What's new

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

RA'AD II

WireAP_24177c14e6424d0489643d11b337d3df_16x9_992.jpg
 
Hi,

I have a noob input as well.

Everyone is saying that JF-17 might not be able to carry Raad as size is too large. Has anyone thought that it might be JF-17B (Twin Seater) / JF-17A (Block-3) which might be able to carry it.

As we now have a clear knowledge from Allan Warnes that there has been some design changes on JF-17B and hopefully these changes will surely be implemented on JF-17A (Block-3) as well.

Thanks.
 
Critics say that RA'AD 2 was not tested yet! what you guys make of this?


Looks like a different "oval" intake.. for stealth!?
I don't think so. There has to be an opening in an intake which I can't spot. It is either a bad mockup, or a (very strangely aerodynamic) cover as @Windjammer suggested.

EDIT: The intake is also shaped differently. MAYBE they've taken out the retraction mechanism as a weight/volume saving measure. And the cover is jettisoned when the missile is deployed from the aircraft.
 
Hi,

I have a noob input as well.

Everyone is saying that JF-17 might not be able to carry Raad as size is too large. Has anyone thought that it might be JF-17B (Twin Seater) / JF-17A (Block-3) which might be able to carry it.

As we now have a clear knowledge from Allan Warnes that there has been some design changes on JF-17B and hopefully these changes will surely be implemented on JF-17A (Block-3) as well.

Thanks.
The problem is with the height of the JF-17, the changes on the JF-17B were reported to be a longer tail and the addition of fuel compartments to compensate for place taken by the second seat..

I don't think so. There has to be an opening in an intake which I can't spot. It is either a bad mockup, or a (very strangely aerodynamic) cover as @Windjammer suggested.
A cover would have been rectangular tough, as the intake is rectangular..This is a mystery!!!
hatf8view1.jpga0b72f2a-46ef-48fc-8b89-441c4c97fbfcLarge.jpg
 
A cover would have been rectangular tough, as the intake is rectangular..This is a mystery!!!
hatf8view1.jpga0b72f2a-46ef-48fc-8b89-441c4c97fbfcLarge.jpg

That's not a very good model of the actual Ra'ad. It's not THAT rectangular (as you can sort of see below). But I get your point.

There is definitely something up with the intake (or just a bad mockup):
WireAP_24177c14e6424d0489643d11b337d3df_16x9_992 (1).jpg

@The Deterrent thoughts about my "losing the retraction mechanism for weight/volume saving" idea?
 
wireap_24177c14e6424d0489643d11b337d3df_16x9_992-jpg.386680

pakistani-army-soldiers-travel-on-a-vehicle-carrying-cruise-missile-picture-id517032060


Critics say that RA'AD 2 was not tested (publicly) yet! what you guys make of this?


Looks like a different "oval" intake.. for stealth!?
For a Cruise Missile NOTAms or giving notices to India isnt necessary. For Ballistic missiles it is.
So Raad could be tested many times without telling anyone.
 
Hi,

I have a noob input as well.

Everyone is saying that JF-17 might not be able to carry Raad as size is too large. Has anyone thought that it might be JF-17B (Twin Seater) / JF-17A (Block-3) which might be able to carry it.

As we now have a clear knowledge from Allan Warnes that there has been some design changes on JF-17B and hopefully these changes will surely be implemented on JF-17A (Block-3) as well.

Thanks.
the problem is something else...reason for raad not carried is something else
 
Critics say that RA'AD 2 was not tested (publicly) yet! what you guys make of this?

"A third successful test of Ra'ad (ALCM) was carried out on 29 April 2011, this time again fired from a Dassault Mirage fighter of Pakistan Air force. Fourth test of Ra'ad (ALCM) was carried out on 30 May 2012. Another test (5th) of Ra'ad (ALCM) was carried out on 2 Feb 2015" (Source: Wiki).

These tests (the fourth & fifth being 3 years apart) tell us that improvements were definitely made on Raad-I, such that it had to be tested 4 more times after it's official 1st test in 2007. Now we don't know what was being tested but surely, the test in 2011 (3-4 years after Ra'ad-I) could have meant an increase in range (or payload or better electronics, etc or just another test of the same version). So, the test(s) in 2012 & 2015 must have been of Ra'ad-II (5-8 years after the unveiling of Ra'ad-II).

A cover would have been rectangular tough, as the intake is rectangular..This is a mystery!!!

No, the intake (from the pic) doesn't look like a rectangular shape. Your image is rectangular but the Parade Ra'ad-II's have circular intakes (if you look closely) thus the cone-like caps on both of them (and not on the other 2).
 
Doesn't look like any change in dimensions. same length and width.
They have created extra fuel space by scuttling intake retraction mechanism,as already suggested by another member
 
There is definitely something up with the intake (or just a bad mockup):
View attachment 386729
@The Deterrent thoughts about my "losing the retraction mechanism for weight/volume saving" idea?
That's right, I didn't notice it at first. The retractable air-intake on mechanism Ra'ad-I was inherited from Babur. However it take a lot of space inside which is affordable in a system the size of Babur, but not Ra'ad. So most probably they removed that, and introduced a fixed air-intake with an aerodynamic cover (to reduce the additional drag).

All that said, this modification alone contributes a fraction to all of the 200km range extension. The range extension on Ra'ad-I is based on similar volume-saving techniques implemented on Babur-I.
the problem is something else...reason for raad not carried is something else
It will be solved soon.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom