Hatf-VIII Ra'ad II (ALCM) | Updates, News & Discussion

[The Deterrent]

Hi dear @The Deterrent
What has that got to do with being rational? I was not trying to denigrate anything--I was merely sounding a bit critical of Ra'ad which has ample amount of south african connection. But the reason why I am not debating it is simply because I am sure it will turn into a dirty mud slinging competition among people who probably wouldnt have worked on Aerial vehicles in any capacity.

"Ample" South-African connection? Seriously? All you have is a stupid anal-yst who still thinks Ra'ad is a derivative of Torgos. In reality it is simply shrunken down version of Babur with an appropriate airframe and control surfaces similar to MUPSOW.
And Pakistan didn't start producing JF-17 until 2008, the year Ra'ad had its first flight. Mirage is simply the go-to test platform for all munitions Pakistan develops itself.

 

[amardeep mishra]

"Ample" South-African connection? Seriously? All you have is a stupid anal-yst who still thinks Ra'ad is a derivative of Torgos. In reality it is simply shrunken down version of Babur with an appropriate airframe and control surfaces similar to MUPSOW.
And Pakistan didn't start producing JF-17 until 2008, the year Ra'ad had its first flight. Mirage is simply the go-to test platform for all munitions Pakistan develops itself.

hi @The Deterrent
I do not go by any analyst. I can only pity if you think so. I was merely trying to say that south africa indeed provided pakistan with MPSOW missile which formed the basis of Ra'ad cruise missile. Ra'ad is no derivative of Babur though-- Ra'ad is undoubtedly more close to MPSOW than babur. If I am not wrong then first flight of JF-17 took place in 2002 or 2003, right? and by 2008 JF-17 was flying well. Dont you think it is weird that Pakistan chooses to integrate such an advanced cruise missile in such an old platform that is well past it's useful life? The choice of platform should have been preferably JF-17 or F-16. It is like india choosing mig-21s to integrate Astra BVR.

 

[The Deterrent]

hi @The Deterrent
I do not go by any analyst. I can only pity if you think so. I was merely trying to say that south africa indeed provided pakistan with MPSOW missile which formed the basis of Ra'ad cruise missile. Ra'ad is no derivative of Babur though-- Ra'ad is undoubtedly more close to MPSOW than babur.

Absolute BS. The MUPSOW I was referring to was the H-2/4 (Raptor-I/II) rocket powered guided stand-off munition. Ra'ad's Airframe is similar to that, not to Torgos SOW. Care to support your analysis with any credible details?

If I am not wrong then first flight of JF-17 took place in 2002 or 2003, right? and by 2008 JF-17 was flying well.Dont you think it is weird that Pakistan chooses to integrate such an advanced cruise missile in such an old platform that is well past it's useful life? The choice of platform should have been preferably JF-17 or F-16. It is like india choosing mig-21s to integrate Astra BVR.

The first flight (2002-3) took place in China.
Last I checked, it is up to the manufacturer to choose the test platform. PAF is more comfortable with Mirage since it had earlier modified it for nuke delivery as well.
Let's apply the same logic on IAF. Which aircraft does DRDO choose for testing its new standoff munitions? Why not choose Tejas instead of Jaguar?

You are EXACTLY like those anal-ysts, who compare pictures and arrive to their own conclusions.

 

[amardeep mishra]

The first flight (2002-3) took place in China.
Last I checked, it is up to the manufacturer to choose the test platform. PAF is more comfortable with Mirage since it had earlier modified it for nuke delivery as well.
Let's apply the same logic on IAF. Which aircraft does DRDO choose for testing its new standoff munitions? Why not choose Tejas instead of Jaguar?

You are EXACTLY like those anal-ysts, who compare pictures and arrive to their own conclusions.

@The Deterrent
Thats what you think my friend, thats what you think! I am not into the business of analysing pictures, I am a control engineer and I design control systems for Aerial vehicles. I do however read reports published in international platforms by authors who are not biased-- for instance the report I have attached below.
Also as for as my knowledge goes, India does not use Jaguars for testing of any new weapon systems. IAF uses mostly Sukhois for that, I am afraid you got confused with the current upgradation program going on for jags that will amount to integration of AESA radar, advanced avionics etc etc. Tejas is not used for testing of new weapons because a new weapon cant be tested off a not so mature platform. However you'll gradually see LCA carrying Astra MK1 and Mk2.

Absolute BS. The MUPSOW I was referring to was the H-2/4 (Raptor-I/II) rocket powered guided stand-off munition. Ra'ad's Airframe is similar to that, not to Torgos SOW. Care to support your analysis with any credible details?

Hi @The Deterrent
I never quoted any indian analyst for my statement. Actually if you are careful enough you would find ample evidences that South Africa Indeed had direct help in designing the Ra'ad-
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1200544/revisiting-south-africas-bomb/

Pardon my inaccuracy, I should have made it clear that it was H-2 and not Torgos. My point was not if H-2 or Torgos was transfered but active help of South African to the extent of integrating the weapon to mirage platform.

 

[The Deterrent]

@The Deterrent
Thats what you think my friend, thats what you think! I am not into the business of analysing pictures, I am a control engineer and I design control systems for Aerial vehicles. I do however read reports published in international platforms by authors who are not biased-- for instance the report I have attached below.
Also as for as my knowledge goes, India does not use Jaguars for testing of any new weapon systems. IAF uses mostly Sukhois for that, I am afraid you got confused with the current upgradation program going on for jags that will amount to integration of AESA radar, advanced avionics etc etc. Tejas is not used for testing of new weapons because a new weapon cant be tested off a not so mature platform. However you'll gradually see LCA carrying Astra MK1 and Mk2.

I don't care what you do. You're wrong here.
Didn't IAF use Jaguar for testing SAAW recently?
And by the same effing logic, "Tejas JF-17 is was not used for testing of new weapons because a new weapon cant be tested off a not so mature platform".

Hi @The Deterrent
I never quoted any indian analyst for my statement. Actually if you are careful enough you would find ample evidences that South Africa Indeed had direct help in designing the Ra'ad-
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1200544/revisiting-south-africas-bomb/

Pardon my inaccuracy, I should have made it clear that it was H-2 and not Torgos. My point was not if H-2 or Torgos was transfered but active help of South African to the extent of integrating the weapon to mirage platform.

More BS. Just because the tail design of H-2 and Ra'ad is same, it doesn't means Ra'ad is derived from H-2/Torgos/MPSOW.
Oh, so now you have retracted your statement to only "integration help"? Wow, poor PAF/AWC can't even integrate a complicated weapon like Ra'ad with Mirage. I wonder how they rewired the avionics of Mirage for nuclear gravity bombs. Must have had French help, right? Wait, no no...it was the Chinese. Nah, it must be South Africa. Or was it somebody else?

Do me a favor: stop hurting your brain.

 

[amardeep mishra]

I don't care what you do. You're wrong here.
Didn't IAF use Jaguar for testing SAAW recently?
And by the same effing logic, "Tejas JF-17 is was not used for testing of new weapons because a new weapon cant be tested off a not so mature platform".

Hi @The Deterrent
I am afraid you did not get the context of SAAW test. DRDO choose to test it from Jaguar because Jaguar happened to be available to them. There are certain number of aircrafts that are sanctioned by the IAF to DRDO for their weapon integration trials. For instance IAF has not yet sanctioned a Mig-29 for kaveri evaluation trials. The platform is subjected to availability.

More BS. Just because the tail design of H-2 and Ra'ad is same, it doesn't means Ra'ad is derived from H-2/Torgos/MPSOW.
Oh, so now you have retracted your statement to only "integration help"? Wow, poor PAF/AWC can't even integrate a complicated weapon like Ra'ad with Mirage. I wonder how they rewired the avionics of Mirage for nuclear gravity bombs. Must have had French help, right? Wait, no no...it was the Chinese. Nah, it must be South Africa. Or was it somebody else?

Do me a favor: stop hurting your brain.

Look, I did not write that report neither did any Indian. So you can not simply write it off as wrong. Also I did not say the south african consultancy was limited to "integration help". Try reading my statement once more-I said-
"My point was not if H-2 or Torgos was transfered but active help of South African to the extent of integrating the weapon to mirage platform."
South african help in Ra'ad is a fact whether you like it or not.
Also a nuclear gravity bomb is entirely different from a cruise missile and I just pray you know the difference. A whole lot of other things are necessary in order to program a cruise missile. In very simple terms, let me ask you a question-- have you worked on APM(ardu-pilot multiplatform)? There is a APM-mission planner that one needs to install in their laptops and the autopilot in UAV communicates with mission planner via a MAVLINK. Just like how you can do a bunch of different things with APM-mission planner like way point navigation, terrain fencing, return to launch etc etc-- cruise missiles have mission planners as well-- because at the end of the day cruise missile is a simple UAV! Also integration of a cruise missile to the platform is more challenging than integrating a gravity bomb.
You can indeed program the missile on-ground or have an interface with launching platform and do it in air from launching platform itself.

In case you have never dealt with mission planners, here is my video-

 

[The Deterrent]

Hi @The Deterrent
I am afraid you did not get the context of SAAW test. DRDO choose to test it from Jaguar because Jaguar happened to be available to them. There are certain number of aircrafts that are sanctioned by the IAF to DRDO for their weapon integration trials. For instance IAF has not yet sanctioned a Mig-29 for kaveri evaluation trials. The platform is subjected to availability.

Stop trying to justify your statements. The bottom-line is, the air-forces don't use aircraft that are still under-development or are not yet mature (reference: in 2008, JF-17 Block 1 couldn't fire AShMs). F-7PG ia mere interceptor, F-16 is off-limits for now. The only remaining choice is Mirage-III/V, which is also used for testing other new systems.

Look, I did not write that report neither did any Indian. So you can not simply write it off as wrong. Also I did not say the south african consultancy was limited to "integration help". Try reading my statement once more-I said-
"My point was not if H-2 or Torgos was transfered but active help of South African to the extent of integrating the weapon to mirage platform."
South african help in Ra'ad is a fact whether you like it or not.

Err, that report is based on the same kind of analysis as yours. PAF/AWC DO NOT need any external help in integrating weapon systems with Mirages. Mission data loading, one-way data link and INS (specifically IMU) start-up is all that's there to be done. All of this had already been done by Pakistan in different systems.

Can't find anything concrete? Maybe you should accept that you're just wrong.

Also a nuclear gravity bomb is entirely different from a cruise missile and I just pray you know the difference. A whole lot of other things are necessary in order to program a cruise missile. In very simple terms, let me ask you a question-- have you worked on APM(ardu-pilot multiplatform)? There is a APM-mission planner that one needs to install in their laptops and the autopilot in UAV communicates with mission planner via a MAVLINK. Just like how you can do a bunch of different things with APM-mission planner like way point navigation, terrain fencing, return to launch etc etc-- cruise missiles have mission planners as well-- because at the end of the day cruise missile is a simple UAV! Also integration of a cruise missile to the platform is more challenging than integrating a gravity bomb.
You can indeed program the missile on-ground or have an interface with launching platform and do it in air from launching platform itself.

In case you have never dealt with mission planners, here is my video-

Oh wow, thank you so much for your lesson on flying hobby drones. But you forgot, that Pakistan was already doing mission planning/way-point navigation since 2005 in Babur. Let me check where it says that Pakistan was not able to use the same technologies for both of its own cruise missiles.

As I said, stop hurting your brain. I don't want to be held responsible for a popped artery.

 

[amardeep mishra]

Stop trying to justify your statements. The bottom-line is, the air-forces don't use aircraft that are still under-development or are not yet mature (reference: in 2008, JF-17 Block 1 couldn't fire AShMs). F-7PG ia mere interceptor, F-16 is off-limits for now. The only remaining choice is Mirage-III/V, which is also used for testing other new systems.

Hi @The Deterrent
I am not justifying my statements. I am merely stating the policy of IAF. Also I do see your point that new weapons are tested from a mature platform.

Err, that report is based on the same kind of analysis as yours. PAF/AWC DO NOT need any external help in integrating weapon systems with Mirages. Mission data loading, one-way data link and INS (specifically IMU) start-up is all that's there to be done. All of this had already been done by Pakistan in different systems.

Can't find anything concrete? Maybe you should accept that you're just wrong.

Well, if you think that report published in a neutral(neither pakistani nor Indian) source is wrong, then yeah I guess nothing can be done here. The reason why you're able to write or perhaps claim a lot of things is because pakistan unlike India has never been transparent regarding the source of their technology. Things would have been far different if the veil of secrecy is lifted off.

Oh wow, thank you so much for your lesson on flying hobby drones. But you forgot, that Pakistan was already doing mission planning/way-point navigation since 2005 in Babur. Let me check where it says that Pakistan was not able to use the same technologies for both of its own cruise missiles.

As I said, stop hurting your brain. I don't want to be held responsible for a popped artery.

Do not worry about my brain, my friend. I love analyzing such systems. And no they are not hobby drones in the sense that you can control it via RC. They are fully autonomous! ofcourse I did not develop the APM stack--I merely pulled it off the github.
I have however designed completely nonlinear control for thrust vectored aerial vehicles and coded in python and implemented in micro-computer. This is radically different from linearized way of designing control wherein we use MRAC based gain scheduling.
The data transmission takes place using MQTT protocol(as against MAVLINK).
Yes indeed pakistan has been doing a LOT OF THINGS but that doesnt mean all of it has been designed there. We all know the origin and development of Babur. If you read carefully I never claimed pakistan was not able to use the same technologies for both of its own cruise missile-- the point I was making and I still make is -- there is a clear distinct south african hand in design of Ra'ad which you can not deny. There are couple of other sources as well-- dont worry they are not Indian-- and they claim south african involvement in Ra'ad.

 

[Trango Towers]

hi @The Deterrent
I do not go by any analyst. I can only pity if you think so. I was merely trying to say that south africa indeed provided pakistan with MPSOW missile which formed the basis of Ra'ad cruise missile. Ra'ad is no derivative of Babur though-- Ra'ad is undoubtedly more close to MPSOW than babur. If I am not wrong then first flight of JF-17 took place in 2002 or 2003, right? and by 2008 JF-17 was flying well. Dont you think it is weird that Pakistan chooses to integrate such an advanced cruise missile in such an old platform that is well past it's useful life? The choice of platform should have been preferably JF-17 or F-16. It is like india choosing mig-21s to integrate Astra BVR.

Gosh do you have any idea how research is done. They can even using modified civilian aircraft to test weapons and avionics and often do. Please learn before waffling

 

[Ch abdullah]

All of above pakistan first need to deveolpe ICBM(Intercontinental ballistic missile ) to make its defence more strong

 

[Bossman]

All of above pakistan first need to deveolpe ICBM(Intercontinental ballistic missile ) to make its defence more strong

Why, who will it be used against, will it make Pakistan stronger or weaker, what is the cost benefit? Please develop intellectual curiosity and the ability to analyze situations and not post childish statements.

 

[The Accountant]

Why, who will it be used against, will it make Pakistan stronger or weaker, what is the cost benefit? Please develop intellectual curiosity and the ability to analyze situations and not post childish statements.

Ok than discard your Nuclear bombs and ban your armed forces ...

Man I am also against test of ICBMs but capability should be there ...

 

[Ch abdullah]

Why, who will it be used against, will it make Pakistan stronger or weaker, what is the cost benefit? Please develop intellectual curiosity and the ability to analyze situations and not post childish statements.

Now you read this then might you it makes my country strong or weak and your neighbour INDIA has made ICBM.They are getting stronger in every field.There are in G 20 but we are at 25 and whatever situations are i may think only the benefit of my country not of other
An intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) is a guided ballistic missile with a minimum range of 5,500 kilometres (3,400 mi)[1] primarily designed for nuclear weapons delivery (delivering one or more thermonuclear warheads). Similarly, conventional, chemical, and biological weapons can also be delivered with varying effectiveness, but have never been deployed on ICBMs. Most modern designs support multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), allowing a single missile to carry several warheads, each of which can strike a different target.

Early ICBMs had limited precision, which made them suitable for use only against the largest targets, such as cities. They were seen as a "safe" basing option, one that would keep the deterrent force close to home where it would be difficult to attack. Attacks against military targets (especially hardened ones) still demanded the use of a more precise manned bomber. Second- and third-generation designs dramatically improved accuracy to the point where even the smallest point targets can be successfully attacked.

ICBMs are differentiated by having greater range and speed than other ballistic missiles: intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs), medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs), short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) and tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs). Short and medium-range ballistic missiles are known collectively as theatre ballistic missiles

 

[Sameer25]

Now you read this then might you it makes my country strong or weak and your neighbour INDIA has made ICBM.They are getting stronger in every field.There are in G 20 but we are at 25 and whatever situations are i may think only the benefit of my country not of other
An intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) is a guided ballistic missile with a minimum range of 5,500 kilometres (3,400 mi)[1] primarily designed for nuclear weapons delivery (delivering one or more thermonuclear warheads). Similarly, conventional, chemical, and biological weapons can also be delivered with varying effectiveness, but have never been deployed on ICBMs. Most modern designs support multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), allowing a single missile to carry several warheads, each of which can strike a different target.

Early ICBMs had limited precision, which made them suitable for use only against the largest targets, such as cities. They were seen as a "safe" basing option, one that would keep the deterrent force close to home where it would be difficult to attack. Attacks against military targets (especially hardened ones) still demanded the use of a more precise manned bomber. Second- and third-generation designs dramatically improved accuracy to the point where even the smallest point targets can be successfully attacked.

ICBMs are differentiated by having greater range and speed than other ballistic missiles: intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs), medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs), short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) and tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs). Short and medium-range ballistic missiles are known collectively as theatre ballistic missiles

i heard rumors about Pakistan developing Tipu and Tamur icbms are they true or just rumors

 

[Arsalan]

i heard rumors about Pakistan developing Tipu and Tamur icbms are they true or just rumors

As you called them, they were "rumors".