Pakistani GIDS TAKBIR Series Satellite Aided Inertially Guided Bomb

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Right, I agree they are not a 1 to 1 replacement. Yes, H4's range is comparable to the REK-III, but as you said REK-III is a different kind of system (cheaper, possibly less accurate). This of course implies that H4's true replacement needs to be longer ranged, while maintaining the same capability. Like I said earlier I think theres a capability gap of a cheap 350km SOW.

I have some ideas on how to achieve this (not sure how realistic):
1. Using AESA radar's capability to form tight beams to establish relatively secure data links with this (let's call it) H-6. This data link can keep updating the position in a Beidou denied environment allowing longer ranges on INS. Kind of like an A2A missile.
2. Use dual-pulse rocket motor instead of a turbofan to keep costs low.
3. Use an IR/TV seeker that can automously identify and track targets so a person isn't needed to steer to target.
4. Maybe sacrifice to a smaller Mk82 boom to achieve the range.


Considering they were selling REK kits for a million dollars each, I shudder to think what they'll sell us this badboy for. Cue the I-GB-6

Damn that looks like it was made my Hamas in a Gaza basement.

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) it uses a Mk82. They're stealing my designs already lol.

Yeah I think 1-4 are all on point.

The only thing I'd consider adding is an optional miniature turbojet. It would basically be an appendage and, in turn, be our low-cost ALCM solution if we need it.

You can see what I mean with the Denel Raptor III:

 

[CriticalThought]

Continue here @Bilal Khan (Quwa)

The H2/H4 weapons have a key feature: TV guidance. This requires a plane that can lurk for a longer time, ideally below the horizon. The large delta wings of Mirages should provide a better lift to drag ratio in level and straight flight. If H2/H4 can transmit using satellites or other drones, then the actual Mirage can stay out of radar sight following Nap of Earth. You can't get this in the Thunder.

Considering they were selling REK kits for a million dollars each, I shudder to think what they'll sell us this badboy for. Cue the I-GB-6

I highly doubt PAF would buy one missile for 1 million dollars for a grand total of 100 for 100 million. More likely, there would be ToT of some sort involved which allowed PAF to indigenously develop IREK.

 

[denel]

The H2/H4 weapons have a key feature: TV guidance. This requires a plane that can lurk for a longer time, ideally below the horizon. The large delta wings of Mirages should provide a better lift to drag ratio in level and straight flight. If H2/H4 can transmit using satellites or other drones, then the actual Mirage can stay out of radar sight following Nap of Earth. You can't get this in the Thunder.


I highly doubt PAF would buy one missile for 1 million dollars for a grand total of 100 for 100 million. More likely, there would be ToT of some sort involved which allowed PAF to indigenously develop IREK.

TV guidance is there plus preprogrammed as well as if a TV lock is lost, it will switch to alternate designated target. It uses a telemetry technique which is found across all the SA RF ecosystems that are extremely ECM resilient.

 

[JamD]

TV guidance is there plus preprogrammed as well as if a TV lock is lost, it will switch to alternate designated target. It uses a telemetry technique which is found across all the SA RF ecosystems that are extremely ECM resilient.

Do you reckon it is possible for an AESA radar to do what the communication pod (not sure of the official name) does for the H4? Sorry if this is a stupid question but I gather that, among other things, AESA radars can be used as communication devices. This would free up a pylon (or in the case of PAF free up a jet).

 

[HRK]

Damn that looks like it was made my Hamas in a Gaza basement.

A crude design with less cost basically it like wrapping an low cost air frame around MK-82 with fuel tank, turbojet engine and guidance so in the end product is low cost but with comparatively longer range of 200 km.

I was not suggesting DARDO-II as a product but concept as it use already existing MK series with low cost engine and guidance kit ..... I am sue we are more then capable enough to apply this concept here with our desire range ....

if I am not in DARDO-III Argentina used IR seeker in addition of INS+GPS guidance

 

[JamD]

A crude design with less cost basically it like wrapping an low cost air frame around MK-82 with fuel tank, turbojet engine and guidance so in the end product is low cost but with comparatively longer range of 200 km.

I was not suggesting DARDO-II as a product but concept as it use already existing MK series with low cost engine and guidance kit ..... I am sue we are more then capable enough to apply this concept here with our desire range ....

if I am not in DARDO-III Argentina used IR seeker in addition of INS+GPS guidance

Yes definitely. Furthermore, I think one way to have an extended range REK-III (excuse the double use lol) is to switch from a Mk83 to a Mk82. A Mk82 that lands on your head is still a pretty good boom.

 

[denel]

Do you reckon it is possible for an AESA radar to do what the communication pod (not sure of the official name) does for the H4? Sorry if this is a stupid question but I gather that, among other things, AESA radars can be used as communication devices. This would free up a pylon (or in the case of PAF free up a jet).

No, they are entirely different things. You are right - May be oneday we will get GOT - Guidances fOrall Things; but that is a pipe dream.

 

[MastanKhan]

The H2/H4 weapons have a key feature: TV guidance. This requires a plane that can lurk for a longer time, ideally below the horizon. The large delta wings of Mirages should provide a better lift to drag ratio in level and straight flight. If H2/H4 can transmit using satellites or other drones, then the actual Mirage can stay out of radar sight following Nap of Earth. You can't get this in the Thunder.


I highly doubt PAF would buy one missile for 1 million dollars for a grand total of 100 for 100 million. More likely, there would be ToT of some sort involved which allowed PAF to indigenously develop IREK.

Hi,

You are describing the features of a JH7A

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Yes definitely. Furthermore, I think one way to have an extended range REK-III (excuse the double use lol) is to switch from a Mk83 to a Mk82. A Mk82 that lands on your head is still a pretty good boom.

REK Extended Range = REK-ER (wrecker).

What the PAF will do: "Himmat Bomb."

 

[kursed]

Yeah I think 1-4 are all on point.

The only thing I'd consider adding is an optional miniature turbojet. It would basically be an appendage and, in turn, be our low-cost ALCM solution if we need it.

You can see what I mean with the Denel Raptor III:

View attachment 751437

@JamD

Why can we not just add laser guidance on say FT-12? REK kits have them.

 

[Thorough Pro]

What was this? it is definitely not H2/H4

So basically, I think the IREK and H2/H4 aren't analogous at a 1:1 level. By design they serve two different roles.

The IREK -- or JDAM-type -- weapons are meant to be more cost-effective. Yes there's the risk of losing accuracy, but you still retain range and should (especially with INS) get closer to a target versus a GPB. You want to build economies-of-scale, we want these to be affordable and available in numbers.

The H2/H4 is for targeted strikes.

You want to make sure you are hitting the target (or avoiding it in Swift Retort's case) no matter what. E.g., we may want to knock out the S-400's radar if we find it.

In this case, terminal-stage seekers and remote-operability is key. It will add to the cost, but we'll keep these SOWs for very specific situations anyways (as we have IREK for most duties).

I think the natural evolution of the H2/H4 is a JSOW-type of weapon. In this case, we can design both the seeker options and even warhead options into the weapon from the start.

We can, for example, use tandem warheads, a penetrator warhead, or sub-munitions dispenser.

I think we should be able to develop this SOW locally.

It is like taking a smaller Ra'ad airframe minus the cruise missile functionality, and instead, making it into a glider. In addition, we add a rocket motor for range extension.

That said, China is offering us such a weapon.

View attachment 751430

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

@JamD

Why can we not just add laser guidance on say FT-12? REK kits have them.

But wouldn't that negate the long-range benefit of the FT-12? The only way it SALH could work at that range (away from the launch aircraft) is have a nearby JTAC or UAV.

That said, I wonder how costly adding IIR as a terminal-seeker would be when it's becoming so common for ATGMs. By this point (or in the next 3 years), the economies-of-scale for those seekers should reach a point comparable to SALH from a few years ago.

What was this? it is definitely not H2/H4

Possibly REK-III/FT-12.

 

[kursed]

But wouldn't that negate the long-range benefit of the FT-12? The only way it SALH could work at that range (away from the launch aircraft) is have a nearby JTAC or UAV.

True, not sure what I was thinking when writing that, also - in essence, we do not know the real CEP for FT-12. I do believe they'd be used against hardened, fixed targets (command structures mostly). As for H2/H4 replacements, you guys are right in a way that we wont be phasing them out anytime soon. This also means that Mirage will need to soldier on for a while more.

Possibly REK-III/FT-12.

Interesting how the video immediately cuts off before you'd imagine the booster kicking off. =)

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

True, not sure what I was thinking when writing that, also - in essence, we do not know the real CEP for FT-12. I do believe they'd be used against hardened, fixed targets (command structures mostly). As for H2/H4 replacements, you guys are right in a way that we wont be phasing them out anytime soon. This also means that Mirage will need to soldier on for a while more.

Interesting how the video immediately cuts off before you'd imagine the booster kicking off. =)

That or we came in clutch and got an H-6... (I hope...)

 

[JamD]

That or we came in clutch and got an H-6... (I hope...)

You mean Himmat-6?

@JamD

Why can we not just add laser guidance on say FT-12? REK kits have them.

Plot twist: Put the designator ON the FT-12 as well. Well have this then