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:
. .

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom