Rocky rock
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2010
- Messages
- 1,001
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
RA'AD II
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
thnx for the clear image
This looks funny. Must be a badly made mockup.
View attachment 386699
Looks like a different "oval" intake.. for stealth!?This looks funny. Must be a badly made mockup.
View attachment 386699
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.Critics say that RA'AD 2 was not tested yet! what you guys make of this?
Looks like a different "oval" intake.. for stealth!?
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..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.
A cover would have been rectangular tough, as the intake is rectangular..This is a mystery!!!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!!!
For a Cruise Missile NOTAms or giving notices to India isnt necessary. For Ballistic missiles it is.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!?
the problem is something else...reason for raad not carried is something elseHi,
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 (publicly) yet! what you guys make of this?
A cover would have been rectangular tough, as the intake is rectangular..This is a mystery!!!
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).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?
It will be solved soon.the problem is something else...reason for raad not carried is something else
No dear . Length looks a bit largerDoesn'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