability even before the JFT and F-16 Blk 52, which, was not the case!

thank you!

 

[SQ8]

i cant say much regarding if H2 will be a BVRAAM or it will be the H4 but one thing makes sense for sure, the BVRAAM will be in a range of 60Km whereas the land attack Missile will be of 120Km range or something close to it.

the point is a valid one that if we have a 120Km BVRAAM then why are we focusing on AIM120 and SD-10. Variation is not the idea as we dont have big money pockets to go spending just for diversity.
if we have the technology to develop a 120Km BVRAAAM we surely can diversify it on our own as well.
this makes sense that either H2 or H4, which every is the BVRAAM will be the one with the range of around 60Km.

secondly we all know that the range of F-7PG and Mirage ROSE Upgrade BVRAAM range is also in this league and not something staggering like 120Km. if this would have been the case we would have been on par with the IAF in terms of BVRAAM ability even before the JFT and F-16 Blk 52, which, was not the case!

thank you!

Throughout the late sixties the USAF operated at least 5 times of different AAM's..each with overlapping parameters.
The same applies to the Russians today..
In quite a few cases the R-77 and later variants of the R-27.

The Aim-120 might be incompatible with the Mirage ROSE series.. and therefore both as a stop gap and a third option.. the local BVRAAM has been pursued.
Too much diversification.. and too much commonality are both detrimental.
Right now.. the PAF's route seems to be the most balanced one.. considering the limitations.

 

[jehangirhaider]

But H-2 & H-4 are the most named designations by the AWC and from credible sources we have heard that H-2 is the PGM, while H-4 is the BVR missile?[/B].

I am agreed with these arguments that one of H type is PGM and another is AAM but the thing is , its make no sense to have H2 as PGM or stand off with 60 km range and H4 AAM with 120 km range.

For stand off weapons 120km is more reliable in terms of survivability of aircraft, whereas AAM with 60km is looking enough for BVR role.

My final words for this thread are that no ones knows that which of H type is AGM or AAM.