# Anatomy of the Hatf-VIII Ra’ad Air Launched Cruise Missile



## JamD

*Introduction*
The Ra’ad Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) is a peculiar system. It has long been rumored that it is too big to be carried by anything but the Mirage aircraft of the PAF. The purpose of this article is twofold: understand the design decisions made while designing the Ra’ad and what can be done to evolve the design. Hopefully, by the end we will appreciate why the Ra’ad is the way it is and try to think of ways to evolve it.

*Basics*
*Weight*
At 1,100 kg the Ra’ad is a rather heavy air launched weapon. However heavier ALCMs exist (Storm Shadow, Taurus) and are carried by aircraft with less clearances than the Mirage. Weight is not the key issue here.

*Size*
The Ra’ad is a significantly large missile. The following drawing has been made after many pixel-counting exercises and is a good ballpark estimate of its size.







DISCLAIMER: Pixel counting by its nature is inaccurate and these numbers could be off by up to 10%. Nonetheless these numbers give us valuable insight which we previously lacked.

*Role*
The Ra’ad is designed with a payload of 450 kg. This suggests that it is primarily designed to carry a nuclear payload or a large conventional payload against hardened targets. This differentiates the Ra’ad from other smaller stand-off weapons like the SOM, H-2/H-3, JSOW. Perhaps the most similar system to the Ra’ad is the AGM-158 JASSM picture below:






The JASSM is a 1000 kg system with a payload of 450 kg as well.

*Design of the Ra’ad*
A casual glance at the Ra’ad shows the “simple is better” approach being employed to the fullest. It is perhaps the most basic design one would come up with for a 1,100 kg ALCM. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Being the first ALCM designed by AWC it makes sense to start off with the basics.

The fuselage has a square cross section allowing easier manufacturing and at the same time reducing the height for the same volume (only slightly).

Another upside to using a rectangular cross section is that it reduces the tail area needed for stability (more on this later).

*Issues*
Probably the biggest issue people have with the Ra’ad is that it is too tall and wide to fit under most aircraft operated by the PAF. I will now attempt to break down why this is so.

As pointed out earlier the Ra’ad is a very large and heavy system even though it needs to fly like an aircraft. The reason aircraft have a vertical tail now comes into effect. Ideally speaking we want any small disturbances in the desired trajectory of flight to be taken care of “naturally” by the design of the aircraft. I will try to explain how this is achieved by the vertical tail as simply as I can to make it accessible to most of our readers. This is called positive stability.




An effect similar to the tail is provided by the fuselage with respect to yaw stability. A square fuselage provides more of this effect.

*Roll Damping*
As one would imagine the heavier the aircraft the more tail and wing area is required for “enough” positive stability. The Ra’ad is a heavy aircraft with very small wings so roll damping is small. This would mean for enough roll damping the designers have to compensate with more tail area in the form of ventral fins. The farther away they are from the center of mass of the missile the better they will perform as they produce more moment for the same area. It is for this reason they extend below the fuselage (in contrast to the vertical tail that are in line with the fuselage).






As the above image illustrates the vertical tail adds little or no roll damping and it is for this reason two ventral fins are there (among other reasons).

*Yaw Stability*
Yaw stability is provided by the vertical tails. It is evident that because of the mass of the missile a large vertical tail area is needed which is provided by two vertical tails.






The JASSM on the other hand employs one rather large vertical tail.

*Pitch Stability and Authority*
For very similar reasons an aircraft also needs a horizontal tail for stability. On top of that it needs it to have authority over pitch of the aircraft. Again the heavy weight of the Ra’ad means rather large horizontal tails are needed which make the missile 1.25 meters wide.

*Reasons for Large Mass*
The above argument begs the question why is the Ra’ad such a heavy system for the capability it provides.

*Ra’ad*
1100 kg
350 km range
4.88 m length
450 kg payload

*JASSM*
1021 kg
1000 km range (ER version)
4.27 m length
450 kg payload

The reasons for this can be only speculated but I suspect that:

1. The Powerplant being used is heavy and inefficient compared to JASSM (definitely true).

2. The subsystems are not evolved enough to be compact and light. These include INS systems, hydraulics/pneumatics/electric actuators.

3. The subsystems are not designed or modified for the Ra’ad to save costs and therefore pack poorly inside the missile.

*Geometry*
All this brings us to the issue of integration on PAF platforms.






The Mirage 3 can easily carry the Ra’ad ALCM and most importantly the addition of the cruise missile does not decrease the maximum permissible rotation angle (highlighted in red).






The situation is very bad with regards to the JF-17. The maximum permissible rotation angle is halfed and there is very little clearane with the ground. This makes it all but impossible for the JF-17 to carry the Ra’ad on its centerline hardpoint.

Perhaps it is also important to consider whether the wing hard point can carry the Ra’ad.






Even though vertical clearances are taken care of but the Ra’ad is so wide that it will interfere with the landing gear/ventral fin of the JF-17 and possibly any weapon system mounted on the hardpoint next to it.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
11 | Like Like:
61


----------



## JamD

*The Future*
Having discussed what the Ra’ad is, let’s move to what Ra’ad could or should become.

1. Depending on whether the PAF prefers to carry a single Ra’ad on the centerline hardpoint or two on the wing hardpoints I propose the following easy modifications to reduce the height/width of the missile when mounted.






2. Develop Ra’ad Lite (as suggested by @Quwa). Reduce the payload to 300 kg and everything else should reduce accordingly. This should be a more manageable size for an ALCM with JF-17.

3. If it is absolutely vital for the strategic planners that an ALCM with a 450 kg payload be carried by a JF-17 then add artificial stability using drag devices and an advanced control system. This is what is done for ‘tail-less’ aircraft like the B-2 Spirit and numerous UCAVs. This is an expensive and long-term option that will also give AWC some additional expertise in differential braking that should prove useful in future UAV/UCAV development. Unfortunately, this will be expensive and require a complex control system with a drag penalty incurred by differential braking.





*Conclusion*
In its current form the Ra’ad ALCM cannot be carried by the JF-17 according to my analysis. Fortunately some modifications may allow the JF-17 to carry the Ra’ad which I have described. Some of the modifications I have suggested are simple to implement and it is upto the PAF higher command on how far they want to let the Ra’ad evolve before going for a new ALCM altogether.

@MastanKhan @Tempest II

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
6 | Like Like:
56


----------



## Salza

In short, waste of a missile with current design. This is what the article is implying. Probably Raad will be retired as well with their only delivery systems in PAF that is Mirage 3s. We would had tested raad version 2 by now if we were considering it for future. Jf17 block 1 and 2 doesn't have the capability to carry Raad and most probably block 3 wouldn't have either.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## war&peace

This missile has been made like a tank. MDO can result reduce a lot of weight penalty. Engine is still under development so it will take some time before we can see a significant boost in the range. Yes it mainly developed with nukes in mind though it has conventional warhead for anti-ship role. Initially it used to have dorsal fins for lateral stability but it was dropped in later iterations. Its navigation and guidance systems are as modern and sophisticated as it gets so that's a strong area. However a lot of refinement will be seen in later iterations/blocks.



Salman Zahidi said:


> In short, waste of a missile with current design. This is what the article is implying. Probably Raad will be retired as well with their only delivery systems in PAF that is Mirage 3s. We would had tested raad version 2 by now if we were considering it for future. Jf17 block 1 and 2 doesn't have the capability to carry Raad and most probably block 3 wouldn't have either.


Not exactly JF-17 can carry it under wings. However basically it is not the Ra'ad's fault but the issue of shorts legs on the carrying platform, however this will be addressed by Ra'ad-II. This is one of few system which we can produly claim as totally indigenous from conceptual design to the final development.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Salza

war&peace said:


> This missile has been made like a tank. MDO can result reduce a lot of weight penalty. Engine is still under development so it will take some time before we can see a significant boost in the range. Yes it mainly developed with nukes in mind though it has conventional warhead for anti-ship role. Initially it used to have dorsal fins for lateral stability but it was dropped in later iterations. Its navigation and guidance systems are as modern and sophisticated as it gets so that's a strong area. However a lot of refinement will be seen in later iterations/blocks.
> 
> 
> Not exactly JF-17 can carry it under wings. However basically it is not the Ra'ad's fault but the issue of shorts legs on the carrying platform, however this will be addressed by Ra'ad-II. This is one of few system which we can produly claim as totally indigenous from conceptual design to the final development.



How can you claim it as indigenous when it cannot be launched from more than one type of fighter plane in PaF inventory. Had it been our complete design, we would had kept atleast JF17s in mind as JF17 project was started in early 2000s. Either JF17 team was complete oblivion to this missile or the Pakistani engineers of Raad.


----------



## war&peace

Salman Zahidi said:


> How can you claim it as indigenous when it cannot be launched from more than one type of fighter plane in PaF inventory. Had it been our complete design, we would had kept atleast JF17s in mind as JF17 project was started in early 2000s. Either JF17 team was complete oblivion to this missile or the Pakistani engineers of Raad.


JF-17 has shorter legs but that's not what PAF declared prior to the development of Ra'ad however it is not big deal as it can be fixed later on.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Salza

war&peace said:


> JF-17 has shorter legs but that's not what PAF declared prior to the development of Ra'ad however it is not big deal as it can be fixed later on.



We have around 65 JF17s at the moment. Few planes could had been modified accordingly if it wasn't such a big deal. Anyways I hope PAF gets over it and becomes capable enough to use Raad in any situation.


----------



## thrilainmanila

Its.a joke when PAF officials go abroad and play the choore salesman in these airdhows advertising weapons like raad which it cant possibly carry the JF17 needs to be redesigned it has design limitations, there is a reason why only 1 nation outside pakistan has purchased this machine


----------



## Tipu7

JamD said:


> *Introduction*
> The Ra’ad Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) is a peculiar system. It has long been rumored that it is too big to be carried by anything but the Mirage aircraft of the PAF. The purpose of this article is twofold: understand the design decisions made while designing the Ra’ad and what can be done to evolve the design. Hopefully, by the end we will appreciate why the Ra’ad is the way it is and try to think of ways to evolve it.
> 
> *Basics*
> *Weight*
> At 1,100 kg the Ra’ad is a rather heavy air launched weapon. However heavier ALCMs exist (Storm Shadow, Taurus) and are carried by aircraft with less clearances than the Mirage. Weight is not the key issue here.
> 
> *Size*
> The Ra’ad is a significantly large missile. The following drawing has been made after many pixel-counting exercises and is a good ballpark estimate of its size.
> 
> View attachment 313914
> 
> 
> *Role*
> The Ra’ad is designed with a payload of 450 kg. This suggests that it is primarily designed to carry a nuclear payload or a large conventional payload against hardened targets. This differentiates the Ra’ad from other smaller stand-off weapons like the SOM, H-2/H-3, JSOW. Perhaps the most similar system to the Ra’ad is the AGM-158 JASSM picture below:
> 
> View attachment 313915
> 
> 
> The JASSM is a 1000 kg system with a payload of 450 kg as well.
> 
> *Design of the Ra’ad*
> A casual glance at the Ra’ad shows the “simple is better” approach being employed to the fullest. It is perhaps the most basic design one would come up with for a 1,100 kg ALCM. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Being the first ALCM designed by AWC it makes sense to start off with the basics.
> 
> The fuselage has a square cross section allowing easier manufacturing and at the same time reducing the height for the same volume (only slightly).
> 
> Another upside to using a rectangular cross section is that it reduces the tail area needed for stability (more on this later).
> 
> *Issues*
> Probably the biggest issue people have with the Ra’ad is that it is too tall and wide to fit under most aircraft operated by the PAF. I will now attempt to break down why this is so.
> 
> As pointed out earlier the Ra’ad is a very large and heavy system even though it needs to fly like an aircraft. The reason aircraft have a vertical tail now comes into effect. Ideally speaking we want any small disturbances in the desired trajectory of flight to be taken care of “naturally” by the design of the aircraft. I will try to explain how this is achieved by the vertical tail as simply as I can to make it accessible to most of our readers. This is called positive stability.
> View attachment 313924
> 
> An effect similar to the tail is provided by the fuselage with respect to yaw stability. A square fuselage provides more of this effect.
> 
> *Roll Damping*
> As one would imagine the heavier the aircraft the more tail and wing area is required for “enough” positive stability. The Ra’ad is a heavy aircraft with very small wings so roll damping is small. This would mean for enough roll damping the designers have to compensate with more tail area in the form of ventral fins. The farther away they are from the center of mass of the missile the better they will perform as they produce more moment for the same area. It is for this reason they extend below the fuselage (in contrast to the vertical tail that are in line with the fuselage).
> 
> View attachment 313917
> 
> 
> As the above image illustrates the vertical tail adds little or no roll damping and it is for this reason two ventral fins are there (among other reasons).
> 
> *Yaw Stability*
> Yaw stability is provided by the vertical tails. It is evident that because of the mass of the missile a large vertical tail area is needed which is provided by two vertical tails.
> 
> View attachment 313918
> 
> 
> The JASSM on the other hand employs one rather large vertical tail.
> 
> *Pitch Stability and Authority*
> For very similar reasons an aircraft also needs a horizontal tail for stability. On top of that it needs it to have authority over pitch of the aircraft. Again the heavy weight of the Ra’ad means rather large horizontal tails are needed which make the missile 1.25 meters wide.
> 
> *Reasons for Large Mass*
> The above argument begs the question why is the Ra’ad such a heavy system for the capability it provides.
> 
> *Ra’ad*
> 1100 kg
> 350 km range
> 4.88 m length
> 450 kg payload
> 
> *JASSM*
> 1021 kg
> 1000 km range (ER version)
> 4.27 m length
> 450 kg payload
> 
> The reasons for this can be only speculated but I suspect that:
> 
> 1. The Powerplant being used is heavy and inefficient compared to JASSM (definitely true).
> 
> 2. The subsystems are not evolved enough to be compact and light. These include INS systems, hydraulics/pneumatics/electric actuators.
> 
> 3. The subsystems are not designed or modified for the Ra’ad to save costs and therefore pack poorly inside the missile.
> 
> *Geometry*
> All this brings us to the issue of integration on PAF platforms.
> 
> View attachment 313919
> 
> 
> The Mirage 3 can easily carry the Ra’ad ALCM and most importantly the addition of the cruise missile does not decrease the maximum permissible rotation angle (highlighted in red).
> 
> View attachment 313920
> 
> 
> The situation is very bad with regards to the JF-17. The maximum permissible rotation angle is halfed and there is very little clearane with the ground. This makes it all but impossible for the JF-17 to carry the Ra’ad on its centerline hardpoint.
> 
> Perhaps it is also important to consider whether the wing hard point can carry the Ra’ad.
> 
> View attachment 313921
> 
> 
> Even though vertical clearances are taken care of but the Ra’ad is so wide that it will interfere with the landing gear/ventral fin of the JF-17 and possibly any weapon system mounted on the hardpoint next to it.




I believe over size due to presence of Vertical stabilizer and tail can be addressed by using retractable Fins and tails.
Just like we see in case of ATGM fired through pod or launcher, the moment they are fired, wings and fin tail opens to glide the missile towards its target under the control of guidance system.

Same can be done in case of Raad. At least it will make it possible to be carried under the wings if not fuselage with out changing remaining dimensions of missile......



JamD said:


> *The Future*
> Having discussed what the Ra’ad is, let’s move to what Ra’ad could or should become.
> 
> 1. Depending on whether the PAF prefers to carry a single Ra’ad on the centerline hardpoint or two on the wing hardpoints I propose the following easy modifications to reduce the height/width of the missile when mounted.
> 
> View attachment 313925
> 
> 
> 2. Develop Ra’ad Lite (as suggested by @Quwa). Reduce the payload to 300 kg and everything else should reduce accordingly. This should be a more manageable size for an ALCM with JF-17.
> 
> 3. If it is absolutely vital for the strategic planners that an ALCM with a 450 kg payload be carried by a JF-17 then add artificial stability using drag devices and an advanced control system. This is what is done for ‘tail-less’ aircraft like the B-2 Spirit and numerous UCAVs. This is an expensive and long-term option that will also give AWC some additional expertise in differential braking that should prove useful in future UAV/UCAV development. Unfortunately, this will be expensive and require a complex control system with a drag penalty incurred by differential braking.
> View attachment 313923
> 
> 
> *Conclusion*
> In its current form the Ra’ad ALCM cannot be carried by the JF-17 according to my analysis. Fortunately some modifications may allow the JF-17 to carry the Ra’ad which I have described. Some of the modifications I have suggested are simple to implement and it is upto the PAF higher command on how far they want to let the Ra’ad evolve before going for a new ALCM altogether.
> 
> @MastanKhan @Tempest II



@Oscar @Quwa @Blue Marlin



thrilainmanila said:


> Its.a joke when PAF officials go abroad and play the choore salesman in these airdhows advertising weapons like raad which it cant possibly carry the JF17 needs to be redesigned it has design limitations, there is a reason why only 1 nation outside pakistan has purchased this machine



RAAD will be integrated to Jf17, ultimately.
And Raad is NOT for export. 
And there are TWO nation with confirmed order and THREE more which can purchase this aircraft......

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Quwa

I don't have much to add, but we need to remember, the Ra'ad is principally for strategic - i.e. nuclear - strike. While a great conventional munition, the PAF is not factoring the Ra'ad in as a conventional stand-off weapon (SOW). This is important. If the Ra'ad is not a conventional SOW, then the need for the JF-17 to be armed with it (for the time being) is not that urgent. Yes, the JF-17 needs conventional SOWs, but it can make due with H-2/H-4 and glide-bomb variants of the Mk-83 and Mk-84. The Mirages have to go eventually, and in light of that, a Ra'ad II and/or new fighter platform could rise, but that is many years away.

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Tipu7

How about splitting the idea of Raad into two different routes.

One for developing a heavy, long range and super sonic cruise missile for tactical strikes. Meant to be used from heavy aircraft (Su35 suppose)

And one for developing a light, medium range sub sonic conventional stand of missile which can be armed with HE war head or even with anti radiation seeker for SEAD missions. Meant to be used from entire Fleet of F16 & Jf17......



Quwa said:


> I don't have much to add, but we need to remember, the Ra'ad is principally for strategic - i.e. nuclear - strike. While a great conventional munition, the PAF is not factoring the Ra'ad in as a conventional stand-off weapon (SOW). This is important. If the Ra'ad is not a conventional SOW, then the need for the JF-17 to be armed with it (for the time being) is not that urgent. Yes, the JF-17 needs conventional SOWs, but it can make due with H-2/H-4 and glide-bomb variants of the Mk-83 and Mk-84. The Mirages have to go eventually, and in light of that, a Ra'ad II and/or new fighter platform could rise, but that is many years away.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Quwa said:


> I don't have much to add, but we need to remember, the Ra'ad is principally for strategic - i.e. nuclear - strike. While a great conventional munition, the PAF is not factoring the Ra'ad in as a conventional stand-off weapon (SOW). This is important. If the Ra'ad is not a conventional SOW, then the need for the JF-17 to be armed with it (for the time being) is not that urgent. Yes, the JF-17 needs conventional SOWs, but it can make due with H-2/H-4 and glide-bomb variants of the Mk-83 and Mk-84. The Mirages have to go eventually, and in light of that, a Ra'ad II and/or new fighter platform could rise, but that is many years away.




I'm more interested to see a Babur or Raad based ASM ... 

Is there any work being done on that ? Can we expect a homegrown ASM ?


Also any info on the "Zarb" ASM coastal battery?



thrilainmanila said:


> Its.a joke when PAF officials go abroad and play the choore salesman in these airdhows advertising weapons like raad which it cant possibly carry the JF17 needs to be redesigned it has design limitations, there is a reason why only 1 nation outside pakistan has purchased this machine



Raad or any missile with a range of over 300 km can't be marketed or sold... So now PAF officials aren't joking or even offering RAAD to potential customers.


Your posts are pathetic and usually claims full of shyt debunked a billion times .. From JF not being able to carry ASMs like C series or CM-400 to other undiluted crap.


As for JF.. If the reports are true .. That's 2 customers for JF... That's 3 nations operating our machine !

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## JamD

Just to tease the fanboys, there are at least two air launched weapons program being worked upon right now. The Ra'ad isn't the end of the line rather the beginning.

Also as Quwa pointed out quite rightly the Ra'ad is not made for the standoff role but primarily deployed as a strategic weapon. There are standoff weapons being developed and you will just have to trust me on that.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Tipu7

It was mentioned by @Bilal Khan 777 also ....
I am happy that Pakistan took both routes,
To develop tactical nuclear ALCM & Conventional stand off ALCM.....


JamD said:


> Just to tease the fanboys, there are at least two air launched weapons program being worked upon right now. The Ra'ad isn't the end of the line rather the beginning.
> 
> Also as Quwa pointed out quite rightly the Ra'ad is not made for the standoff role but primarily deployed as a strategic weapon. There are standoff weapons being developed and you will just have to trust me on that.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Quwa

Tipu7 said:


> How about splitting the idea of Raad into two different routes.
> 
> One for developing a heavy, long range and super sonic cruise missile for tactical strikes. Meant to be used from heavy aircraft (Su35 suppose)
> 
> And one for developing a light, medium range sub sonic conventional stand of missile which can be armed with HE war head or even with anti radiation seeker for SEAD missions. Meant to be used from entire Fleet of F16 & Jf17......


I think it's an issue of gains versus costs. I don't think a smaller - conventionally-focused - Ra'ad is an unreasonable project, but it would still be an expensive missile. At best, you could tip it off with a high explosive warhead, but it'd be good for taking out hardened structures and high-value targets (e.g. radars). However, how much of a boost would that be compared to H-4 (120km) or perhaps even its evolution the Denel Raptor III (290km)? Such a Ra'ad would fetch you longer range and terrain hugging, but how many of our critical targets will be that deep in Indian territory?

In my opinion, the impetus for a Ra'ad II and/or Ra'ad Lite (i.e. smaller and lighter) will be determined by the availability - or lack thereof - of another platform. If the JF-17 has to take on a strategic deterrent role, then it needs an ALCM. If that ALCM can be built in anticipation of the next-gen fighter too, then all the better. From where I am standing, further Ra'ad development is very, very likely (no *verifiable* new platform on the horizon).

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Muhammad Omar

But JF-17 will Carry 2 ra'ad Missile under wings or hard points which was actually planned... ??? a drop tank tank under the belly for additional range..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MastanKhan

@JamD

Great job my man---. That was an excellent effort---and a great post. 

I think the paf will pull out another rabbit out of the hat---and we will be left scratching our heads saying ' what happened'. Some how or the other---Raad will get integrated with JF17---. Would it be with a folded tail---it is yet to be seen.

But as the paf has gone into a secretive mode---we may not find out too many details about it---specially when this item is not for sale.



Salman Zahidi said:


> How can you claim it as indigenous when it cannot be launched from more than one type of fighter plane in PaF inventory. Had it been our complete design, we would had kept atleast JF17s in mind as JF17 project was started in early 2000s. Either JF17 team was complete oblivion to this missile or the Pakistani engineers of Raad.



HJi,

If you have a .308 bullet---you only need one rifle to fire it---and we already have that rifle---. 

Due to known reasons---it cannot be launched from the F16's and we don't want it to---.

The primary goal of the JF17 was not the launching of a Raad missile but air superiority and ground strike thru other munitions---. Most of that stuff is done and some of it is getting the last touches---.

When the size of the JF17 was finalized---a lots of compromises were also made as well---and one of them was the location where the wheels assembly would retract and what length of struts could we use given the space---.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## war&peace

Solutions: 

On Ra'ad's side

Retractable Ventral Fins
Dorsal Fins instead of ventral fins
X-fins instead of TVT and Ventral Fins with complex controls
Overall size and weight reduction through MDO 
Reducing the size of TVT for under the wing configuration
On Carrier side

Redesign of JF-17 airframe to accommodate for larger landing gears
Procure JH7-B, Su-35 or any platform with tall legs and good carrying capacity
Keep flying Rose updated Mirages (Allah ka naam le kar)

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Arsalan

Good work @JamD . You did went into details to explain the system but i would just like for you to add two things and add them prominently in the post if possible. First, the dimensions you quoted are mostly not official figures but you have deduced them using pixel count. There is easily a margin of error, 10 to 15% ? Please make it clear that this is what will be required to make RAAD clear for center hard point.  The other thing i would request you is to further work out comparison with fuel tank that we see JF17 carries on center hard point. What are the dimensional differences there? This will help people understand the problem better. I know you have covered the first part in your post already but i see this post being quoted as "reference" in some future discussion so i would love it you can stress on the fact that these are geometrical comparisons with a considerable margin of error, enough to change the conclusion completely. 

One thing that i would like to add from my side is that RAAD is not for export so whether JF17 can carry one under fuselage or not is something that we might not know about for sure. (we are mostly publicizing thing that will help its export potential) 

Thank you again and great work with this detailed article. 

Best regards!
Arsalan

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Blue Marlin

Tipu7 said:


> @Oscar @Quwa @Blue Marlin


so quwa mentioned above its for a nuclear strike and thats it. so when it was being designed the designers knew it would only have to fit on the mirage aircraft and thats it. so they had quiet a lot of space to work with. 
if i were to have some critisisms it would be the design its self more to the rear of the alcm in regards to the intake and the rear control/stabilise surfaces.

below is the raad on the ground and its clear the intake scoop is retracted





but newer missiles have ther intakes built in example being the agm-158 series




also the same applies to the controll surfacesthe agm-158 has its control surface retracted 





whilst the raads are out there and static




one can argue that im comparing it to a brand new western missile but these features are on many other differant types of cruise missiles out there.
but all of these critisism can be deflected by that of "who cares..... it can do the job"

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Arsalan

JamD said:


> The above argument begs the question why is the Ra’ad such a heavy system for the capability it provides.
> 
> *Ra’ad*
> 1100 kg
> 350 km range
> 4.88 m length
> 450 kg payload
> 
> *JASSM*
> 1021 kg
> 1000 km range (ER version)
> 4.27 m length
> 450 kg payload
> 
> The reasons for this can be only speculated but I suspect that:
> 
> 1. The Powerplant being used is heavy and inefficient compared to JASSM (definitely true).
> 
> 2. The subsystems are not evolved enough to be compact and light. These include INS systems, hydraulics/pneumatics/electric actuators.
> 
> 3. The subsystems are not designed or modified for the Ra’ad to save costs and therefore pack poorly inside the missile.



Sorry i forgot to add to this one point earlier,

4. They just felt more comfortable stating the range is 350 Km. We know this can happen in our military forces.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ACE OF THE AIR

@JamD @Tempest II @Windjammer @MastanKhan @Arsalan @Quwa

We are using JF-17's ground clearance data which is inclusive of the external fuel tanks. This indicates that the landing gears are lower than they can actually be without the fuel tanks. We know that RA'AD would not weigh as much as the fully loaded fuel tanks making this picture very different.




@Windjammer Sir, if you may be kind enough to help in this regards.

Even a modification in the dimensions of RA'AD may not be required...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bilal Khan 777

Pakistan is a funny country, where the SLCMs, ALCMs are designed for various WMD roles, and later conventional and precision W/H are developed. Needless to say, both capabilities are well in place, details of which will never see the light of day.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Arsalan

ACE OF THE AIR said:


> @JamD @Tempest II @Windjammer @MastanKhan @Arsalan @Quwa
> 
> We are using JF-17's ground clearance data which is inclusive of the external fuel tanks. This indicates that the landing gears are lower than they can actually be without the fuel tanks. We know that RA'AD would not weigh as much as the fully loaded fuel tanks making this picture very different.
> View attachment 314032
> 
> @Windjammer Sir, if you may be kind enough to help in this regards.
> 
> Even a modification in the dimensions of RA'AD may not be required...
> View attachment 314033


I do not think one should base an argument on such little difference. If so, there are so many other important parameters you must bring into account. The weight difference wont create that much of a difference in clearance.


----------



## ACE OF THE AIR

Arsalan said:


> I do not think one should base an argument on such little difference. If so, there are so many other important parameters you must bring into account. The weight difference wont create that much of a difference in clearance.


Sir, if you see the first picture the missile will touch the ground as soon as the pilot rotates causing damage to the missile directional stability.

This difference can indicate mission failure as well as loss of aircraft at the time of liftoff causing nuclear contamination at the airbase. Hope you understand why this is important. 

@Bilal Khan 777 Sir your thoughts are every valuable.


----------



## Bilal Khan 777

ACE OF THE AIR said:


> Sir, if you see the first picture the missile will touch the ground as soon as the pilot rotates causing damage to the missile directional stability.
> 
> This difference can indicate mission failure as well as loss of aircraft at the time of liftoff causing nuclear contamination at the airbase. Hope you understand why this is important.
> 
> @Bilal Khan 777 Sir your thoughts are every valuable.



JF17 is strictly a conventional weapons aircraft, designed to replace A5, F6, F7, Mirage 3and Block 15 F16. It is not a long range strategic strike aircraft, and is not design or destined to replace Mirage 5 or ROSE Mirage V. In short or long run, JFT will not employ any weapon that has strategic implications.

Arguing whether Ra'ad ALCM can be integrated or not is not relevant to JFT. Ra'ad, in its land attack, sea attack, and other strategic roles is in-production, and accepted and inducted weapon. Anything for JFT would either be developed or acquired.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Windjammer

ACE OF THE AIR said:


> @JamD @Tempest II @Windjammer @MastanKhan @Arsalan @Quwa
> 
> We are using JF-17's ground clearance data which is inclusive of the external fuel tanks. This indicates that the landing gears are lower than they can actually be without the fuel tanks. We know that RA'AD would not weigh as much as the fully loaded fuel tanks making this picture very different.
> View attachment 314032
> 
> @Windjammer Sir, if you may be kind enough to help in this regards.
> 
> Even a modification in the dimensions of RA'AD may not be required...
> View attachment 314033



May be this image would help, the centre line is cleared for a 1000 Kg load.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Windjammer

Just out of interest, instead of focusing on a single projectile on the centre line pylon, why wouldn't the PAF adopt the following mission profile. It can even do away with say the SD-10s to save weight.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## nomi007

redesigning RA'AD can solve this issue
2nd PAF need some bigger platforms for air launch cruise missile
like su-34/35 or H-6K
other option is find mirage 2000/5 fighters to replace mirages


----------



## shah1398

Windjammer said:


> Just out of interest, instead of focusing on a single projectile on the centre line pylon, why wouldn't the PAF adopt the following mission profile. It can even do away with say the SD-10s to save weight.



You are very right Sir and we can even remove all other missiles from that very bird carrying Raad and provide ESCORT esp if its carrying non conventional warhead.


----------



## Arsalan

ACE OF THE AIR said:


> Sir, if you see the first picture the missile will touch the ground as soon as the pilot rotates causing damage to the missile directional stability.
> 
> This difference can indicate mission failure as well as loss of aircraft at the time of liftoff causing nuclear contamination at the airbase. Hope you understand why this is important.
> 
> @Bilal Khan 777 Sir your thoughts are every valuable.



That is exactly what i am saying @ACE OF THE AIR . That you should not base your argument in such a sensitive case based on who the clearance will differ based on the weight difference of fuel tank and the missile. You think that such small difference can be the deciding factor? That little margin that may be there when we replace what you call as "heavier fuel tanks" with "lighter Raad" (though i have serious concerns on this as well) can be the deciding factor? If you think about such little margins there are quite a handful of other parameters that would have to be considered. That is why we talk with a certain margin of error in such comparisons, at least it is wiser to do so.

Anyway, Ra'ad on JF17 is more of a feel good thing rather then operational requirement for now. Furthermore as explained previously, Ra'ad is not meant for export so we wont be hearing a lot about its integration (which is an approach i am totally against and i hope our military do wake up to realize that those days are gone by and seriously consider changing this approach with a more transparent and vocal one)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tempest II

Windjammer said:


> Just out of interest, instead of focusing on a single projectile on the centre line pylon, why wouldn't the PAF adopt the following mission profile. It can even do away with say the SD-10s to save weight.



With IFR, the external tanks will not be as critical. So yes, you have a good point. Have the centre EFT, loose the Sd-10s and leave the SRAAMs and mount 2 Hatf-8s on the 2 inner pylons. 

Plan in escorts for the mission with Sd-10s for the flight is protected. 

It's a compromise but then JF-17 is a light fighter

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blue Marlin

Tipu7 said:


> How "easy" is to install retractable Fins and stabilizers on a cruise missile?
> And I really missed that retractable intake part......


your pratically there, look at the babur

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MastanKhan

Bilal Khan 777 said:


> JF17 is strictly a conventional weapons aircraft, designed to replace A5, F6, F7, Mirage 3and Block 15 F16. It is not a long range strategic strike aircraft, and is not design or destined to replace Mirage 5 or ROSE Mirage V. In short or long run, JFT will not employ any weapon that has strategic implications.
> 
> Arguing whether Ra'ad ALCM can be integrated or not is not relevant to JFT. Ra'ad, in its land attack, sea attack, and other strategic roles is in-production, and accepted and inducted weapon. Anything for JFT would either be developed or acquired.



Hi,

Thank you for your post---. In our desperation for a potent strike aircraft---we want all our weapons to be used by all the aircraft---so we took it for granted that this maybe the case with Raad / JF17 as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Viper 94

It would be helpful to include the dimensions of JF-17. Also I doubt that this is raad missile's final design as it is continuously tested and will most certainly evolve just like the JF-17 will. As of now it is a poorly designed missile and its stealth characteristics are questionable but nonetheless it is a proof of concept that pakistan can develope air launched cruise missile. I also assume you scaled down the JF-17 when it Raad was photoshopped on it


----------



## MastanKhan

Viper 94 said:


> It would be helpful to include the dimensions of JF-17. Also I doubt that this is raad missile's final design as it is continuously tested and will most certainly evolve just like the JF-17 will. As of now it is a poorly designed missile and its stealth characteristics are questionable but nonetheless it is a proof of concept that pakistan can develope air launched cruise missile. I also assume you scaled down the JF-17 when it Raad was photoshopped on it



Hi,

The missile by default---due to its low level flight and size---it defines some stealth capabilities---.

S--- what other stealth characteristics would you need from a low flying cruise missile?

And then at what cost---?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ACE OF THE AIR

Arsalan said:


> That is exactly what i am saying @ACE OF THE AIR . That you should not base your argument in such a sensitive case based on who the clearance will differ based on the weight difference of fuel tank and the missile. You think that such small difference can be the deciding factor? That little margin that may be there when we replace what you call as "heavier fuel tanks" with "lighter Raad" (though i have serious concerns on this as well) can be the deciding factor? If you think about such little margins there are quite a handful of other parameters that would have to be considered. That is why we talk with a certain margin of error in such comparisons, at least it is wiser to do so.
> 
> Anyway, Ra'ad on JF17 is more of a feel good thing rather then operational requirement for now. Furthermore as explained previously, Ra'ad is not meant for export so we wont be hearing a lot about its integration (which is an approach i am totally against and i hope our military do wake up to realize that those days are gone by and seriously consider changing this approach with a more transparent and vocal one)



Sir, 
Very true we would not hear much in this regards from the PAF. My initial post was intended only to identify OP that the picture he has used has this limitation. Which he himself had pointed out by drawing the two lines representing the take-off profile. The OP had also suggested to modify the Ra'ad missile which would make it more complicated. As far as the weight is concerned that was never the problem as this missile is lighter then the center tank. 

Sir the range of Ra'ad is 350 Km hence it is not available for export however if its range is reduced to 300 Km then it can be exported according to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). Pakistan is not a signatory to this. http://www.mtcr.info/english/partners.html

@Windjammer Sir, the issue was not weight acceptable on the center line but the ground clearance. Now looking at the picture in (Post-27) it is clear that there would be some more space available however it is not possible to accommodate this missile. PAF has very rightly gone for wing mounting.


----------



## CHI RULES

JF17 is developed as multi role light weight fighter which though may prove to be useful as bomber low intensity areas but not suitable as bomber to attack the sensitive enemy installations highly guarded by SAMS and AA guns. 
No matter how much we improve this jet it's main role shall be for air defense.

So for me the topic to convert RAAD to be fitted with JF17 or convert JF17 to be able to take RAAD is not worthy to be discussed. 

Yes as given above by many worthy members that RAAD will evolve but more or less shall be used with any potential heavy platform not with JF17 or even our F16s for which we have tied hands.


----------



## razgriz19

I find it funny how after the last test launch most people here were claiming it was launched by JF17....and now we are arriving to conclusions that in it's current state it cannot be carried by it!


----------



## ziaulislam

RAAD was built for mirage as strategic nuke weapon, i dont think fitting it in thunder really matters now
if any a new weapon will be developed for it


----------



## JamD

Arsalan said:


> First, the dimensions you quoted are mostly not official figures but you have deduced them using pixel count. There is easily a margin of error, 10 to 15% ?...i would love it you can stress on the fact that these are geometrical comparisons with a considerable margin of error, enough to change the conclusion completely.



Thanks, I have added a disclaimer. I do not believe that the conclusion would change completely. If I believed that this exercise would have been futile.



Arsalan said:


> Please make it clear that this is what will be required to make RAAD clear for center hard point.



I believe I made this clear with the option A and option B designs.



Arsalan said:


> The other thing i would request you is to further work out comparison with fuel tank that we see JF17 carries on center hard point. What are the dimensional differences there?



I did this earlier here:
https://defence.pk/threads/jf-17-2p29-arrives-in-pakistan.435549/page-11#post-8414562



Windjammer said:


> Just out of interest, instead of focusing on a single projectile on the centre line pylon, why wouldn't the PAF adopt the following mission profile. It can even do away with say the SD-10s to save weight.



As I have pointed out, on top of being too tall the Ra'ad is also too wide. I am not a 100% sure but I strongly suspect there will not be enough room for the rear end of the missile, it will be either too close or won't have enough room.



Viper 94 said:


> It would be helpful to include the dimensions of JF-17... I also assume you scaled down the JF-17 when it Raad was photoshopped on it



I only included Ra'ad's dimensions as they are a matter of speculation. The dimensions of the Mirage 3 and the JF-17 are readily available online and would have cluttered my drawings.

And yes, I have scaled the JF-17, Mirage 3 and the Ra'ad appropriately for each drawing or there would be little use for the drawings.



ACE OF THE AIR said:


> Sir,
> Very true we would not hear much in this regards from the PAF. My initial post was intended only to identify OP that the picture he has used has this limitation. Which he himself had pointed out by drawing the two lines representing the take-off profile. The OP had also suggested to modify the Ra'ad missile which would make it more complicated. As far as the weight is concerned that was never the problem as this missile is lighter then the center tank.
> ...
> PAF has very rightly gone for wing mounting.



I don't quite understand what you are identifying. The side profile of the JF-17 I have used is from a picture with no fuel-tanks or weapons installed so it is at its highest. Even in this best case the maximum permissible rotation angle is halved. I am basically assuming Ra'ad weighs 0 kg. The picture from the front does indeed have fuel tanks in it but 1) The Ra'ad and a fuel tank weights are similar 2) The couple of inches will not make a difference.

I don't think PAF has gone for anything. As many members have pointed out, the Ra'ad was never designed with the JF-17 in mind. It is a strategic weapon and was designed with the Mirage 3 in mind. The JF-17 does not need to carry the Ra'ad and I don't believe the PAF wants it to. There are other stand off weapons being developed for the JF-17.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## princefaisal

For integrating other longer range cruise missiles in future, redesigning of larger landing gear is the permanent solution.


----------



## MastanKhan

CHI RULES said:


> JF17 is developed as multi role light weight fighter which though may prove to be useful as bomber low intensity areas but not suitable as bomber to attack the sensitive enemy installations highly guarded by SAMS and AA guns.
> No matter how much we improve this jet it's main role shall be for air defense.
> 
> So for me the topic to convert RAAD to be fitted with JF17 or convert JF17 to be able to take RAAD is not worthy to be discussed.
> 
> Yes as given above by many worthy members that RAAD will evolve but more or less shall be used with any potential heavy platform not with JF17 or even our F16s for which we have tied hands.



Hi,

I guess you totally missed it---. The Ra'ad has a range of 350 KM minimum---maximum under 1000 Km.

So---what targets can it not hit?

It is better to ask under what conditions a MIG25 can take a missile load to 80000 feet and for what purpose rather than winging it left and right to look smart.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ConcealCarry

everyone is harping about larger/longer landing gear here, wouldn't the larger /longer landing gear weight more thus affecting performance in addition to requiring more space to retract in thus reducing internal capacity for fuel equipment?
Every equipment is designed for a specific purpose, they will not fit every conceivable role. like cell phones are designed to go in pockets, don't expect a 55 inch screen on them.



princefaisal said:


> For integrating other longer range cruise missiles in future, redesigning of larger landing gear is the permanent solution.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JamD

ConcealCarry said:


> everyone is harping about larger/longer landing gear here, wouldn't the larger /longer landing gear weight more thus affecting performance in addition to requiring more space to retract in thus reducing internal capacity for fuel equipment?
> Every equipment is designed for a specific purpose, they will not fit every conceivable role. like cell phones are designed to go in pockets, don't expect a 55 inch screen on them.


You are exactly right. The landing gear is one of the heaviest if not the heaviest component of an aircraft. Also when it retracts it has to go somewhere.


----------



## Bilal Khan 777

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> Thank you for your post---. In our desperation for a potent strike aircraft---we want all our weapons to be used by all the aircraft---so we took it for granted that this maybe the case with Raad / JF17 as well.



This may just be an opinion of Bloggers here, however, it does not change the policy and doctrine of PAF.



Windjammer said:


> Just out of interest, instead of focusing on a single projectile on the centre line pylon, why wouldn't the PAF adopt the following mission profile. It can even do away with say the SD-10s to save weight.


It will not do away with SD10 in this role as it will need to interdict aircraft sent to stop the SOW attack on the other side, who would also have BVR capability.


----------



## MastanKhan

ConcealCarry said:


> everyone is harping about larger/longer landing gear here, wouldn't the larger /longer landing gear weight more thus affecting performance in addition to requiring more space to retract in thus reducing internal capacity for fuel equipment?
> Every equipment is designed for a specific purpose, they will not fit every conceivable role. like cell phones are designed to go in pockets, don't expect a 55 inch screen on them.



Hi,

There is a reason why many are harping about it----. 20 lbs extra weight of each strut won't effect much on the performance.

And for the space---that is where you need ingenuity---the taller strut would be what---6---8 inches taller---.

A cell phone is a bad example---fighter aircrafts are designed with all these things in mind---it is designed with missile launch---dropping bombs---launching smart weapons---.

So---the question again arises---when they decided to make a smaller aircraft---what else did they comprise.



Bilal Khan 777 said:


> This may just be an opinion of Bloggers here, however, it does not change the policy and doctrine of PAF.
> .



Hi,

The policy and the doctrine of the paf must be determined by the public and govt and not by paf.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Arsalan

ACE OF THE AIR said:


> Sir,
> Very true we would not hear much in this regards from the PAF. My initial post was intended only to identify OP that the picture he has used has this limitation. Which he himself had pointed out by drawing the two lines representing the take-off profile. The OP had also suggested to modify the Ra'ad missile which would make it more complicated. As far as the weight is concerned that was never the problem as this missile is lighter then the center tank.
> 
> Sir the range of Ra'ad is 350 Km hence it is not available for export however if its range is reduced to 300 Km then it can be exported according to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). Pakistan is not a signatory to this. http://www.mtcr.info/english/partners.html
> 
> @Windjammer Sir, the issue was not weight acceptable on the center line but the ground clearance. Now looking at the picture in (Post-27) it is clear that there would be some more space available however it is not possible to accommodate this missile. PAF has very rightly gone for wing mounting.


Well it was not remotely related to what i was saying sir but anyway,, leave that! 

Just to clear one little thing, the PAF have not gone for wing mounting as you said in post. Perhaps you were confused by the photo shopped image that was done just to explain who things can be, no how they are. 




I hope you will understand this and will not start quoting the wing mounted missiles as some confirmed news based on this photo shopped image.



MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> I guess you totally missed it---. The Ra'ad has a range of 350 KM minimum---maximum under 1000 Km.


'
What sir?

A minimum range of 350Km and a max range of 1000 Km? Ra'ad missile? 
Sir je have i missed something here (sarcasm etc) or you are confusing it with some other things (not likely)
Totally confused by this post of yours sir.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bilal Khan 777

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> There is a reason why many are harping about it----. 20 lbs extra weight of each strut won't effect much on the performance.
> 
> And for the space---that is where you need ingenuity---the taller strut would be what---6---8 inches taller---.
> 
> A cell phone is a bad example---fighter aircrafts are designed with all these things in mind---it is designed with missile launch---dropping bombs---launching smart weapons---.
> 
> So---the question again arises---when they decided to make a smaller aircraft---what else did they comprise.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The policy and the doctrine of the paf must be determined by the public and govt and not by paf.



Mastan Khan, again this is your opinion. The policy and doctrine of PAF may not be determined by the public, and the government, but only by the professionals who understand the implications of the policy and doctrine. Are fisherman making financial policy? Is state bank being run by the people or economists? Is national bank being run by milkmen? In your hate for the armed forces, and your particular acerbity for the airforce, you allow your head to go back in the crevice without any sunshine.

However, you can have your right of an opinion, no matter how ridiculous it maybe.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## CHI RULES

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> I guess you totally missed it---. The Ra'ad has a range of 350 KM minimum---maximum under 1000 Km.
> 
> So---what targets can it not hit?
> 
> It is better to ask under what conditions a MIG25 can take a missile load to 80000 feet and for what purpose rather than winging it left and right to look smart.


I simply meant that JF17 is not a proper platform to carry RAAD.


----------



## Quwa

Bilal Khan 777 said:


> Mastan Khan, again this is your opinion. The policy and doctrine of PAF may not be determined by the public, and the government, but only by the professionals who understand the implications of the policy and doctrine. Are fisherman making financial policy? Is state bank being run by the people or economists? Is national bank being run by milkmen? In your hate for the armed forces, and your particular acerbity for the airforce, you allow your head to go back in the crevice without any sunshine.
> 
> However, you can have your right of an opinion, no matter how ridiculous it maybe.


This is circular logic, sir ("this is not PAF's conclusion, therefore it is just an opinion"). You haven't conclusively addressed @MastanKhan's opinion on its own merits.

Secondly, even the PAF's determination of policy is ultimately just an opinion, albeit an informed one, but an opinion all the same. Some here are asking, why wasn't the JF-17 prepared for the strategic role?

Think about it... Here the PAF acquired a platform using hundreds of millions of dollars - if not a billion-plus dollars - of *public funds*, i.e. funds that ultimately belong to the whole nation, not just any one institution or group.

Moreover, the JF-17 has literally ended up as the only new platform that the PAF is inducting and is capable of configuring to its needs, with nothing else in the pipe. So now the question, why didn't the PAF anticipate a strategic role for the JF-17, i.e. the one platform it can induct and has control over?

You might be miffed by such questioning, but this is part and parcel of what should be a functional state, one built upon accountability and efficiency. Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc, are run by technology experts, but you do realize they answer to the board of directors, who in turn represent the shareholders who actually fund those companies' programs?

Many of us might not be experts (though some here actually are, albeit civilian and not military), but we are certainly shareholders with a right to hold those who use our tax money (well, at least my family's tax money) accountable. The PAF might be correct in the end, but you need to demonstrate that with facts and figures, not "we said so, therefore we are right." Nawaz Sharif could say the same about spending money on a bridge only useful to wild goats, doesn't make him right.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
2 | Like Like:
12


----------



## litman

so what are the options for paf? either keep certain number of mirage air craft functional for launching raad or modify the design of the missile for jft or simply buy a heavier , larger air craft like J 10 or su 35.


----------



## Nigel Farrage

This thread is based on "Educated guess" not facts.
Fact is that in 2013 PAC Kamra started work on integration of Raad on JF-17 . H.Khan of PakDef tweeted about it back then, you can find the tweet on PakDef twitter account ad I can't post a link.
The main argument of OP on which he is concluding that Raad is unfit for Thunder is that the rear wings of the,missile are too wide and will interfere with landing gear. That is a flawed argument as the landing gear on JF-17 as on most jets fold forward not backwards. 
So as long as Raad's rear wings are behind thunder's landing gear,they won't interfere.
Also in case nobody noticed the Raad serial number 209 fired in January 2016 is different from previous versions. It looks slimmer and doesn't have the pressure sensors on the sides as fitted on previous versions.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## [--Leo--]

IF any one make a thread and ask every one what is nescom doing and its employees just getting paid for doing nothing more than 30+ thousand . and under the umberella of nescom there are four companies what they are doing we have not seen any new weapons in the past few year since 2011 just for the shaheen 3 more 50,000 employee working? is this a joke?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nigel Farrage

[--Leo--] said:


> IF any one make a thread and ask every one what is nescom doing and its employees just getting paid for doing nothing more than 30+ thousand . and under the umberella of nescom there are four companies what they are doing we have not seen any new weapons in the past few year since 2011 just for the shaheen 3 more 50,000 employee working? is this a joke?


Its the same in every government institution. 
BTW, Shaheen-3 and a new version of Shaheen-1A have been made recently.


----------



## Nigel Farrage

Also if you look closely at the latest footage from January 2016 of the test launch of Raad, it has a one second video of missile falling off from the plane's hard point, and video was recorded by some sort of under the wing or fuselage camera,or in other words an electro optic pod. Mirages cannot carry pod and cannot record video, so the test launch was from a jet which can record video via pod.
Guess which jets in PAF carry pods able of recording videos?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## General General

This source gives the dimensions of the missile as 3.7m length. 
The India's National Security : Annual Review 2010 gives the dimensions as 4.9m length and 0.5m width.
However from the image here we can see ample space between the landing gear struts and the first wing stations. 
The fins of the missile will be well behind the landing gear and will not pose as an obstruction. Everything is roughly to scale.





The first 2 stations from the centreline are rated at greater than 1000kg, enough for the missile.


----------



## Bratva

Quwa said:


> This is circular logic, sir ("this is not PAF's conclusion, therefore it is just an opinion"). You haven't conclusively addressed @MastanKhan's opinion on its own merits.
> 
> Secondly, even the PAF's determination of policy is ultimately just an opinion, albeit an informed one, but an opinion all the same. Some here are asking, why wasn't the JF-17 prepared for the strategic role?
> 
> Think about it... Here the PAF acquired a platform using hundreds of millions of dollars - if not a billion-plus dollars - of *public funds*, i.e. funds that ultimately belong to the whole nation, just any one institution or group.
> 
> Moreover, the JF-17 has literally ended up as the only new platform that the PAF is inducting and is capable of configuring to its needs, with nothing else in the pipe. So now the question, why didn't the PAF anticipate a strategic role for the JF-17, i.e. the one platform it can induct and has control over?
> 
> You might be miffed by such questioning, but this is part and parcel of what should be a functional state, one built upon accountability and efficiency. Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc, are run by technology experts, but you do realize they answer to the board of directors, who in turn represent the shareholders who actually fund those companies' programs?
> 
> Many of us might not be experts (though some here actually are, albeit civilian and not military), but we are certainly shareholders with a right to hold those who use our tax money (well, at least my family's tax money) accountable. The PAF might be correct in the end, but you need to demonstrate that with facts and figures, not "we said so, therefore we are right." Nawaz Sharif could say the same about spending money on a bridge only useful to wild goats, doesn't make him right.




@Manticore Look into the negative rating given to @MastanKhan and the user who has given him should be at least held accountable that if at his old age (supposed and imaginary) he can not hold nerves and handle criticism well of the other side , he should not participate at all and I was very tempted to give negative rating as well for the comment doled out to Mastan khan, ""you allow your head to go back in the crevice without any sunshine"". I dont handle hypocrisy that one should get away with saying whatever he has in mind but if other side respectably presents a polar opposite view, you go gung ho on it. A typical superior complex suffered by retired personnel of every branch of Armed forces. But I leave this at your discreation to disclipne the user for his impetuous behaviour



MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> There is a reason why many are harping about it----. 20 lbs extra weight of each strut won't effect much on the performance.
> 
> And for the space---that is where you need ingenuity---the taller strut would be what---6---8 inches taller---.
> 
> A cell phone is a bad example---fighter aircrafts are designed with all these things in mind---it is designed with missile launch---dropping bombs---launching smart weapons---.
> 
> So---the question again arises---when they decided to make a smaller aircraft---what else did they comprise.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The policy and the doctrine of the paf must be determined by the public and govt and not by paf.



Let me modify a little bit of your post. PAF should be held accountable through Civilian auditors, Oversight committees, Government monitoring committess on behalf of public so that things like this

https://defence.pk/threads/financial-irregularities-of-rs-50-billion-detected-in-paf.345204/page-3

SAAB Attack Fiasco

The Haphazard development route, Irregular estimations, Cost over runs, Delayed capabilities acquirement , Financial irregularities inside JF-17 program and all other mishaps JF-17 faced due to so called cost cuttings, using cheap materials and PAF hid it because they consider public money they are spending on JF-17 is their Abu money

And all the other things PAF and other branches of military has hid due to their sheer incompetence.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## JamD

Nigel Farrage said:


> This thread is based on "Educated guess" not facts.
> Fact is that in 2013 PAC Kamra started work on integration of Raad on JF-17 . H.Khan of PakDef tweeted about it back then, you can find the tweet on PakDef twitter account ad I can't post a link.



A tweet is not fact either, sorry. Fact would be a picture showing Ra'ad on the JF-17.


Nigel Farrage said:


> The main argument of OP on which he is concluding that Raad is unfit for Thunder is that the rear wings of the,missile are too wide and will interfere with landing gear. That is a flawed argument as the landing gear on JF-17 as on most jets fold forward not backwards.
> So as long as Raad's rear wings are behind thunder's landing gear,they won't interfere.



I have written:
_"Ra’ad is so wide that it will interfere with the landing gear/*ventral fin of the JF-17 and possibly any weapon system mounted on the hardpoint next to it.*"_





Also please note, on an aircraft, structures don't have to physically touch to cause interference. Simply putting something in front of something can cause destructive flutter.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nigel Farrage

Guga Sialkoti said:


> Mirage with rose upgrade can record videos even they can carry local made camera POD which is not publicly displayed.


ROSE upgrade added radars not pod I guess. The nose camera on Mirages is a 5 FPS still camera, not video camera.



JamD said:


> A tweet is not fact either, sorry. Fact would be a picture showing Ra'ad on the JF-17.
> 
> 
> I have written:
> _"Ra’ad is so wide that it will interfere with the landing gear/*ventral fin of the JF-17 and possibly any weapon system mounted on the hardpoint next to it.*"_
> View attachment 314426
> 
> 
> Also please note, on an aircraft, structures don't have to physically touch to cause interference. Simply putting something in front of something can cause destructive flutter.


Check C-802 on JF-17. That too hangs way behind the wings and flaps are still operable.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nigel Farrage

Guga Sialkoti said:


> Just look at the official poster of JF-17 by PAF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this pic JAMD
> 
> Varticle fin easily cleared if Ra'ad mounted on this paylon.


That's not official poster, that's Najam Khan's work. Of PAF Falcons website, blog, FB.


----------



## JamD

Nigel Farrage said:


> Check C-802 on JF-17. That too hangs way behind the wings and flaps are still operable.


C-802's rear fins are MUCH smaller than the Ra'ad's.


----------



## Nigel Farrage

JamD said:


> C-802's rear fins are MUCH smaller than the Ra'ad's.


I can't post pics or links but check how C-802 is slung under JF-17. The tail wings of the missile are positioned behind the flaps, out of reach,so that they don't hinder.
Although C-802 is longer than Raad, it is plausible that similar arrangements can be made for Raad to position rear wings in way not to interfere with anything.


----------



## Mysticbuddy

Bratva said:


> Manticore Look into the negative rating given to @MastanKhan and the user who has given him should be at least held accountable that if at his old age (supposed and imaginary) he can not hold nerves and handle criticism well of the other side , he should not participate at all and I was very tempted to give negative rating as well for the comment doled out to Mastan khan, ""you allow your head to go back in the crevice without any sunshine"". I dont handle hypocrisy that one should get away with saying whatever he has in mind but if other side respectably presents a polar opposite view, you go gung ho on it. A typical superior complex suffered by retired personnel of every branch of Armed forces. But I leave this at your discreation to disclipne the user for his impetuous behaviour


I don't see a negative rating. But I have seen his salesmanship .... He will compare things


----------



## Bratva

JamD said:


> A tweet is not fact either, sorry. Fact would be a picture showing Ra'ad on the JF-17.
> 
> 
> I have written:
> _"Ra’ad is so wide that it will interfere with the landing gear/*ventral fin of the JF-17 and possibly any weapon system mounted on the hardpoint next to it.*"_
> View attachment 314426
> 
> 
> Also please note, on an aircraft, structures don't have to physically touch to cause interference. Simply putting something in front of something can cause destructive flutter.



How about these pictures for a alternate frame of reference

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## JamD

Nigel Farrage said:


> I can't post pics or links but check how C-802 is slung under JF-17. The tail wings of the missile are positioned behind the flaps, out of reach,so that they don't hinder.
> Although C-802 is longer than Raad, it is plausible that similar arrangements can be made for Raad to position rear wings in way not to interfere with anything.







EDIT: I have corrected one measurement of the C-802, the previous length was a remnant from the diagram that included the length of the booster motor for ground launched version.

Also I have already shown you what positioning the missile's tail behind the flap does, it comes dangerously close or touches the ventral fin of the JF-17.



Guga Sialkoti said:


> Some people are trying hard to prove that Ra'ad is actualy a failed project may be an attempt by Indians to get the real Info...I confirmed two years back from my neighbor in Pakistan he told me he himself fly JF-17 with mockups of Ra'ad missile with different configurations.
> 
> I will ask him to join this forum and explain it further.
> 
> @JamD
> Look at this picture where tail fins of Ra'ad trimed down


Not being launched from JF-17 does not make it a failed project. It does what it was designed to do. The fault is ours if we assign qualities to it that its designers did not assign it. It is a strategic weapon and will deliver its payload.

Also the pictures you have posted are too grainy to see anything really.

I will believe the JF-17 can carry the Ra'ad when I see pictures. Otherwise it is just undue speculation. There is absolutely no good reason for JF-17s Ra'ad carrying capability to be kept secret. The simple answer is often the truth whether we like it or not. It simply does not carry it.

There are at least two other weapons being developed for the JF-17 that I know of. We will hear about them when they are announced to the public. Rest assured the JF-17 and the Ra'ad are doing what they are designed to do.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tempest II

Bratva said:


> How about these pictures for a alternate frame of reference



Thanks @Bratva . Those C-802 posts help a lot in understanding the possibilities. Physically is looks like mounting the Hatif in the same stations as the C-802 should be possible ... ... while I appreciate the PAF might not do so.

However the question is, if the JF-17 replaces the Mirages, what will happen to the Hatif 8?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## MastanKhan

Quwa said:


> This is circular logic, sir ("this is not PAF's conclusion, therefore it is just an opinion"). You haven't conclusively addressed @MastanKhan's opinion on its own merits.
> 
> Secondly, even the PAF's determination of policy is ultimately just an opinion, albeit an informed one, but an opinion all the same. Some here are asking, why wasn't the JF-17 prepared for the strategic role?
> 
> Think about it... Here the PAF acquired a platform using hundreds of millions of dollars - if not a billion-plus dollars - of *public funds*, i.e. funds that ultimately belong to the whole nation, not just any one institution or group.
> 
> Moreover, the JF-17 has literally ended up as the only new platform that the PAF is inducting and is capable of configuring to its needs, with nothing else in the pipe. So now the question, why didn't the PAF anticipate a strategic role for the JF-17, i.e. the one platform it can induct and has control over?
> 
> You might be miffed by such questioning, but this is part and parcel of what should be a functional state, one built upon accountability and efficiency. Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc, are run by technology experts, but you do realize they answer to the board of directors, who in turn represent the shareholders who actually fund those companies' programs?
> 
> Many of us might not be experts (though some here actually are, albeit civilian and not military), but we are certainly shareholders with a right to hold those who use our tax money (well, at least my family's tax money) accountable. The PAF might be correct in the end, but you need to demonstrate that with facts and figures, not "we said so, therefore we are right." Nawaz Sharif could say the same about spending money on a bridge only useful to wild goats, doesn't make him right.




Hi,

Good man---now you know why the air forces of the world don't build their own fighter aircraft---there is a reason for that---.

They would take the easy way out---and that has happened with this aircraft---a beautiful little aircraft---designed with bad decisions---poor overall utility for what was needed to what was given---.

That is why I have stated many a times---paf needs to be brought on the live TV forum---and need to be roasted---.

For 50 years---they have not taken the heat.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Quwa

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> Good man---now you know why the air forces of the world don't build their own fighter aircraft---that is the reason for that---.
> 
> They would take the easy way out---and that has happened with this aircraft---a beautiful little aircraft---designed with bad decisions---poor overall utility for what was needed to what was given---.
> 
> That is why I have stated many a times---paf needs to be brought on the live TV forum---and need to be roasted---.
> 
> For 50 years---they have not taken the heat.


If the PAF wants to design its own fighter, that's fine, but it needs to be done in a transparent process with informed and competent outside experts to ensure that the right requirements are being defined. If I was Prime Minister, I'd be working to ensure that Pakistan is a proactive independent state, and in turn, I'd want ever dollar to be spent ensuring that we get the most possible out of our defence programs. For me, a strategic role for the JF-17 is a must, and since we can't easily go back and change the fighter (best to focus on next-gen), we need a Ra'ad II.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nigel Farrage

JamD said:


> View attachment 314431
> 
> EDIT: I have corrected one measurement of the C-802, the previous length was a remnant from the diagram that included the length of the booster motor for ground launched version.
> 
> Also I have already shown you what positioning the missile's tail behind the flap does, it comes dangerously close or touches the ventral fin of the JF-17.
> 
> 
> Not being launched from JF-17 does not make it a failed project. It does what it was designed to do. The fault is ours if we assign qualities to it that its designers did not assign it. It is a strategic weapon and will deliver its payload.
> 
> Also the pictures you have posted are too grainy to see anything really.
> 
> I will believe the JF-17 can carry the Ra'ad when I see pictures. Otherwise it is just undue speculation. There is absolutely no good reason for JF-17s Ra'ad carrying capability to be kept secret. The simple answer is often the truth whether we like it or not. It simply does not carry it.
> 
> There are at least two other weapons being developed for the JF-17 that I know of. We will hear about them when they are announced to the public. Rest assured the JF-17 and the Ra'ad are doing what they are designed to do.


Not revealing JF-17 with Raad may have to do with export contracts. 
Exporting a nuclear capable plane may have it's hurdles.
Just a guess.


----------



## Blue Marlin

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> Good man---now you know why the air forces of the world don't build their own fighter aircraft---that is the reason for that---.
> 
> They would take the easy way out---and that has happened with this aircraft---a beautiful little aircraft---designed with bad decisions---poor overall utility for what was needed to what was given---.
> 
> That is why I have stated many a times---paf needs to be brought on the live TV forum---and need to be roasted---.
> 
> For 50 years---they have not taken the heat.


they wont get any roasting they will probably get a standing ovation. you think the public knows what the airforce wants? theres only a handful of people who monitor the airforce outside the government and thats it. and even they dont have a clue whats happening. pakistan is a very patriotic country more than india the airforce wont do anying that weakens them. 
what are your main points of arguements ?

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
6


----------



## Bratva

Guga Sialkoti said:


> Sir if we can build test and induct cruise missile it is very hard for our scientist to modify it for JF-17. As i posted above i myself confirmed it from serving pilot that they are flying with mock ups two years back.
> 
> The real issue i believe why China / Pakistan not publicly showing it may be Russia objects this on grounds of Indian pressure and we still needs Russia engines and parts once Chinese engines available we may publicly announce it.



Dont be laughing stock by claiming imaginary things that never happened and basing your claims on some imaginary pilot. Your word doesnot contain a single worth in this technical thread. If you can technically proof RAAD can be carried then by all means particiapte other wise dont spam thread based on your so called so and so told me 

Actually it is pretty hard for our missile scientists because its been 9 years since the first test flight of RAAD. How much RAAD has been modified in terms of being carried on JF-17 ? 9 years is a very long time mind you

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Bratva

Guga Sialkoti said:


> Nobody is laughing at me but I see some seniors who are stalking me with anger and dagger of seniority in their hands.
> 
> I rest my case...
> 
> *No start your propaganda against our scientists and our forces.*
> 
> Me out from here.



Nice try spawn of safriz . Thank you for you invaluable input and avoiding derailing of this technical thread with your imaginary claims. You will not be missed entirely.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> So---what is the NEGATIVE RATING for---because I DARED you---touched a nerve---poked where there were inconsistencies----stir up hidden issues----
> 
> Dared to shake the perch that we have put you on for the last 50 years---and kissed your feet and worshipped you guys for gods.
> 
> 
> By the way----were you a part of the traitors who refused to send recce aircraft when the pia aircraft reported missile boats being towed behind a ship coming towards karachi---
> 
> Or were you a part of the traitors who refused to send air force to Longewala--.
> 
> Or were you a part of traitors who refused to send an escort after the ATLATIQUE---because you were the paf---sitting mighty and high---knowing that the iaf was ready to pounce on an opportunity---yet you let ' your helpless " brother " ' into the enemy death trap.
> 
> Source: https://defence.pk/threads/anatomy-...ed-cruise-missile.436702/page-6#ixzz4CtxwwOj4



This post outlines exactly why you have absolutely shallow knowledge of PAF operations and capabilities or air warfare/ aircraft in general. I would ask you to give EXACT TECHNICAL PROOF for any of your claims regarding what the PAF could have done. Including aircraft ranges, operational capacity and ability to operate in day/night conditions.

You may put your technical response in a new thread as follows.

1. Technical capability of PAF to provide on demand tactical recce at all hours day/night during 71. This includes specifications of PAF fleet and aircraft along with availability of assets not involved at the time on the Monabao-Tharparker axis. This should show how the PAF had the ability to provide those resources that you have just made the statement for.

2. Technical capability of PAF to provide tactical air support to the Army at Longewalla. Including aircraft ranges based on PAF operational locations at the time of the offensive and the Army's failure to request activation of FOB to allow adequate cover. Again, please show technical and historically accurate accounts backed with more than just your own claims and opinion on the matter.

3. Proof that the Navy requested escort for the Atlantique and pattern of interception taken by the IAF Mig-21.

If you can provide the above, we can consider your post to be more than just the rant of a misinformed(deliberately or mistakenly) older gentleman trying to vent whatever emotions for whatever reasons.

Also, please avoid taking names to our professional members as they have served our nation and being an 'Elite' member does not give you the privilege of overstepping bounds or ranting whenever you wish.

Thanks.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
7


----------



## Bratva

Nigel Farrage said:


> Not revealing JF-17 with Raad may have to do with export contracts.
> Exporting a nuclear capable plane may have it's hurdles.
> Just a guess.



And what is France doing by exporting Rafael to India ?


----------



## Nigel Farrage

Bratva said:


> And what is France doing by exporting Rafael to India ?


Likewise Russia exported Brahmos to India which is clear violation of MTCR. But.
زبردست کا ٹھینگا سر پہ.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Nigel Farrage said:


> Likewise Russia exported Brahmos to India which is clear violation of MTCR. But.
> زبردست کا ٹھینگا سر پہ.



Brahmos doesn't exceed MTCR range.. It's a 290 km ranged missile...

The limit is 300.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blue Marlin

Quwa said:


> If the PAF wants to design its own fighter, that's fine, but it needs to be done in a transparent process with informed and competent outside experts to ensure that the right requirements are being defined. If I were Prime Minister, I'd be working to ensure that Pakistan is a proactive independent state, and in turn, I'd want ever dollar to be spent ensuring that we get the most possible out of our defence programs. For me, a strategic role for the JF-17 is a must, and since we can't easily go back and change the fighter (best to focus on next-gen), we need a Ra'ad II.


really? the jf-17 must be a stretegic bird. do remember the raad is only carryed by the mirage v's only. the mirage 3 and the j-7's will be replaced by the jf-17. the 80 odd mirage-v and the 50 j7-pg's will be replaced by somthing else te f-16s are closed source bird so thats not gonna be used. so pakistan needs about 25 squadrons (450 birds) now add 20 more to reduce down time and for training and you hneed the best part of 470 fighters.
so they are ordering 250 jf-17's to replace the mirage III and the j7 (minus the pg variant)
about 76 f16's call it 100 as jordan may sell them and other countries may sell them too.thats 350 birds there 
and you have not replaced the mirage v's or the j7-pg's which is about 130 birds total. which would be replaced by a fith gen bird.
so it would be about 350+130=480 which is a tad increase
as for what your saying about paf needing to invest in its own resources is nothing new as the current acm said that in an interview which you may have been influenced from. as for a raad 2.0 its more of a case of do they need it? and the answer is yes but not now. the mirage is being replaced by fith gen bird so they would nne to be an alcm that would fit internally. i would say look at the som missile for "influence". as for shorter ranged alcm? the c802 would do just fine after a software change.
@Bilal Khan 777 what do you think?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal Khan 777

Blue Marlin said:


> really? the jf-17 must be a stretegic bird. do remember the raad is only carryed by the mirage v's only. the mirage 3 and the j-7's will be replaced by the jf-17. the 80 odd mirage-v and the 50 j7-pg's will be replaced by somthing else te f-16s are closed source bird so thats not gonna be used. so pakistan needs about 25 squadrons (450 birds) now add 20 more to reduce down time and for training and you hneed the best part of 470 fighters.
> so they are ordering 250 jf-17's to replace the mirage III and the j7 (minus the pg variant)
> about 76 f16's call it 100 as jordan may sell them and other countries may sell them too.thats 350 birds there
> and you have not replaced the mirage v's or the j7-pg's which is about 130 birds total. which would be replaced by a fith gen bird.
> so it would be about 350+130=480 which is a tad increase
> as for what your saying about paf needing to invest in its own resources is nothing new as the current acm said that in an interview which you may have been influenced from. as for a raad 2.0 its more of a case of do they need it? and the answer is yes but not now. the mirage is being replaced by fith gen bird so they would nne to be an alcm that would fit internally. i would say look at the som missile for "influence". as for shorter ranged alcm? the c802 would do just fine after a software change.
> @Bilal Khan 777 what do you think?



Brother, I come here with a positive spirit to share information, but some naysayers don't want me or my opinion here. I wish them best of luck.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## MastanKhan

Guga Sialkoti said:


> This is blasphemy.
> PAF did great job despite they are lacking in every field they don't have bigger new fleet their enemy is much larger.



Sir,

They allowed their enemy to get larger---they allowed their enemy to come in and destroy the nations assets---not once but three times---.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Bilal Khan 777

MastanKhan said:


> Sir,
> 
> They allowed their enemy to get larger---they allowed their enemy to come in and destroy the nations assets---not once but three times---.



Why is the baby still crying?



Quwa said:


> This is circular logic, sir ("this is not PAF's conclusion, therefore it is just an opinion"). You haven't conclusively addressed @MastanKhan's opinion on its own merits.
> 
> Secondly, even the PAF's determination of policy is ultimately just an opinion, albeit an informed one, but an opinion all the same. Some here are asking, why wasn't the JF-17 prepared for the strategic role?
> 
> Think about it... Here the PAF acquired a platform using hundreds of millions of dollars - if not a billion-plus dollars - of *public funds*, i.e. funds that ultimately belong to the whole nation, not just any one institution or group.
> 
> Moreover, the JF-17 has literally ended up as the only new platform that the PAF is inducting and is capable of configuring to its needs, with nothing else in the pipe. So now the question, why didn't the PAF anticipate a strategic role for the JF-17, i.e. the one platform it can induct and has control over?
> 
> You might be miffed by such questioning, but this is part and parcel of what should be a functional state, one built upon accountability and efficiency. Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc, are run by technology experts, but you do realize they answer to the board of directors, who in turn represent the shareholders who actually fund those companies' programs?
> 
> Many of us might not be experts (though some here actually are, albeit civilian and not military), but we are certainly shareholders with a right to hold those who use our tax money (well, at least my family's tax money) accountable. The PAF might be correct in the end, but you need to demonstrate that with facts and figures, not "we said so, therefore we are right." Nawaz Sharif could say the same about spending money on a bridge only useful to wild goats, doesn't make him right.



My dear, a lot of good points are lost in acerbity, attacks and sarcasm. Sometimes we are forced to keep information from you here, and after all, most of you are civilian enthusiasts only. Regarding accountability, i now reserve my comment. If any of you can really wake up at at 4AM to reach a flight line or ready room, you can come make us accountable.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Blue Marlin

Bilal Khan 777 said:


> Brother, I come here with a positive spirit to share information, but some naysayers don't want me or my opinion here. I wish them best of luck.


haters gonna hate. but what i find strange is that "other" think thereaare right against someone whos actually been in the airforce. i dont like sh!t stiring but i have a weird feeling he got rejected by the airforce. i have never seen a pakistani been so negative against the airfore of his own country. sure its good to be critical but when one compares cars to planes as an arguement in a smooth tone then theres a problem. personally put him in your ignore list and move on. no need to lose your sleep over it, just ignore them and share what you want where necessary and its happy days. and if they quote you wont know they they are being ignored and you wont se their messages. end of really.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Blue Marlin

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Brahmos doesn't exceed MTCR range.. It's a 290 km ranged missile...
> 
> The limit is 300.


it depends on how 290 km is defined. the rocket motor will last till 290 km and it will glide for no more than 10 km. thats why mtcr missiles will be at 290 km max



Bratva said:


> And what is France doing by exporting Rafael to India ?


thats been delayed. visit the dassault rafale thread in the indian section. they talk a lot about specifics. im suprised you have not been there to have a little peak. its really interesting.


----------



## Quwa

@Blue Marlin I look at it from the standpoint that the JF-17 is going to be the most pervasive fighter in the PAF. Why wouldn't you want to draw the maximum flexibility of such an arrangement, i.e. be able to position theoretically any JF-17 squadron for any role within what is capable of the fighter? For example, if Southern Air Command required more anti-ship capable fighters, the other areas could provide JF-17s, and SAC would have no trouble absorbing them. Why wouldn't you want to extend this advantage to strategic munitions?


Bilal Khan 777 said:


> My dear, a lot of good points are lost in acerbity, attacks and sarcasm. Sometimes we are forced to keep information from you here, and after all, most of you are civilian enthusiasts only. Regarding accountability, i now reserve my comment. If any of you can really wake up at at 4AM to reach a flight line or ready room, you can come make us accountable.


Sir with all due respect. You signed onto waking up at 4AM and reaching a flight line, and the nation gave you not just a wage, but an actual life and career as compensation. You serve the nation sir, and the nation can demand you be held accountable. Don't be offended, I apply this very same rule to every single public servant and official, and I am much harsher on this front with our politicians (who have fundamentally failed the country).

I don't say this as an outsider. My father is a retired PAF officer, and there is no doubt that this fact gave me a huge advantage in life in many areas, and despite all the problems or issues, I owe the people of Pakistan for being a meaningful contributor to my successful life.

We can continue discussing this based on facts and with the aim of examining arguments for what they are, or we can continue reminding one another who owes what and why.

Reactions: Like Like:
18


----------



## Blue Marlin

MastanKhan said:


> I give a sh-it about the ranking / rating---I am just waiting for my time on the TV---so that I can show your real face to pakistan and show the traitors that you are---.
> 
> Sonny boy---I will rake you thru hot coals----and char you---either you will kill me or I will totally destroy your reputation.
> 
> By the way---were you a part of the traitors of paf that allowed the Atlantique to fly without an escort---knowing very well that it was vulnerable to the enemy---and flying to its certain death?
> 
> Do you have the blood of 39 dead navy officers at your hands---?
> 
> Do you also have the blood of dead airmen at the Badaber air base and kamra and Karachi air base as well---.
> 
> Were you also a part of those traitors responsible for the destruction of national assets?


  what makes you think that the pakistan airforce or bilal here will go on tv to discus the role and the policies of the airforce? 

was bilal was in the airforce not the air naval arm so how can he have blood on his hand for the death of 39 people?

just put him in your ignore list and thats the end of it.
its embarrasing watching to people argue like kids. especailly if there seniors.



Quwa said:


> @Blue Marlin I look at it from the standpoint that the JF-17 is going to be the most pervasive fighter in the PAF. Why wouldn't you want to draw the maximum flexibility of such an arrangement, i.e. be able to position theoretically any JF-17 squadron for any role within what is capable of the fighter? For example, if Southern Air Command required more anti-ship capable fighters, the other areas could provide JF-17s, and SAC would have no trouble absorbing them. Why wouldn't you want to extend this to strategic munitions?


the jf-17 can hold the c802, but not the raad for simple reason being its does not need to. why? the mirage v can hold them and theres not shortage of them. remembere its a nucear stand of weapon. the mirage is able to fly very low and deleiver the "package" which it can do and was upgraded in the rose program to do so. whilst the jf-17 hasnt been upgraded for that purpose.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## punit

Guga Sialkoti said:


> Some people are trying hard to prove that Ra'ad is actualy a failed project may be an attempt by Indians to get the real Info...I confirmed two years back from my neighbor in Pakistan he told me he himself fly JF-17 with mockups of Ra'ad missile with different configurations.
> 
> I will ask him to join this forum and explain it further.
> 
> @JamD
> Look at this picture where tail fins of Ra'ad trimed down


you joined yesterday right ? @Irfan Baloch !


----------



## Nigel Farrage

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Brahmos doesn't exceed MTCR range.. It's a 290 km ranged missile...
> 
> The limit is 300.


Tell that to Indians who claim the actual range is much larger and that it carries nuclear weapons. 
Exporting a missile capable of carrying nuclear weapons is against MTCR.
UNLESS you are USA exporting Trident to UK.


----------



## Quwa

Blue Marlin said:


> the jf-17 can hold the c802, but not the raad for simple reason being its does not need to. why? the mirage v can hold them and theres not shortage of them. remembere its a nucear stand of weapon. the mirage is able to fly very low and deleiver the "package" which it can do and was upgraded in the rose program to do so. whilst the jf-17 hasnt been upgraded for that purpose.


I understand that the PAF defined the JF-17's SOW capacity to conventional warfare, fair, the question I and some others have is, why not strategic? Yes, the Mirage ROSE can do it ... for now. The Mirage is a much older platform and it will not be long before it is retired. Granted the PAF could maintain a small number for strategic usage into the 2020s, but isn't that a bit of a limitation? Isn't one of the main advantages of having tactical warheads the ability to potentially distribute those warheads across a wider deployment net? Configuring the JF-17 for the strategic role gives the PAF its widest deployment net possible.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nigel Farrage

The OP should run his calculations again by comparing C-802 with Raad in terms of dimensions. 
If Jf-17 can carry a 6+ meter long missile the C-802, it should be able to carry a 4.8 meter long missile.


----------



## MastanKhan

Blue Marlin said:


> what makes you think that the pakistan airforce or bilal here will go on tv to discus the role and the policies of the airforce?
> 
> was bilal was in the airforce not the air naval arm so how can he have blood on his hand for the death of 39 people?
> 
> just put him in your ignore list and thats the end of it.
> its embarrasing watching to people argue like kids. especailly if there seniors.
> 
> 
> the jf-17 can hold the c802, but not the raad for simple reason being its does not need to. why? the mirage v can hold them and theres not shortage of them. remembere its a nucear stand of weapon. the mirage is able to fly very low and deleiver the "package" which it can do and was upgraded in the rose program to do so. whilst the jf-17 hasnt been upgraded for that purpose.




Hi,

I am just asking if he was involved with any of those locations---he can say yeah or nay.

The paf does not need to come in front of the camera----it is me---who has to get in front of the camera---and that is all---I will take it from there.


----------



## Nigel Farrage

How quickly this thread changed from Anatomy of Raad missile to Anatomy of Mastaan Khan.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Blue Marlin

Quwa said:


> I understand that the PAF defined the JF-17's SOW capacity to conventional warfare, fair, the question I and some others have is, why not strategic? Yes, the Mirage ROSE can do it ... for now. The Mirage is a much older platform and it will not be long before it is retired. Granted the PAF could maintain a small number for strategic usage into the 2020s, but isn't that a bit of a limitation? Isn't one of the main advantages of having tactical warheads the ability to potentially distribute those warheads across a wider deployment net? Configuring the JF-17 for the strategic role gives the PAF its widest deployment net possible.


the mirages will be around for a few years after their replacement is here (post 2020)
and distributing nukes is a bad idea

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghazi768

JamD said:


> *Introduction*
> The Ra’ad Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) is a peculiar system. It has long been rumored that it is too big to be carried by anything but the Mirage aircraft of the PAF. The purpose of this article is twofold: understand the design decisions made while designing the Ra’ad and what can be done to evolve the design. Hopefully, by the end we will appreciate why the Ra’ad is the way it is and try to think of ways to evolve it.
> 
> Even though vertical clearances are taken care of but the Ra’ad is so wide that it will interfere with the landing gear/ventral fin of the JF-17 and possibly any weapon system mounted on the hardpoint next to it.



A very good effort and I mean it. Thanks You

Can you help me out with a few calculations via your 'pixel counting' skills?







can you let me know the distance from vertical stabiliser fin to fin, also clearance of the aircraft, thanks.

Also as you look to be knowledgable about air-craft/cruise missile design, may I ask why JF-17 designer chose to place stabiliser fins so wide, logically as much as I know it is better to place them closer to centre of gravity horizontally to achieve better results. like in this image of a jet, a portion of whose fuselage design may have been an inspiration as well.






here another view of JF-17





May I suggest that if you really want to see if Raad will fit or not than try developing 3d models to scale according to your 'pixel counting' exercise and than draw whatever conclusions you want to draw.

For those who look at images of JF-17 with central drop tank and than start worrying about if it has the "clearance", a few images to enjoy and kill some free time..

First, the 'benchmark' of poor follow through resulting in 'clearance' issues.. @JamD can you please help in pixel counting how many inches high is drop tank. It could be the best proof of sheer unprofessionalism..











How much high it is? These IDF guys must be as negligent and un-professional as PAF guys @MastanKhan






and a MIRAGE TOO, and why the hell they always cant them nose down for drop tanks, poor regard to flight safety and therefore professionalism.. if off-course may have fuel left and worse vapours when landing. It after all is considered an EPITOME of clearance on PDF by some guys. Has some one tough that a longer gear may be have to do with a wing welded at bottom of fuselage. Nope that could not be true.. epitome of 'clearance'..no..NO

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## JamD

ghazi768 said:


> A very good effort and I mean it. Thanks You
> 
> Can you help me out with a few calculations via your 'pixel counting' skills?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you let me know the distance from vertical stabiliser fin to fin, also clearance of the aircraft, thanks.
> 
> Also as you look to be knowledgable about air-craft/cruise missile design, may I ask why JF-17 designer chose to place stabiliser fins so wide, logically as much as I know it is better to place them closer to centre of gravity horizontally to achieve better results. like in this image of a jet, a portion of whose fuselage design may have been an inspiration as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here another view of JF-17
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May I suggest that if you really want to see if Raad will fit or not than try developing 3d models to scale according to your 'pixel counting' exercise and than draw whatever conclusions you want to draw.



Thanks for the appreciation.

I don't quite understand what you mean by " distance from vertical stabiliser fin to fin". Perhaps mark it on the picture.

It is actually desirable to place them as far as possible from the center of gravity if you are limited by how large you can make them. The size of the surface dictates how much force it can generate. The distance from the center of gravity dictates how much moment that force will generate, just like a longer spanner allows you to loosen a bolt more easily. Ideally you want the surface to be as small as possible as structure adds weight and drag. By placing it further from CG you get more bang for the buck. Unless of course you're adding more weight by putting it farther away than you are saving by reducing the size of the surface.

And yes you are right 3d models would be better but I have a busy schedule and don't have enough time to dedicate to these endeavors. Nevertheless, I believe the calculations I have done are quite representative of the actual situation. Aircraft were designed with pen and paper for a long while afterall.

When the word 'clearance' is used it is with regards to everything not just ground clearance. As you might have noticed Ra'ad has more ground clearance than the fuel tank. It is its rear end that is problematic. Notice in the pictures you have posted the belly mounted fuel tanks point down slightly. This is to maximize permissible rotation angle on landing and takeoff which one of the most crucial issues with clearance.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ghazi768

JamD said:


> Thanks for the appreciation.
> 
> I don't quite understand what you mean by " distance from vertical stabiliser fin to fin". Perhaps mark it on the picture.
> 
> It is actually desirable to place them as far as possible from the center of gravity if you are limited by how large you can make them. The size of the surface dictates how much force it can generate. The distance from the center of gravity dictates how much moment that force will generate, just like a longer spanner allows you to loosen a bolt more easily. Ideally you want the surface to be as small as possible as structure adds weight and drag. By placing it further from CG you get more bang for the buck. Unless of course you're adding more weight by putting it farther away than you are saving by reducing the size of the surface.



Yes, I think you have guessed them correctly, I was mentioning ventral fins.

My apologies, you are not correct. In jet fighters their main job is to keep directional stability because in high AOA vertical tale gets 'shadowed' by fuselage. In some earlier aircrafts a single fin at bottom of fuselage below the tail was used for this purpose that is why it/they are sometimes called extended tail as well or stabiliser fins too. Now in normal aircraft or 'others' their purpose may be different such as inducing a bit of lateral instability as vertical tails may be large or too stable, in such situations ventral fins can be used to induce lateral instability which can be useful in turning and capturing bigger yaw moments. But I think you will get the point. Now can you please provide info about what you think is the distance between both ventral fins, also about 'over-all' clearance.



JamD said:


> Thanks for the appreciation.
> 
> And yes you are right 3d models would be better but I have a busy schedule and don't have enough time to dedicate to these endeavors. Nevertheless, I believe the calculations I have done are quite representative of the actual situation. Aircraft were designed with pen and paper for a long while afterall.
> 
> When the word 'clearance' is used it is with regards to everything not just ground clearance. As you might have noticed Ra'ad has more ground clearance than the fuel tank. It is its rear end that is problematic. Notice in the pictures you have posted the belly mounted fuel tanks point down slightly. This is to maximize permissible rotation angle on landing and takeoff which one of the most crucial issues with clearance.



I mentioned 3d models as they make it quite easy to simulate clearances from different structures in even inches. They help you simulate whether a straight or 'canted' payload will clear fuselage or not . Or in case of under wing, you can model where to 'put up' a payload so that it clears all structures and any moving parts and also whether a present pylon will handle it or you will need another one.. etc. etc.

what you called 'permissible rotation angle' may be an issue in landing not necessarily in take-off, you do not need to pitch up to be air-borne, at most just a slight pressure on stick just to be sure about when lift starts working. Again some accurate 3d modelling can do wonders with 'held' opinions.


----------



## JamD

ghazi768 said:


> Yes, I think you have guessed them correctly, I was mentioning ventral fins.
> 
> My apologies, you are not correct. In jet fighters their main job is to keep directional stability because in high AOA vertical tale gets 'shadowed' by fuselage. In some earlier aircrafts a single fin at bottom of fuselage below the tail was used for this purpose that is why it/they are sometimes called extended tail as well or stabiliser fins too. Now in normal aircraft or 'others' their purpose may be different such as inducing a bit of lateral instability as vertical tails may be large or too stable, in such situations ventral fins can be used to induce lateral instability which can be useful in turning and capturing bigger yaw moments. But I think you will get the point. Now can you please provide info about what you think is the distance between both ventral fins, also about 'over-all' clearance.
> 
> 
> 
> I mentioned 3d models as they make it quite easy to simulate clearances from different structures in even inches. They help you simulate whether a straight or 'canted' payload will clear fuselage or not . Or in case of under wing, you can model where to 'put up' a payload so that it clears all structures and any moving parts and also whether a present pylon will handle it or you will need another one.. etc. etc.
> 
> what you called 'permissible rotation angle' may be an issue in landing not necessarily in take-off, you do not need to pitch up to be air-borne, at most just a slight pressure on stick just to be sure about when lift starts working. Again some accurate 3d modelling can do wonders with 'held' opinions.


Sorry I misread your post and I thought you were asking about the Ra'ad. Regardless you want the most moment arm possible to get the most moment from the least amount of surface.

I must admit I don't quite know why they would put them that far apart. It is not changing the effective moment arm by much. I believe it is to make the mount higher rather than lower like the f16. There might be interfering flows from the fuselage/intake area as well. But all this is speculation.

I'll see what I can do about your image when I sign in from my computer.

EDIT:
I have scaled it so that each pixel is a cm. Have fun.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amardeep mishra

JamD said:


> As one would imagine the heavier the aircraft the more tail and wing area is required for “enough” positive stability. The Ra’ad is a heavy aircraft with very small wings so roll damping is small. This would mean for enough roll damping the designers have to compensate with more tail area in the form of ventral fins. The farther away they are from the center of mass of the missile the better they will perform as they produce more moment for the same area. It is for this reason they extend below the fuselage (in contrast to the vertical tail that are in line with the fuselage).



Hi dear @JamD
I wanted to add my comments to your wonderfully written piece of article-why wonderful-because unlike me you have avoided rigorous mathematics! Now,the reason why I am writing this is to correct certain mis-conceptions about the possible usage of ventral fins in raad missile. The reason why raad requires a ventral fins is not for roll stability but for directional-stability. As you know,Ra'ad is a sub-sonic cruise missile that is designed to fly low and slow. Lets say we want to trim our ra'ad missile to a lesser IAS(indicated air speed),for that we would require to increase the alpha to effective increase the Cl(here Cl means lift coeff and not roll coeff)-kindly note that Cl here is a strong function of both alpha and de(elevator deflection). But at higher alpha the wake from the wings start getting into contact with the vertical fins thereby reducing itz effectiveness.This effectively results in reduced directional stability.




Picture Courtesy- youtube
TO by-pass this problem,we can install another lifting surface(vis-a-vis side-slip air) to the keel surface aft of CG that is not in the wake of the wings.And that lifting surface is usually mounted below the fuselage.This is done because at higher AoA,the ventral fins mounted below the fuselage will still be able to see clean air(clean in this sense means without wake!) and hence provide adequate directional stability that might be lost due to increased AoA.




As you can see in my explanation above,to trim the vehicle at lesser speed,one would have to increase alpha to generate same amount of lift L.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## JamD

amardeep mishra said:


> Hi dear @JamD
> I wanted to add my comments to your wonderfully written piece of article-why wonderful-because unlike me you have avoided rigorous mathematics! Now,the reason why I am writing this is to correct certain mis-conceptions about the possible usage of ventral fins in raad missile. The reason why raad requires a ventral fins is not for roll stability but for directional-stability. As you know,Ra'ad is a sub-sonic cruise missile that is designed to fly low and slow. Lets say we want to trim our ra'ad missile to a lesser IAS(indicated air speed),for that we would require to increase the alpha to effective increase the Cl(here Cl means lift coeff and not roll coeff)-kindly note that Cl here is a strong function of both alpha and de(elevator deflection). But at higher alpha the wake from the wings start getting into contact with the vertical fins thereby reducing itz effectiveness.This effectively results in reduced directional stability.
> View attachment 314566
> 
> Picture Courtesy- youtube
> TO by-pass this problem,we can install another lifting surface(vis-a-vis side-slip air) to the keel surface aft of CG that is not in the wake of the wings.And that lifting surface is usually mounted below the fuselage.This is done because at higher AoA,the ventral fins mounted below the fuselage will still be able to see clean air(clean in this sense means without wake!) and hence provide adequate directional stability that might be lost due to increased AoA.
> View attachment 314567
> 
> As you can see in my explanation above,to trim the vehicle at lesser speed,one would have to increase alpha to generate same amount of lift L.


Let me clarify something that I did not write well enough I admit.

Yes I understand the common logic of why ventral fins are used, to avoid loss of lateral stability at high alphas.

I don't think that is the purpose they serve here. I strongly suspect because of the missiles mass and moment of inertia it requires large surfaces for directional stability. This required area is so large that not even the two vertical tails can make up for it. They couldn't make the tail any taller as it is already pretty tall. There is also precedent for this use of ventral fins. F-7 has a single ventral fin while the FT-7, a heavier aircraft, has two. The wing wake for the F-7 and FT-7 will be virtually the same at high alphas but the weight and inertia is different.

Also roll damping is also achieved by any surface you mount on a craft. It might not be a primary purpose of it but it will surely be helpful for a slender missile with small wings that has very little roll damping. Almost every flight surface you add, adds to some coupled effect you're not adding it for. In this case it is helpful.


----------



## amardeep mishra

JamD said:


> Again the heavy weight of the Ra’ad means rather large horizontal tails are needed which make the missile 1.25 meters wide.



Hmm,thats correct, But the large horizontal tails effectively mean a larger volume ratio(Vh) that helps in increasing the control effectiveness of the control surface.



JamD said:


> I strongly suspect because of the missiles mass and moment of inertia it requires large surfaces for directional stability.


Hi @JamD
Yes there is no doubt that moment of inertial of the missile about the z axis is appreciably higher than the moment of inertial about lets say longitudinal axis.Hence they might use ventral as you suggest.I was merely un-convinced as to how ventral fins might add up to the lateral stability or in other words enhance roll stability. Thats all


----------



## The SC

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> I'm more interested to see a Babur or Raad based ASM ...
> 
> Is there any work being done on that ? Can we expect a homegrown ASM ?
> 
> 
> Also any info on the "Zarb" ASM coastal battery?
> 
> 
> 
> Raad or any missile with a range of over 300 km can't be marketed or sold... So now PAF officials aren't joking or even offering RAAD to potential customers.
> 
> 
> Your posts are pathetic and usually claims full of shyt debunked a billion times .. From JF not being able to carry ASMs like C series or CM-400 to other undiluted crap.
> 
> 
> As for JF.. If the reports are true .. That's 2 customers for JF... That's 3 nations operating our machine !
> 
> View attachment 313973
> View attachment 313974
> View attachment 313975



So the JF-17 can lunch the Ra'ad, that what I have thought, and there came all these calculations saying it can not, but now we have an image better than a thousand words..Oops That is a Mirage!


----------



## Bilal Khan 777

Blue Marlin said:


> haters gonna hate. but what i find strange is that "other" think thereaare right against someone whos actually been in the airforce. i dont like sh!t stiring but i have a weird feeling he got rejected by the airforce. i have never seen a pakistani been so negative against the airfore of his own country. sure its good to be critical but when one compares cars to planes as an arguement in a smooth tone then theres a problem. personally put him in your ignore list and move on. no need to lose your sleep over it, just ignore them and share what you want where necessary and its happy days. and if they quote you wont know they they are being ignored and you wont se their messages. end of really.



You are right. We don't need to prove anything, or rake anyone through coals. Being called traitor is always interesting. Shows you the mind of others. I guess one finds their own faults in others? There is just too many of you nice gentlemen here for me to leave the forum for anyone being a pest. These are just opinions.



Quwa said:


> @Blue Marlin I look at it from the standpoint that the JF-17 is going to be the most pervasive fighter in the PAF. Why wouldn't you want to draw the maximum flexibility of such an arrangement, i.e. be able to position theoretically any JF-17 squadron for any role within what is capable of the fighter? For example, if Southern Air Command required more anti-ship capable fighters, the other areas could provide JF-17s, and SAC would have no trouble absorbing them. Why wouldn't you want to extend this advantage to strategic munitions?
> 
> Sir with all due respect. You signed onto waking up at 4AM and reaching a flight line, and the nation gave you not just a wage, but an actual life and career as compensation. You serve the nation sir, and the nation can demand you be held accountable. Don't be offended, I apply this very same rule to every single public servant and official, and I am much harsher on this front with our politicians (who have fundamentally failed the country).
> 
> I don't say this as an outsider. My father is a retired PAF officer, and there is no doubt that this fact gave me a huge advantage in life in many areas, and despite all the problems or issues, I owe the people of Pakistan for being a meaningful contributor to my successful life.
> 
> We can continue discussing this based on facts and with the aim of examining arguments for what they are, or we can continue reminding one another who owes what and why.



Quwa, for your consumption, lets just say that the strategic chapter of JF17 is Not to be Disclosed.

With all due respect to your father for raising a fine young man, no amount of compensation can be given for service. Service is a choice, and we are proud of it. We are not offended. Over our lives and careers we have seen many naysayers. However, as I have repeated many times, what i say is my opinion, and I respect everyone else's. I can at times disagree with people's opinion based on my experience (bias you can also call it), and in that case we can only agree to disagree. However, I refuse to undertake childish arguments with anyone who just are pushing some arm chair agenda without having any knowledge of air war and our world.

BR

For this topic only, weapon integration has also some serious issues such as:

Flutter
SSS (Safe Stores Separation)
Aerodynamics
Kinematics
Drag
Clearence (overall)
Hardpoint Stress
Wing Root Stress
Aircraft Safety of Flight
SMS Integration
Mission Computer Integration

All of these and many more need to be thought through prior to physically putting anything on the A/C. First this is all done by technical people on computers, and then when in safe limit put on mock ups, aircraft etc etc.

I love the enthusiasm about Ra'ad and JF17, but really, JF17 in the current form is well equipped for its role, and we already have a Ra'ad trucks to be in operation 2025.

BR

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## ghazi768

JamD said:


> Sorry I misread your post and I thought you were asking about the Ra'ad. Regardless you want the most moment arm possible to get the most moment from the least amount of surface.
> 
> I must admit I don't quite know why they would put them that far apart. It is not changing the effective moment arm by much. I believe it is to make the mount higher rather than lower like the f16. There might be interfering flows from the fuselage/intake area as well. But all this is speculation.
> 
> I'll see what I can do about your image when I sign in from my computer.
> 
> EDIT:
> I have scaled it so that each pixel is a cm. Have fun.
> View attachment 314565


ha, ha,ha.. 6-7 inches away from heaven or hell.. what a vocational hazard..

A nice effort again, brought some memories back, thanks again.


----------



## Tipu7

Snaps from recent Ra'ad test.
Intake is re traceable, fins too ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bratva

Tipu7 said:


> Snaps from recent Ra'ad test.
> Intake is re traceable, fins too ?
> 
> View attachment 314604
> View attachment 314605
> View attachment 314606



Not the first time, but second time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nigel Farrage

Bratva said:


> Not the first time, but second time.


When was the first time? I guess there was no pod video in Jan 2015 test?


----------



## Bratva

Nigel Farrage said:


> When was the first time? I guess there was no pod video in Jan 2015 test?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nigel Farrage

Bratva said:


>


I thought that's an animation. isn't it?

BTW the same "Pod video" also appears in every test, I just checked 2011 test,it has the exact same "Pod video ". 
2016 one is different.


----------



## Bratva

Nigel Farrage said:


> I thought that's an animation. isn't it?



low quality camera with which they shoot the video makes it look like an animation


----------



## Mysticbuddy

Nigel Farrage said:


> Likewise Russia exported Brahmos to India which is clear violation of MTCR. But.
> زبردست کا ٹھینگا سر پہ.


It is not . It has been limited to 290 km. Anyways it's a member now.


----------



## Quwa

Bilal Khan 777 said:


> You are right. We don't need to prove anything, or rake anyone through coals. Being called traitor is always interesting. Shows you the mind of others. I guess one finds their own faults in others? There is just too many of you nice gentlemen here for me to leave the forum for anyone being a pest. These are just opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> Quwa, for your consumption, lets just say that the strategic chapter of JF17 is Not to be Disclosed.
> 
> With all due respect to your father for raising a fine young man, no amount of compensation can be given for service. Service is a choice, and we are proud of it. We are not offended. Over our lives and careers we have seen many naysayers. However, as I have repeated many times, what i say is my opinion, and I respect everyone else's. I can at times disagree with people's opinion based on my experience (bias you can also call it), and in that case we can only agree to disagree. However, I refuse to undertake childish arguments with anyone who just are pushing some arm chair agenda without having any knowledge of air war and our world.


Thank you for your response sir. I have no disrespect for those serve, just as I have no disrespect for the humanitarians who go into dangerous areas of the world to help their fellow human beings, or the political activists who stand up against tyranny with nothing but their words, only to get hit by aggression (with no means to materially respond). 

But my conversation with you isn't about you as an individual or even the ACM as an individual, but of the PAF as an agency of the Pakistani state. It is an institution at the end of the day, and I believe that an institution must be accountable to those it serves. If it is indeed the case that civilian experts (actual ones) are being roped in to provide guidance or to keep tabs on the JF-17 or other programs, then great, I don't need to know the details. I was just worried that this was not considered or forgotten in your earlier statements.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

Finally glad that we have a thread that reflects what both admin and think tank always hoped discussions on PDF to be like. Great work @JamD @amardeep mishra

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ConcealCarry

Really? so the doctrine should come from public, like the ones on this forum? Comon



MastanKhan said:


> The policy and the doctrine of the paf must be determined by the public and govt and not by paf.



No! common man has no right to ask an institution what they are doing, specially when the nature of their work is confidential and revolves around country's defence. These institutions have tasks given by government according to it's priorities, importance and fund availability, and that is what they do. they are responsible and accountable to their master (the government) not the public.



[--Leo--] said:


> IF any one make a thread and ask every one what is nescom doing and its employees just getting paid for doing nothing more than 30+ thousand . and under the umberella of nescom there are four companies what they are doing we have not seen any new weapons in the past few year since 2011 just for the shaheen 3 more 50,000 employee working? is this a joke?



missiles and tanks hang pretty low and don't interfere with the flaps. 2D pics don't tell the full story











JamD said:


> A tweet is not fact either, sorry. Fact would be a picture showing Ra'ad on the JF-17.
> 
> 
> I have written:
> _"Ra’ad is so wide that it will interfere with the landing gear/*ventral fin of the JF-17 and possibly any weapon system mounted on the hardpoint next to it.*"_
> View attachment 314426
> 
> 
> Also please note, on an aircraft, structures don't have to physically touch to cause interference. Simply putting something in front of something can cause destructive flutter.



that is unprofessional and uncalled for. If you want people to respect you, you need to respect other regardless what their opinions are. 

This is a public forum and it's beauty comes from different points of view, if everyone was saying the same thing, it wouldn't be interesting. A teams strength comes from difference of opinion, from conflict that leads to new thinking. Because you come from a military background, where contradicting seniors and colleagues is generally avoided as it is equated to indiscipline, you probably don't appreciate it much. But in private organizations it is encouraged and appreciated.



Bilal Khan 777 said:


> *Why is the baby still crying?*
> 
> 
> 
> My dear, a lot of good points are lost in acerbity, attacks and sarcasm. Sometimes we are forced to keep information from you here, and after all, most of you are civilian enthusiasts only. Regarding accountability, i now reserve my comment. If any of you can really wake up at at 4AM to reach a flight line or ready room, you can come make us accountable.



This part is so lame, so by your logic, if you hire a night guard who is supposed to perform guard duty while you sleep, just because he is awake all night he is not accountable to you for what he does at night?



Bilal Khan 777 said:


> .* If any of you can really wake up at at 4AM to reach a flight line or ready room, you can come make us accountable.*



Don't equate objective critique to negativity. If you can't comprehend what he says, then it's your fault not his.



Blue Marlin said:


> haters gonna hate. but what i find strange is that "other" think thereaare right against someone whos actually been in the airforce. i dont like sh!t stiring but i have a weird feeling he got rejected by the airforce. i have never seen a pakistani been so negative against the airfore of his own country. sure its good to be critical but when one compares cars to planes as an arguement in a smooth tone then theres a problem. personally put him in your ignore list and move on. no need to lose your sleep over it, just ignore them and share what you want where necessary and its happy days. and if they quote you wont know they they are being ignored and you wont se their messages. end of really.



I think its straight forward 300 km limit from point of flight to point of impact.




Blue Marlin said:


> it depends on how 290 km is defined. the rocket motor will last till 290 km and it will glide for no more than 10 km. thats why mtcr missiles will be at 290 km max
> 
> 
> thats been delayed. visit the dassault rafale thread in the indian section. they talk a lot about specifics. im suprised you have not been there to have a little peak. its really interesting.



You tube is your friend. Find a friend to interview you and you can give your point of view. how cool is that?



MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am just asking if he was involved with any of those locations---he can say yeah or nay.
> 
> The paf does not need to come in front of the camera----it is me---who has to get in front of the camera---and that is all---I will take it from there.



nice illustrations and the point 2D pics don't tell the full story and pixel counts are pixel counts not the exact geometry.



ghazi768 said:


> A very good effort and I mean it. Thanks You
> 
> Can you help me out with a few calculations via your 'pixel counting' skills?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you let me know the distance from vertical stabiliser fin to fin, also clearance of the aircraft, thanks.
> 
> Also as you look to be knowledgable about air-craft/cruise missile design, may I ask why JF-17 designer chose to place stabiliser fins so wide, logically as much as I know it is better to place them closer to centre of gravity horizontally to achieve better results. like in this image of a jet, a portion of whose fuselage design may have been an inspiration as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here another view of JF-17
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May I suggest that if you really want to see if Raad will fit or not than try developing 3d models to scale according to your 'pixel counting' exercise and than draw whatever conclusions you want to draw.
> 
> For those who look at images of JF-17 with central drop tank and than start worrying about if it has the "clearance", a few images to enjoy and kill some free time..
> 
> First, the 'benchmark' of poor follow through resulting in 'clearance' issues.. @JamD can you please help in pixel counting how many inches high is drop tank. It could be the best proof of sheer unprofessionalism..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much high it is? These IDF guys must be as negligent and un-professional as PAF guys @MastanKhan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and a MIRAGE TOO, and why the hell they always cant them nose down for drop tanks, poor regard to flight safety and therefore professionalism.. if off-course may have fuel left and worse vapours when landing. It after all is considered an EPITOME of clearance on PDF by some guys. Has some one tough that a longer gear may be have to do with a wing welded at bottom of fuselage. Nope that could not be true.. epitome of 'clearance'..no..NO



Looking at this vid, it looks like* dimensions wise* launching Ra'ad from Thunder should not be a problem.



Bratva said:


>

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amardeep mishra

Oscar said:


> Finally glad that we have a thread that reflects what both admin and think tank always hoped discussions on PDF to be like. Great work @JamD @amardeep mishra



@Oscar 
That is correct,we must have "literature-backed" discussions based on hard scientific literature. The problem though,as i see it,a lot of folks might not be able to follow the rigorous mathematics.


----------



## SQ8

amardeep mishra said:


> @Oscar
> That is correct,we must have "literature-backed" discussions based on hard scientific literature. The problem though,as i see it,a lot of folks might not be able to follow the rigorous mathematics.


As I suggested to you a while before. 
I have read and understand both 
https://www.amazon.com/Mechanics-Flight-11th-R-H-Barnard/dp/1405823593
https://www.amazon.com/Flight-witho...TF8&qid=1467259009&sr=1-6&keywords=ac+kermode

And have thankfully learnt when and where to use both. Suggest you get both these, as regardless of forums; they are a joy to read.


----------



## Nigel Farrage

JamD said:


> Sorry I misread your post and I thought you were asking about the Ra'ad. Regardless you want the most moment arm possible to get the most moment from the least amount of surface.
> 
> I must admit I don't quite know why they would put them that far apart. It is not changing the effective moment arm by much. I believe it is to make the mount higher rather than lower like the f16. There might be interfering flows from the fuselage/intake area as well. But all this is speculation.
> 
> I'll see what I can do about your image when I sign in from my computer.
> 
> EDIT:
> I have scaled it so that each pixel is a cm. Have fun.
> View attachment 314565


A bit off mate.
The wheel track of Thunder is 2.54 meters not 2.24 meters as per your pixels calculations. But that margin of error is expected in this type of work. Or an error margin of 12%, in your case.


----------



## amardeep mishra

Oscar said:


> As I suggested to you a while before.
> I have read and understand both
> https://www.amazon.com/Mechanics-Flight-11th-R-H-Barnard/dp/1405823593
> https://www.amazon.com/Flight-witho...TF8&qid=1467259009&sr=1-6&keywords=ac+kermode
> 
> And have thankfully learnt when and where to use both. Suggest you get both these, as regardless of forums; they are a joy to read.



Hi dear @Oscar
I already have both the books you mentioned,but i find them lacking in rigorous mathematics vis-a-vis books like mc'ruer,nelson or even donald mc'lean etc.
Here is my collection.Kindly go through them.










FOr me,these are my favourite books on flight dynamics- in the decreasing order-
1)Mc'Ruer
2)Nelson
3)Roskam
4)brian L stevens
I mean to be brutally honest,there is no SINGLE books that explains you all the concepts with indepth insights the way you want.One would have to refer to at least 5 books to get a grip.For instance Concepts of frame transformation and development of equation of motion 12 eqn model is best explained very rigorously in Mc'ruer.However nelson is more control oriented.brian L steven basically explains Mc'ruers works in easy to understand mathematical construct-hence it is highly recommended for beginners.

However for missile guidance nothing beats
1)Missile guidance and control- george M sioris
2)Automatic control of Missiles-J blakelock

Even one of my professor has authored a very good book on flight dynamics but his approach is quite different and is more theoretical analysis based on bifurcation theory/continuation analysis


----------



## Nigel Farrage

amardeep mishra said:


> @Oscar
> That is correct,we must have "literature-backed" discussions based on hard scientific literature. The problem though,as i see it,a lot of folks might not be able to follow the rigorous mathematics.


Thats because we are not here to do a PHD or write a research thesis. Just a discussion which everyone or at least most people can understand.


----------



## SQ8

amardeep mishra said:


> Hi dear @Oscar
> I already have both the books you mentioned,but i find them lacking in rigorous mathematics vis-a-vis books like mc'ruer,nelson or even donald mc'lean etc.
> Here is my collection.Kindly go through them.
> View attachment 314734
> 
> View attachment 314735
> 
> 
> 
> FOr me,these are my favourite books on flight dynamics- in the decreasing order-
> 1)Mc'Ruer
> 2)Nelson
> 3)Roskam
> 4)brian L stevens
> 
> However for missile guidance nothing beats
> 1)Missile guidance and control- george M sioris
> 2)Automatic control of Missiles-J blakelock
> 
> Even one of my professor has authored a very good book on flight dynamics but his approach is quite different and is more theoretical analysis based on bifurcation theory/continuation analysis


Which is why I mentioned them for lacking in rigorous mathematics. They do not dwell on the Excessive theories of what is essential to understand flight, they are precise and to the point. The extended mathematics and theory is focused on those looking to develop systems.
Yet, these two were sufficient during a project for me that involved a cousin of the system under discussion. Someone else with a PhD or two along with their team did the flight dynamics, all I needed to understand was not why a fluid molecule will behave due to what equation, but what AoA of the control surface would create what movement. Suffice to say, that system performs flawlessly and has excellent performance characteristics; it will also probably not see the light of day until maybe 10 years from now when maybe some wonderful people at NDC might write a history of the place like Munir Akram did.

What you are trying to get into would make sense if you got up now and try to work on the AMCA and actually design its wing. But for someone to be able to look at a wing and understand its basic characteristics and get an estimate of how it effects the aircraft's performance; books like these would be sufficient.

P.S Although I would recommend Bernard's book as even with a little skimming over the more terse equations it has well explained theory for those looking to go beyond just understanding flight in depth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nigel Farrage




----------



## amardeep mishra

Oscar said:


> What you are trying to get into would make sense if you got up now and try to work on the AMCA and actually design its wing.



Hi dear @Oscar
Designing various aircraft components particularly wings,etc is the job of aerodynamicist- it is entirely different from flight dynamics. Control Engineering aspect of aircraft comes in the end when the an aerodynamicist has done his job. I am basically a control engineer,(no amount of aerospace will turn me into an aerodynamicist lol) and as a control engineer one must know the dynamics of any process(be it aircraft,nuclear reactors,nuclear submarines or your oil rig!) he/she wishes to control.

On more serious note though,ADA has already designed the wings and the basic layout of AMCA is frozen. System level design will commence soon.A lot of engineers working on AMCA are also research assistants/pursue MS/PhD at IITs.And Unlike pakistan their research is definitely published or patented!- our research is very transparent


----------



## SQ8

amardeep mishra said:


> Hi dear @Oscar
> Designing various aircraft components particularly wings,etc is the job of aerodynamicist- it is entirely different from flight dynamics. Control Engineering aspect of aircraft comes in the end when the an aerodynamicist has done his job. I am basically a control engineer,(no amount of aerospace will turn me into an aerodynamicist lol) and as a control engineer one must know the dynamics of any process(be it aircraft,nuclear reactors,nuclear submarines or your oil rig!) he/she wishes to control.
> 
> On more serious note though,ADA has already designed the wings and the basic layout of AMCA is frozen. System level design will commence soon.A lot of engineers working on AMCA are also research assistants/pursue MS/PhD at IITs.And Unlike pakistan their research is definitely published or patented!- our research is very transparent



Again, no disagreement. But for a system of this sort of flight dynamics(such as Ra'ad) , you may not need to go too much in depth. And yes, unlike Pakistan a lot of research in India is transparent; something that is both good and negative. 
Good, because it ensures a high level of secrecy as to what is going on.. and bad..because many a good engineer is left unable to state their accomplishments to the fullest.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Arsalan

Blue Marlin said:


> i would say look at the som missile for "influence". as for shorter ranged alcm? the c802 would do just fine after a software change.
> @Bilal Khan 777 what do you think?


You mentioned SOM for influence and then mentioned "for shorter range" a C802. You said "as for short range ALCM" like SOM was something else. The range of both is somewhat same. They will fall in same category as far as range goes so what am i missing?


----------



## JamD

amardeep mishra said:


> \Control Engineering aspect of aircraft comes in the end when the an aerodynamicist has done his job.



That is a TERRIBLE idea lol. But you knew that. Control engineers should be kept in the loop from the start even though sometimes they aren't.


----------



## Blue Marlin

Arsalan said:


> You mentioned SOM for influence and then mentioned "for shorter range" a C802. You said "as for short range ALCM" like SOM was something else. The range of both is somewhat same. They will fall in same category as far as range goes so what am i missing?


yes turkish tech....
and im looking at both avenues


----------



## Arsalan

Blue Marlin said:


> yes turkish tech....
> and im looking at both avenues


Ok so it is not that C802 is "for shorter range ALCM" they both are both are!! However since the technology is different (sources are) so both interests you individually. Makes sense now.


----------



## amardeep mishra

JamD said:


> That is a TERRIBLE idea lol. But you knew that. Control engineers should be kept in the loop from the start even though sometimes they aren't.



@JamD
Yes i know man and believe me thats not really a productive method of designing,but that is how aerospace research is conducted in india.A more balanced approach would be to incorporate control engineers right from the beginning. And Aerospace Control is perhaps more demanding vis-a-vis traditional application of control theory like controlling a reactor,heat exchanger etc etc because of the fact
1)That it is highly non linear! It gets a bit tricky to get answers that converge- especially when you're trying to use optimal control theory.
2)that an aircraft is desired to operate at multitude of equilibrium points(in contrast to this boilers,reactors etc operate at only one or at max a few eq pts).This means linearization of NL eqns around those points-but this might sometimes give mis-leading answers as to what really happens around that point- for instance around "centers","non-isolated fixed points","star" or other degenerate cases
3)Control Engineer must also ensure stability of these equilibrium points and how they behave using bifurcation theory and branch-continuation.Thats where auto07p like tools come in handy.hint flutter,wing drop etc etc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blue Marlin

Arsalan said:


> Ok so it is not that C802 is "for shorter range ALCM" they both are both are!! However since the technology is different (sources are) so both interests you individually. Makes sense now.


pick your favourite. see what the turks have and get it same applies to china and use it where usefull. but the c802 is the obivous choice you pakistan since its in use, but them som would be preferable, as it means the turks will help with mini turbo engine development as they are making an engine to replace the tri-40 also they have a varient that can fit internally in the f35 so that may be usefull to pakistan when it gets its own 5th gen fighter. thinking ahead is the aim of the game here


----------



## Arsalan

Blue Marlin said:


> pick your favourite. see what the turks have and get it same applies to china and use it where usefull. but the c802 is the obivous choice you pakistan since its in use, but them som would be preferable, as it means the turks will help with mini turbo engine development as they are making an engine to replace the tri-40 also they have a varient that can fit internally in the f35 so that may be usefull to pakistan when it gets its own 5th gen fighter. thinking ahead is the aim of the game here


Yeah yeah i understand all this detail. Was just confused when you mentioned C802 as "for short range" as if SOM was any different in terms of range. It is understandable how they offer different technology insight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Faiez

Quwa said:


> I don't have much to add, but we need to remember, the Ra'ad is principally for strategic - i.e. nuclear - strike. While a great conventional munition, the PAF is not factoring the Ra'ad in as a conventional stand-off weapon (SOW). This is important. If the Ra'ad is not a conventional SOW, then the need for the JF-17 to be armed with it (for the time being) is not that urgent. Yes, the JF-17 needs conventional SOWs, but it can make due with H-2/H-4 and glide-bomb variants of the Mk-83 and Mk-84. The Mirages have to go eventually, and in light of that, a Ra'ad II and/or new fighter platform could rise, but that is many years away.



Agreed !


----------



## Bratva

JamD said:


> *Introduction*
> The Ra’ad Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) is a peculiar system. It has long been rumored that it is too big to be carried by anything but the Mirage aircraft of the PAF. The purpose of this article is twofold: understand the design decisions made while designing the Ra’ad and what can be done to evolve the design. Hopefully, by the end we will appreciate why the Ra’ad is the way it is and try to think of ways to evolve it.
> 
> *Basics*
> *Weight*
> At 1,100 kg the Ra’ad is a rather heavy air launched weapon. However heavier ALCMs exist (Storm Shadow, Taurus) and are carried by aircraft with less clearances than the Mirage. Weight is not the key issue here.
> 
> *Size*
> The Ra’ad is a significantly large missile. The following drawing has been made after many pixel-counting exercises and is a good ballpark estimate of its size.
> 
> View attachment 313914
> 
> 
> 
> DISCLAIMER: Pixel counting by its nature is inaccurate and these numbers could be off by up to 10%. Nonetheless these numbers give us valuable insight which we previously lacked.
> 
> *Role*
> The Ra’ad is designed with a payload of 450 kg. This suggests that it is primarily designed to carry a nuclear payload or a large conventional payload against hardened targets. This differentiates the Ra’ad from other smaller stand-off weapons like the SOM, H-2/H-3, JSOW. Perhaps the most similar system to the Ra’ad is the AGM-158 JASSM picture below:
> 
> View attachment 313915
> 
> 
> The JASSM is a 1000 kg system with a payload of 450 kg as well.
> 
> *Design of the Ra’ad*
> A casual glance at the Ra’ad shows the “simple is better” approach being employed to the fullest. It is perhaps the most basic design one would come up with for a 1,100 kg ALCM. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Being the first ALCM designed by AWC it makes sense to start off with the basics.
> 
> The fuselage has a square cross section allowing easier manufacturing and at the same time reducing the height for the same volume (only slightly).
> 
> Another upside to using a rectangular cross section is that it reduces the tail area needed for stability (more on this later).
> 
> *Issues*
> Probably the biggest issue people have with the Ra’ad is that it is too tall and wide to fit under most aircraft operated by the PAF. I will now attempt to break down why this is so.
> 
> As pointed out earlier the Ra’ad is a very large and heavy system even though it needs to fly like an aircraft. The reason aircraft have a vertical tail now comes into effect. Ideally speaking we want any small disturbances in the desired trajectory of flight to be taken care of “naturally” by the design of the aircraft. I will try to explain how this is achieved by the vertical tail as simply as I can to make it accessible to most of our readers. This is called positive stability.
> View attachment 313924
> 
> An effect similar to the tail is provided by the fuselage with respect to yaw stability. A square fuselage provides more of this effect.
> 
> *Roll Damping*
> As one would imagine the heavier the aircraft the more tail and wing area is required for “enough” positive stability. The Ra’ad is a heavy aircraft with very small wings so roll damping is small. This would mean for enough roll damping the designers have to compensate with more tail area in the form of ventral fins. The farther away they are from the center of mass of the missile the better they will perform as they produce more moment for the same area. It is for this reason they extend below the fuselage (in contrast to the vertical tail that are in line with the fuselage).
> 
> View attachment 313917
> 
> 
> As the above image illustrates the vertical tail adds little or no roll damping and it is for this reason two ventral fins are there (among other reasons).
> 
> *Yaw Stability*
> Yaw stability is provided by the vertical tails. It is evident that because of the mass of the missile a large vertical tail area is needed which is provided by two vertical tails.
> 
> View attachment 313918
> 
> 
> The JASSM on the other hand employs one rather large vertical tail.
> 
> *Pitch Stability and Authority*
> For very similar reasons an aircraft also needs a horizontal tail for stability. On top of that it needs it to have authority over pitch of the aircraft. Again the heavy weight of the Ra’ad means rather large horizontal tails are needed which make the missile 1.25 meters wide.
> 
> *Reasons for Large Mass*
> The above argument begs the question why is the Ra’ad such a heavy system for the capability it provides.
> 
> *Ra’ad*
> 1100 kg
> 350 km range
> 4.88 m length
> 450 kg payload
> 
> *JASSM*
> 1021 kg
> 1000 km range (ER version)
> 4.27 m length
> 450 kg payload
> 
> The reasons for this can be only speculated but I suspect that:
> 
> 1. The Powerplant being used is heavy and inefficient compared to JASSM (definitely true).
> 
> 2. The subsystems are not evolved enough to be compact and light. These include INS systems, hydraulics/pneumatics/electric actuators.
> 
> 3. The subsystems are not designed or modified for the Ra’ad to save costs and therefore pack poorly inside the missile.
> 
> *Geometry*
> All this brings us to the issue of integration on PAF platforms.
> 
> View attachment 313919
> 
> 
> The Mirage 3 can easily carry the Ra’ad ALCM and most importantly the addition of the cruise missile does not decrease the maximum permissible rotation angle (highlighted in red).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The situation is very bad with regards to the JF-17. The maximum permissible rotation angle is halfed and there is very little clearane with the ground. This makes it all but impossible for the JF-17 to carry the Ra’ad on its centerline hardpoint.
> 
> Perhaps it is also important to consider whether the wing hard point can carry the Ra’ad.
> 
> View attachment 313921
> 
> 
> Even though vertical clearances are taken care of but the Ra’ad is so wide that it will interfere with the landing gear/ventral fin of the JF-17 and possibly any weapon system mounted on the hardpoint next to it.




@The Deterrent


----------



## The Deterrent

Bratva said:


> @The Deterrent


Great thread, topics like these reflect the spirit of what this forum should be known for. Kudos, @JamD !

As I said previously, since I don't have much knowledge of both Ra'ad's dimensions and JF-17's hard-point limitations, I cannot comment on it with certainty. But what I am certain of is that both the strategic planners of these weapons systems and their end-users are aware that Mirages will be phased out, sooner or later. Therefore, Ra'ad will be made compatible with JF-17s as it is going to be the main workhorse of PAF.

Right now, IMO either of the following can be true:

1. The analysis regarding the dimensions of Ra'ad is a bit flawed, the author might have overlooked some critical parameter. Ra'ad in its present form poses no problems for JF-17 integration as far as physical parameters are concerned.
2. The analysis is correct, however an easier fix in the form of fold-able fins will solve the problem.

P.S. those who believe JF-17 will not assume strategic roles are gravely mistaken.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## IceCold

The Deterrent said:


> Great thread, topics like these reflect the spirit of what this forum should be known for. Kudos, @JamD !
> 
> As I said previously, since I don't have much knowledge of both Ra'ad's dimensions and JF-17's hard-point limitations, I cannot comment on it with certainty. But what I am certain of is that both the strategic planners of these weapons systems and their end-users are aware that Mirages will be phased out, sooner or later. Therefore, Ra'ad will be made compatible with JF-17s as it is going to be the main workhorse of PAF.
> 
> Right now, IMO either of the following can be true:
> 
> 1. The analysis regarding the dimensions of Ra'ad is a bit flawed, the author might have overlooked some critical parameter. Ra'ad in its present form poses no problems for JF-17 integration as far as physical parameters are concerned.
> 2. The analysis is correct, however an easier fix in the form of fold-able fins will solve the problem.
> 
> P.S. those who believe JF-17 will not assume strategic roles are gravely mistaken.


This was the thread i was talking about. Seems you were already tagged and replied. Thanks

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## khanasifm

Specs for c803 ~6 meter length with wing span of 1.22 meters vs raad shorter ~ 4.8 m length and dia of .5 meter http://www.deagel.com/Offensive-Weapons/YJ-83_a001830001.aspx


Wing span for raad is 1.25 per above posting compared to 1.22 meter for c803 but raad is .5 vs .36 dia 

https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/hatf-8/

Any way mirages are not going any ware till 2023-4

Last launch was speculated to be from jf-17 ??


----------



## Maxpane

Hm


----------



## khanasifm

Bratva said:


> @The Deterrent



Even the existing 800l centerline tank has very low clearance the only effect is low AOA for take off if there are no other issues

Secondly the Raad intake protracted out during flight/launch and not during carrier carrying it before launch 

View attachment 479567


----------



## khanasifm

View attachment 479571


----------



## xyxmt

Salza said:


> How can you claim it as indigenous when it cannot be launched from more than one type of fighter plane in PaF inventory. Had it been our complete design, we would had kept atleast JF17s in mind as JF17 project was started in early 2000s. Either JF17 team was complete oblivion to this missile or the Pakistani engineers of Raad.



hmmm lets see, maybe because when It was designed JF was not in pictures


----------



## ziaulislam

The Deterrent said:


> Great thread, topics like these reflect the spirit of what this forum should be known for. Kudos, @JamD !
> 
> As I said previously, since I don't have much knowledge of both Ra'ad's dimensions and JF-17's hard-point limitations, I cannot comment on it with certainty. But what I am certain of is that both the strategic planners of these weapons systems and their end-users are aware that Mirages will be phased out, sooner or later. Therefore, Ra'ad will be made compatible with JF-17s as it is going to be the main workhorse of PAF.
> 
> Right now, IMO either of the following can be true:
> 
> 1. The analysis regarding the dimensions of Ra'ad is a bit flawed, the author might have overlooked some critical parameter. Ra'ad in its present form poses no problems for JF-17 integration as far as physical parameters are concerned.
> 2. The analysis is correct, however an easier fix in the form of fold-able fins will solve the problem.
> 
> P.S. those who believe JF-17 will not assume strategic roles are gravely mistaken.


point is jf-17 doesnt has the strategic role for now given we have 70+ mirages

they will get it by 2025

my hunch is raad can be carried but if not, fix will be very easy


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

ziaulislam said:


> point is jf-17 doesnt has the strategic role for now given we have 70+ mirages
> 
> they will get it by 2025
> 
> my hunch is raad can be carried but if not, fix will be very easy


According to the PAF Book for 1998-2008, the J-10A/FC-20 was sought to fulfill the strike role (it's stated plainly, with 'strike' explicitly mentioned). 

Ultimately, if the day comes that the PAF's Mirages just cannot fly and a gap is in place between that day and when Project Azm comes online, I think the PAF will just acquire the J-10 (ideally, the J-10C if AVIC gets approval to export it).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ziaulislam

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> According to the PAF Book for 1998-2008, the J-10A/FC-20 was sought to fulfill the strike role (it's stated plainly, with 'strike' explicitly mentioned).
> 
> Ultimately, if the day comes that the PAF's Mirages just cannot fly and a gap is in place between that day and when Project Azm comes online, I think the PAF will just acquire the J-10 (ideally, the J-10C if AVIC gets approval to export it).



this is true, the only reason why it may not happen is if block 3 evovles on the same line as gripen, i.e new engine and CFTs/increase range makes it a decent alternative..if JF-17b3 attains 70% of j-10 range/payload it should be fine given the ever shrinking funding... though its not an optimal delta wing aircraft

whether mirage2000 used will ever be sought is an interesting question..probably not given its lack of spares in the future will create a problem


----------



## Umair Nawaz

JamD said:


> *The Future*
> Having discussed what the Ra’ad is, let’s move to what Ra’ad could or should become.
> 
> 1. Depending on whether the PAF prefers to carry a single Ra’ad on the centerline hardpoint or two on the wing hardpoints I propose the following easy modifications to reduce the height/width of the missile when mounted.
> 
> View attachment 313925
> 
> 
> 2. Develop Ra’ad Lite (as suggested by @Quwa). Reduce the payload to 300 kg and everything else should reduce accordingly. This should be a more manageable size for an ALCM with JF-17.
> 
> 3. If it is absolutely vital for the strategic planners that an ALCM with a 450 kg payload be carried by a JF-17 then add artificial stability using drag devices and an advanced control system. This is what is done for ‘tail-less’ aircraft like the B-2 Spirit and numerous UCAVs. This is an expensive and long-term option that will also give AWC some additional expertise in differential braking that should prove useful in future UAV/UCAV development. Unfortunately, this will be expensive and require a complex control system with a drag penalty incurred by differential braking.
> View attachment 313923
> 
> 
> *Conclusion*
> In its current form the Ra’ad ALCM cannot be carried by the JF-17 according to my analysis. Fortunately some modifications may allow the JF-17 to carry the Ra’ad which I have described. Some of the modifications I have suggested are simple to implement and it is upto the PAF higher command on how far they want to let the Ra’ad evolve before going for a new ALCM altogether.
> 
> @MastanKhan @Tempest II


what we should do is we need to develop an export version of Raad, and market it and sell it.......It will help financially with further development of Raad


----------



## YeBeWarned

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Ultimately, if the day comes that the PAF's Mirages just cannot fly and a gap is in place between that day and when Project Azm comes online, I think the PAF will just acquire the J-10 (ideally, the J-10C if AVIC gets approval to export it).



You think PAF is still trying to get J-10's ? I thought that supposed deal is dead


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Starlord said:


> You think PAF is still trying to get J-10's ? I thought that supposed deal is dead


The PAF would never tolerate a gap in an already gained strategic element. Either the JF-17 is configured to carry the Ra'ad ALCM (or some other nuclear-capable LACM) OR an interim platform is acquired to bridge the loss of the Mirages and Project Azm. IMO that bridge can be the Su-35, J-10 OR FC-31. In 2016, IHS Jane's said the PAF had sought an interim platform (ahead of Project Azm/FGF), 30-40 aircraft. The Su-35 and J-10 were candidates.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armchair-General

JamD said:


> *Introduction*
> The Ra’ad Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) is a peculiar system. It has long been rumored that it is too big to be carried by anything but the Mirage aircraft of the PAF. The purpose of this article is twofold: understand the design decisions made while designing the Ra’ad and what can be done to evolve the design. Hopefully, by the end we will appreciate why the Ra’ad is the way it is and try to think of ways to evolve it.
> 
> *Basics*
> *Weight*
> At 1,100 kg the Ra’ad is a rather heavy air launched weapon. However heavier ALCMs exist (Storm Shadow, Taurus) and are carried by aircraft with less clearances than the Mirage. Weight is not the key issue here.
> 
> *Size*
> The Ra’ad is a significantly large missile. The following drawing has been made after many pixel-counting exercises and is a good ballpark estimate of its size.
> 
> View attachment 313914
> 
> 
> DISCLAIMER: Pixel counting by its nature is inaccurate and these numbers could be off by up to 10%. Nonetheless these numbers give us valuable insight which we previously lacked.
> 
> *Role*
> The Ra’ad is designed with a payload of 450 kg. This suggests that it is primarily designed to carry a nuclear payload or a large conventional payload against hardened targets. This differentiates the Ra’ad from other smaller stand-off weapons like the SOM, H-2/H-3, JSOW. Perhaps the most similar system to the Ra’ad is the AGM-158 JASSM picture below:
> 
> View attachment 313915
> 
> 
> The JASSM is a 1000 kg system with a payload of 450 kg as well.
> 
> *Design of the Ra’ad*
> A casual glance at the Ra’ad shows the “simple is better” approach being employed to the fullest. It is perhaps the most basic design one would come up with for a 1,100 kg ALCM. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Being the first ALCM designed by AWC it makes sense to start off with the basics.
> 
> The fuselage has a square cross section allowing easier manufacturing and at the same time reducing the height for the same volume (only slightly).
> 
> Another upside to using a rectangular cross section is that it reduces the tail area needed for stability (more on this later).
> 
> *Issues*
> Probably the biggest issue people have with the Ra’ad is that it is too tall and wide to fit under most aircraft operated by the PAF. I will now attempt to break down why this is so.
> 
> As pointed out earlier the Ra’ad is a very large and heavy system even though it needs to fly like an aircraft. The reason aircraft have a vertical tail now comes into effect. Ideally speaking we want any small disturbances in the desired trajectory of flight to be taken care of “naturally” by the design of the aircraft. I will try to explain how this is achieved by the vertical tail as simply as I can to make it accessible to most of our readers. This is called positive stability.
> View attachment 313924
> 
> An effect similar to the tail is provided by the fuselage with respect to yaw stability. A square fuselage provides more of this effect.
> 
> *Roll Damping*
> As one would imagine the heavier the aircraft the more tail and wing area is required for “enough” positive stability. The Ra’ad is a heavy aircraft with very small wings so roll damping is small. This would mean for enough roll damping the designers have to compensate with more tail area in the form of ventral fins. The farther away they are from the center of mass of the missile the better they will perform as they produce more moment for the same area. It is for this reason they extend below the fuselage (in contrast to the vertical tail that are in line with the fuselage).
> 
> View attachment 313917
> 
> 
> As the above image illustrates the vertical tail adds little or no roll damping and it is for this reason two ventral fins are there (among other reasons).
> 
> *Yaw Stability*
> Yaw stability is provided by the vertical tails. It is evident that because of the mass of the missile a large vertical tail area is needed which is provided by two vertical tails.
> 
> View attachment 313918
> 
> 
> The JASSM on the other hand employs one rather large vertical tail.
> 
> *Pitch Stability and Authority*
> For very similar reasons an aircraft also needs a horizontal tail for stability. On top of that it needs it to have authority over pitch of the aircraft. Again the heavy weight of the Ra’ad means rather large horizontal tails are needed which make the missile 1.25 meters wide.
> 
> *Reasons for Large Mass*
> The above argument begs the question why is the Ra’ad such a heavy system for the capability it provides.
> 
> *Ra’ad*
> 1100 kg
> 350 km range
> 4.88 m length
> 450 kg payload
> 
> *JASSM*
> 1021 kg
> 1000 km range (ER version)
> 4.27 m length
> 450 kg payload
> 
> The reasons for this can be only speculated but I suspect that:
> 
> 1. The Powerplant being used is heavy and inefficient compared to JASSM (definitely true).
> 
> 2. The subsystems are not evolved enough to be compact and light. These include INS systems, hydraulics/pneumatics/electric actuators.
> 
> 3. The subsystems are not designed or modified for the Ra’ad to save costs and therefore pack poorly inside the missile.
> 
> *Geometry*
> All this brings us to the issue of integration on PAF platforms.
> 
> View attachment 313919
> 
> 
> The Mirage 3 can easily carry the Ra’ad ALCM and most importantly the addition of the cruise missile does not decrease the maximum permissible rotation angle (highlighted in red).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The situation is very bad with regards to the JF-17. The maximum permissible rotation angle is halfed and there is very little clearane with the ground. This makes it all but impossible for the JF-17 to carry the Ra’ad on its centerline hardpoint.
> 
> Perhaps it is also important to consider whether the wing hard point can carry the Ra’ad.
> 
> View attachment 313921
> 
> 
> Even though vertical clearances are taken care of but the Ra’ad is so wide that it will interfere with the landing gear/ventral fin of the JF-17 and possibly any weapon system mounted on the hardpoint next to it.


Wow


----------



## Goku-kun

i don't know why but it's not counted in top 10 cruise missile list anywhere even Turkey's SOM is counted which is a good cruise missile but i don't think that it matches with RAAD because RAAD is nuclear too and by characteristics it appears to be better than other cruise missiles like storm shadow etc..


----------



## MastanKhan

Bilal Khan 777 said:


> Mastan Khan, again this is your opinion. The policy and doctrine of PAF may not be determined by the public, and the government, but only by the professionals who understand the implications of the policy and doctrine. Are fisherman making financial policy? Is state bank being run by the people or economists? Is national bank being run by milkmen? In your hate for the armed forces, and your particular acerbity for the airforce, you allow your head to go back in the crevice without any sunshine.
> 
> However, you can have your right of an opinion, no matter how ridiculous it maybe.




Hi,

Fishermen don't make financial polices---but war is something different---. A war and war strategy is part of the psyche of a human being---it is a part of our genetic make up---.

The greatest warrior and general of all time Subotai Bahadur was just an ordinary man---son of a blacksmith---but had an extraordinary talent of stretgy and tactics in combat---. His tactics and strategy made the mongols conquer the largest empire the world has ever seen.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CriticalThought

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> Fishermen don't make financial polices---but war is something different---. A war and war strategy is part of the psyche of a human being---it is a part of our genetic make up---.
> 
> The greatest warrior and general of all time Subotai Bahadur was just an ordinary man---son of a blacksmith---but had an extraordinary talent of stretgy and tactics in combat---. His tactics and strategy made the mongols conquer the largest empire the world has ever seen.



But you are an ordinary man with often ill-sighted opinions about strategy.


----------



## Thorough Pro

To judge someone you first need to establish your own credentials... or what you say about others then also holds true about your opinion of others




CriticalThought said:


> But you are an ordinary man *with often ill-sighted opinions about strategy*.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## CriticalThought

Thorough Pro said:


> To judge someone you first need to establish your own credentials... or what you say about others then also holds true about your opinion of others



But we are all ordinary people, judging other ordinary people. In this case, my judgment is based on his caustic, acerbic, biased remarks about serving uniformed officers, whom he considers less patriotic and less intelligent than himself. I can guarantee you, anyone who adopts this kind of abhorrible attitude in front of me will find me on his case. With vengeance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Salza

Raad was and still is Pakistani strategic weapon. I just can't believe JF17 engineers didn't bring Raad into consideration while designing the plane. Soon we won't be having a plane to deliver that weapon as Mirages are already running out of their age and getting retired.


----------



## ACE OF THE AIR

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> The PAF would never tolerate a gap in an already gained strategic element. Either the JF-17 is configured to carry the Ra'ad ALCM (or some other nuclear-capable LACM) OR an interim platform is acquired to bridge the loss of the Mirages and Project Azm. IMO that bridge can be the Su-35, J-10 OR FC-31. In 2016, IHS Jane's said the PAF had sought an interim platform (ahead of Project Azm/FGF), 30-40 aircraft. The Su-35 and J-10 were candidates.


Hi,
It is understood that PAF will not tolerate a gap in already gained strategic elements, however the chances of replacing Mirages with J-10 or SU-35 would PAF not attain much benefit. Mirages are destined to be replaced by 2025-27, by this time F-35 or PAK-FA would be available with India. To counter this threat PAF would ideally be looking for an asymmetrical option. 

IMO PAF would realistically be looking more towards stealth drones(6Gen) with 36-48 hr endurance using them for strategic role along with stealth(5Gen) air superiority fighter to provide deep penetration.

Project AZM was announced almost 2 years back and nothing much is available in public regarding its development till date. We also know that it is really difficult for PAF to fund the JF-17's project which indicates that project AZM would also face shortage of funds indicating this might get delayed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CriticalThought

ACE OF THE AIR said:


> Hi,
> It is understood that PAF will not tolerate a gap in already gained strategic elements, however the chances of replacing Mirages with J-10 or SU-35 would PAF not attain much benefit. Mirages are destined to be replaced by 2025-27, by this time F-35 or PAK-FA would be available with India. To counter this threat PAF would ideally be looking for an asymmetrical option.
> 
> IMO PAF would realistically be looking more towards stealth drones(6Gen) with 36-48 hr endurance using them for strategic role along with stealth(5Gen) air superiority fighter to provide deep penetration.
> 
> Project AZM was announced almost 2 years back and nothing much is available in public regarding its development till date. We also know that it is really difficult for PAF to fund the JF-17's project which indicates that project AZM would also face shortage of funds indicating this might get delayed.



I am not very concerned about funding. Back circa 2016, General Raheel Shareef announced that Pak Armed Forces have a budget of multiple billions of dollars (the exact amount escaped my memory) all the way to 2021.

Against F-35, any fighter loaded with VLRAAM and backed by advanced AEWACS such as Russian A-100 will be effective. This needs to be combined with ground based radars and SAMs such as S-400+ backed by multi-layered defence.

The PAK-FA is a different beast altogether. In my opinion, PAF would do good to take advantage of India backing out, and solidify partnership with Russia. In the future, as stealth fails due to advanced sensors, super-maneuverability combined with careful LO features will make a very deadly combination.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

ACE OF THE AIR said:


> Hi,
> It is understood that PAF will not tolerate a gap in already gained strategic elements, however the chances of replacing Mirages with J-10 or SU-35 would PAF not attain much benefit. Mirages are destined to be replaced by 2025-27, by this time F-35 or PAK-FA would be available with India. To counter this threat PAF would ideally be looking for an asymmetrical option.
> 
> IMO PAF would realistically be looking more towards stealth drones(6Gen) with 36-48 hr endurance using them for strategic role along with stealth(5Gen) air superiority fighter to provide deep penetration.
> 
> Project AZM was announced almost 2 years back and nothing much is available in public regarding its development till date. We also know that it is really difficult for PAF to fund the JF-17's project which indicates that project AZM would also face shortage of funds indicating this might get delayed.


Not necessarily. The relative lack of resources means that the PAF - just like the PA and PN - would always tilt towards a mature and tested solution to handle front-line duties, including strategic deployment. Ultimately, the 4.5+ generation platforms aren't going anywhere, they'll be mainstays in China for a long time moving forward and, not least, they'll get the job done as far as the PAF is concerned (i.e. deploy ALCM and other SOWs).

Project Azm is a distant factor, but its time depends on how far the PAF's Chinese partner (possibly CAC/611) is in terms of the core design work. Ideally, Project Azm would also be a proper PLAAF project (in alignment with the PLAAF's requirements), thus giving it scale and making it relatively more affordable. If by chance the PLAAF is looking to expedite a new 5th gen fighter, then we could see Azm relatively soon (e.g. 2030).

The real X-factor in all of this is the FC-31. If the FC-31 can be bought off-the-shelf for a reasonable price, then it too could be a good interim fighter (ahead of Project Azm). But it's feasibility depends on whether China is willing to write down the costs (i.e. not tie the R&D to the price).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ACE OF THE AIR

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Ultimately, the 4.5+ generation platforms aren't going anywhere, they'll be mainstays in China for a long time moving forward and, not least, they'll get the job done as far as the PAF is concerned (i.e. deploy ALCM and other SOWs).


Hi,
4.5+/++ fighters would be around 2050 but it would be a problem because by that time effective counter for 5th and 6th Gen would be available. For countries like Russia, China, USA and even India replacing their 4+ fighters would not be an easy task with 5th or 6th gen hence they would continue to use these in presence of 5th, 6th or 7th gen.

PAF might not be in a position because of the limited number of aircraft in fleet. The problem with ALCM and other SOWs needs to be solved for the JF-17. USA might not allow any modifications on F-16s. Procuring J-10C or SU-35 in limited numbers some how does not seem the right choice. 



Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Ideally, Project Azm would also be a proper PLAAF project (in alignment with the PLAAF's requirements), thus giving it scale and making it relatively more affordable. If by chance the PLAAF is looking to expedite a new 5th gen fighter, then we could see Azm relatively soon (e.g. 2030).


In a realistic world yes, but do not think the Chinese would be interested in another 5th Gen Air-superiority or multirole aircraft. PLAAF might be interested in a dedicated long range bomber.

Recently did read something about 5th generation naval requirement of VTOL for Chinese and Russian Navies. This project could kick start Azm.
If it is single engine and with VTOL.

This is in light that Russia needs aircraft carriers as its only aircraft carrier need upgrades. Russia has not built any big ships since the fall of USSR. There could be a potential collaboration with China after the French refusal and sanction.



Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> The real X-factor in all of this is the FC-31. If the FC-31 can be bought off-the-shelf for a reasonable price, then it too could be a good interim fighter (ahead of Project Azm). But it's feasibility depends on whether China is willing to write down the costs (i.e. not tie the R&D to the price).


In my earlier post FC-31 was purposely left due to it heading towards a failure. Reasons are PLAAF does not want it due to its limited range. PLAAN does not want to invest in its Naval variant. Countries that might have considered it were mostly those who would have come under sanctions from the west. These countries have either invested in their own 5th Gen like Gulf States and Far East.

South Korea partnering with Indonisia, UAE with Russia, Turkey is in talks with Russia and BAE.

The only advantage the J-31 has it can be seen as prototype.
The X-Factor in FC-31 could be if Iran is guaranteed delivery. Something that is highly unlikely at present but could change due to Trump's immaturity.



CriticalThought said:


> Against F-35, any fighter loaded with VLRAAM and backed by advanced AEWACS such as Russian A-100 will be effective. This needs to be combined with ground based radars and SAMs such as S-400+ backed by multi-layered defence.


Hi,
It is true F-35's can be taken out, but this does not solve the over all requirements of PAF.
This only solves the problem of Arial Deniability (defensive role). What about counter attack? ALCM and SOM are limited options they would not provide air cover to PA beyond enemy lines. 


CriticalThought said:


> The PAK-FA is a different beast altogether. In my opinion, PAF would do good to take advantage of India backing out, and solidify partnership with Russia. In the future, as stealth fails due to advanced sensors, super-maneuverability combined with careful LO features will make a very deadly combination.


It is a good suggestion. Lets see what happens and how much can Russia offer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Goku-kun

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Not necessarily. The relative lack of resources means that the PAF - just like the PA and PN - would always tilt towards a mature and tested solution to handle front-line duties, including strategic deployment. Ultimately, the 4.5+ generation platforms aren't going anywhere, they'll be mainstays in China for a long time moving forward and, not least, they'll get the job done as far as the PAF is concerned (i.e. deploy ALCM and other SOWs).
> 
> Project Azm is a distant factor, but its time depends on how far the PAF's Chinese partner (possibly CAC/611) is in terms of the core design work. Ideally, Project Azm would also be a proper PLAAF project (in alignment with the PLAAF's requirements), thus giving it scale and making it relatively more affordable. If by chance the PLAAF is looking to expedite a new 5th gen fighter, then we could see Azm relatively soon (e.g. 2030).
> 
> The real X-factor in all of this is the FC-31. If the FC-31 can be bought off-the-shelf for a reasonable price, then it too could be a good interim fighter (ahead of Project Azm). But it's feasibility depends on whether China is willing to write down the costs (i.e. not tie the R&D to the price).


do you think we are weak or is it possible that Pakistan knows there will be no war under the current conditions and is playing the game very wisely/cleverly without using much of the money like india
e.g:8 sumbarines which Pakistan has bought will be fully delivered by 2026 and all the purchases are mostly related to long term so Pakistan knows that there will be no war in nearby time and is treating his enemies the homeopathic way with no side effects..


----------



## Armchair-General

Clearance comparison of Mirage and JF-17

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ziaulislam

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Not necessarily. The relative lack of resources means that the PAF - just like the PA and PN - would always tilt towards a mature and tested solution to handle front-line duties, including strategic deployment. Ultimately, the 4.5+ generation platforms aren't going anywhere, they'll be mainstays in China for a long time moving forward and, not least, they'll get the job done as far as the PAF is concerned (i.e. deploy ALCM and other SOWs).
> 
> Project Azm is a distant factor, but its time depends on how far the PAF's Chinese partner (possibly CAC/611) is in terms of the core design work. Ideally, Project Azm would also be a proper PLAAF project (in alignment with the PLAAF's requirements), thus giving it scale and making it relatively more affordable. If by chance the PLAAF is looking to expedite a new 5th gen fighter, then we could see Azm relatively soon (e.g. 2030).
> 
> The real X-factor in all of this is the FC-31. If the FC-31 can be bought off-the-shelf for a reasonable price, then it too could be a good interim fighter (ahead of Project Azm). But it's feasibility depends on whether China is willing to write down the costs (i.e. not tie the R&D to the price).


i know this is far fetch thing..but india ditching su-57 completely..will that open a door to similar off the shelf purchase of 40-50 fighters from pakistan..after all india plan was just 150 fighters..


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

ziaulislam said:


> i know this is far fetch thing..but india ditching su-57 completely..will that open a door to similar off the shelf purchase of 40-50 fighters from pakistan..after all india plan was just 150 fighters..


Ideally, yes. But to make that happen (esp. with a line-of-credit from Russia) India would need to sign onto an alternative to the Su-57, e.g. the Airbus/Dassault FCAS or F-35.


----------



## CriticalThought

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Ideally, yes. But to make that happen (esp. with a line-of-credit from Russia) India would need to sign onto an alternative to the Su-57, e.g. the Airbus/Dassault FCAS or F-35.



Or... they could buy both F-35 AND Su-57...


----------



## ziaulislam

CriticalThought said:


> Or... they could buy both F-35 AND Su-57...


i doubt USA will allow it and f35 is the better amongst the both and supposedly cheaper as well


----------



## CriticalThought

ziaulislam said:


> i doubt USA will allow it and f35 is the better amongst the both and supposedly cheaper as well



I doubt the Indians will let anyone dictate their terms.


----------



## LeGenD

CriticalThought said:


> Against F-35, any fighter loaded with VLRAAM and backed by advanced AEWACS such as Russian A-100 will be effective. This needs to be combined with ground based radars and SAMs such as S-400+ backed by multi-layered defence.


Do you even understand the capabilities of F-35?

Read and understand: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorent...t-of-the-f-35-fighter-story-you-havent-heard/

Russian claims are hardly reliable when it comes to matters of defense. I have come to realize (on my own) that they lie and exaggerate very often.



ACE OF THE AIR said:


> Hi,
> It is true F-35's can be taken out, but this does not solve the over all requirements of PAF.
> This only solves the problem of Arial Deniability (defensive role). What about counter attack? ALCM and SOM are limited options they would not provide air cover to PA beyond enemy lines.


See above! F-35 is way too advanced for anything in our arsenal to counter. Even Russia doesn't have a reliable defense against it.

If India gets F-35, we are toast.

Best way forward is to utterly dissuade US from *imbalancing* arms race in South Asia. Russia is also not doing any favors to us by approving sale of S-400 systems to India.

India is a huge economy and market at present, and we cannot afford an arms race with it for indefinite period in our current state of affairs. We should push China to play a role in addressing the matter of Kashmir.


----------



## Army research

LeGenD said:


> Do you even understand the capabilities of F-35?
> 
> Read and understand: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorent...t-of-the-f-35-fighter-story-you-havent-heard/
> 
> Russian claims are hardly reliable when it comes to matters of defense. I have come to realize (on my own) that they lie and exaggerate very often.
> 
> 
> See above! F-35 is way too advanced for anything in our arsenal to counter. Even Russia doesn't have a reliable defense against it.
> 
> If India gets F-35, we are toast.
> 
> Best way forward is to utterly dissuade US from *imbalancing* arms race in South Asia. Russia is also not doing any favors to us by approving sale of S-400 systems to India.


Yet if USA does sell India f35 , the Indians do not have enough money to operate both su57 and f35( I might be wrong ) 
Then surely Pakistan would dismember alliance with usa and havoc would erupt in Afghanistan , Iran pipeline , selling weapons to Iran, Russia would sell more equipment , Chinese need a strong Pakistan at least able to defend against India to keep its flank and shipping secure so AZM would be sped up, 
I'm waiting on what moves the Americans make as the Indians are totally willing , are they sure on risking a domino series of effects or want to keep the De facto status


----------



## LeGenD

Army research said:


> Yet if USA does sell India f35 , the Indians do not have enough money to operate both su57 and f35( I might be wrong )
> Then surely Pakistan would dismember alliance with usa and havoc would erupt in Afghanistan , Iran pipeline , selling weapons to Iran, Russia would sell more equipment , Chinese need a strong Pakistan at least able to defend against India to keep its flank and shipping secure so AZM would be sped up,
> I'm waiting on what moves the Americans make as the Indians are totally willing , are they sure on risking a domino series of effects or want to keep the De facto status


You have a point.

This arms race will get out of hand for *us* unless the world behave responsibly in regards to what to sell to India.

Pakistan [should] threaten 'consequences' in response to irresponsible behavior of the US (and Russia) in regards to selling state-of-the-art weapons to India. Pakistan should also push China to play a role in addressing the matter of Kashmir, and dissuade US (and Russia) from selling state-of-the-art weapon systems to India.


----------



## Army research

LeGenD said:


> You have a point.
> 
> This arms race will get out of hand for *us* unless the world behave responsibly in regards to what to sell to India.
> 
> Pakistan [should] threaten 'consequences' in response to irresponsible behavior of the US (and Russia) in regards to selling state-of-the-art weapons to India. Pakistan should also push China to play a role in addressing the matter of Kashmir, and dissuade US (and Russia) from selling state-of-the-art weapon systems to India.


Tbh Pakistan doesn't need to verbally threaten, 
If India buys 900 new tanks say for example , 
2 years later when those said tanks are being delivered silently news will leak that Pakistan is receiving/has been producing Next gen ATGM from China or with Chinese assistance ( note this is as vague and simple a example I could think off).
Truth is if indo pak balance is disturbed the equilibrium of world peace ( large scale , not single country scale) would be disturbed and could draw in major nations to declare war which they don't want to hence maintain balance.
This is why I predict that in the future as India and Pakistan develop indigenous weapons and tech , war is an inevitable event due to so many triggering factors , as this won't involve international players as much since they couldn't be blamed directly ( however covertly alot of and or diplomatic support ) , this war would be of a limited scale with potential to slip into large scale war ( hopefully the political governments aren't mad enough ) .
One of the reason could be that the other side thinks they have clear conventional aerial edge ( e.g. side A received and operationalized substantial 5th or 6th gen planes before the other ) and thus would be confident of victory.
The result of the war would be politcial and military defeat in a limited war for one side with it accepting surrender ( something akin or worse than treaty of Versailles) and then disintegrating and losing its nukes.


----------



## CriticalThought

LeGenD said:


> Do you even understand the capabilities of F-35?
> 
> Read and understand: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorent...t-of-the-f-35-fighter-story-you-havent-heard/
> 
> Russian claims are hardly reliable when it comes to matters of defense. I have come to realize (on my own) that they lie and exaggerate very often.
> 
> 
> See above! F-35 is way too advanced for anything in our arsenal to counter. Even Russia doesn't have a reliable defense against it.



Mate you think I didn't know all this before I wrote that? I have seen your posts in the past as well and u r one of the lobbyists on the forum who tries to create an aura of American invincibility. The reality could not be further from the truth.

The state of the art in radar technology and what it can achieve is well known around the world, because the laws of physics are well known. F-35 isn't the only program that has worked on sensor fusion.

Every radar system suffers from false positives. And i can assure you, if America ever faced the likes of Russia and China, they WILL exploit this. There is no big deal in bombing Syria after the Israeli and Russian premiers held a meeting. This is a rigged game in Syria.

Similarly, there simply isn't such a thing as full stealth today. Modern AEWACS can simply brute force their way around stealth. Active cancellation is limited by computing power. Geometrical design protects against certain frequencues. RAM coatings become overheated. Composites are vulnerable to detection at the correct angle.

Finally, if F-35 can jam missiles, then the enemy can also jam it's missiles. Take out the very small bite of internal payload that it can carry, and the F-35 is a sitting duck. And it will be a hoot if they need to send in multiple of these 100+ million dollar planes so they can have the punching power of 8 missiles LOL.

The truth is, against enemies like China and Russia, the mission profile of F-35 will change to a support role. This brings the equation back to 4th gen fighters.

American invincibility is dead.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeGenD

CriticalThought said:


> Mate you think I didn't know all this before I wrote that? I have seen your posts in the past as well and u r one of the lobbyists on the forum who tries to create an aura of American invincibility. The reality could not be further from the truth.
> 
> The state of the art in radar technology and what it can achieve is well known around the world, because the laws of physics are well known. F-35 isn't the only program that has worked on sensor fusion.
> 
> Every radar system suffers from false positives. And i can assure you, if America ever faced the likes of Russia and China, they WILL exploit this. There is no big deal in bombing Syria after the Israeli and Russian premiers held a meeting. This is a rigged game in Syria.
> 
> Similarly, there simply isn't such a thing as full stealth today. Modern AEWACS can simply brute force their way around stealth. Active cancellation is limited by computing power. Geometrical design protects against certain frequencues. RAM coatings become overheated. Composites are vulnerable to detection at the correct angle.
> 
> Finally, if F-35 can jam missiles, then the enemy can also jam it's missiles. Take out the very small bite of internal payload that it can carry, and the F-35 is a sitting duck. And it will be a hoot if they need to send in multiple of these 100+ million dollar planes so they can have the punching power of 8 missiles LOL.
> 
> The truth is, against enemies like China and Russia, the mission profile of F-35 will change to a support role. This brings the equation back to 4th gen fighters.
> 
> American invincibility is dead.


So you have figured it all out by sitting at home? Your assumptions are just that - assumptions.

_*"The F-35 has an integrated stealth design, meaning it not only minimizes "signatures" in the microwave segment of the spectrum used by radar, but also the infrared and visible-light segments exploited by electro-optical sensors. Emissions from on-board communications equipment are also managed to leave enemies with few options for finding the fighter. So while a long-wavelength search radar might occasionally detect a distant F-35, there will usually be no way of tracking or targeting it."*_ - Loren Thompson

Please explain to me how AEWACS is going to brute force through the principles of low-observation at long range.

Secondly, you are assuming that a country can employ sufficient electronic warfare muscle to jam scores of AMRAAM while they move towards their intended targets. This is a tall claim for even a country such as Russia and/or China. Please go through the responses in this link: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-an-SU-35-can-easily-jam-an-AMRAAM-120D-AIM9X-making-an-F-35’s-BVR-capabilities-less-effective

- and enlighten yourself. F-35 is designed to defeat defenses of a resourceful adversary from the get-go; it is not designed for COIN although it play a role in this respect.

As for your claim of the game being rigged in Syria:-

Read this article and enlighten yourself: https://www.news.com.au/technology/...a/news-story/d6a23877eb34b71bf8e3168b8f06e1d8

*END GAME*
_*
Like the British submarine, neither the USS Donald Cook or USS Winston Churchill actually fired any Tomahawk cruise missiles.

It may never have been the point of their presence.

They were a distraction. A diversion.

Russia appears to have focused all its attention on these easily seen ‘threats’.

Instead, six Tomahawk cruise missiles suddenly appeared out of the Eastern Mediterranean from the hidden Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine USS John Warner.

All the 105 US, British and French missiles came from unexpected directions.

Bombers had refuelled at and above Cyprus before dashing in to unleash their guided weapons. Tomahawks were fired from warships in the Red Sea to the south and the Persian Gulf to the east.

It was all intended to overwhelm Syria’s defences.*_

It isn't.

Russia wasn't onboard with NATO-led strikes across Syria. They were simply informed in advance that strikes will take place - nothing much else.

Russia is also utilizing its electronic warfare capabilities to disrupt operations of drones across Syria: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a19747585/russia-jamming-us-drones-over-syria/

Problem is that advanced American military assets are not easy to jam (virtually impossible); US isn't vulnerable in these matters like Ukraine.

The *master of warfare* is an underdog? Please compare R&D sector (and) defense budget of US with that of any other country. American weaponry is also superior to that of Russian and Chinese on average. Common sense.


----------



## CriticalThought

LeGenD said:


> So you have figured it all out by sitting at home? Your assumptions are just that - assumptions.
> 
> _*"The F-35 has an integrated stealth design, meaning it not only minimizes "signatures" in the microwave segment of the spectrum used by radar, but also the infrared and visible-light segments exploited by electro-optical sensors. Emissions from on-board communications equipment are also managed to leave enemies with few options for finding the fighter. So while a long-wavelength search radar might occasionally detect a distant F-35, there will usually be no way of tracking or targeting it."*_ - Loren Thompson
> 
> Please explain to me how AEWACS is going to brute force through the principles of low-observation at long range.
> 
> Secondly, you are assuming that a country can employ sufficient electronic warfare muscle to jam scores of AMRAAM while they move towards their intended targets. This is a tall claim for even a country such as Russia and/or China. Please go through the responses in this link: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-an-SU-35-can-easily-jam-an-AMRAAM-120D-AIM9X-making-an-F-35’s-BVR-capabilities-less-effective
> 
> - and enlighten yourself. F-35 is designed to defeat defenses of a resourceful adversary from the get-go; it is not designed for COIN although it play a role in this respect.
> 
> As for your claim of the game being rigged in Syria:-
> 
> Read this article and enlighten yourself: https://www.news.com.au/technology/...a/news-story/d6a23877eb34b71bf8e3168b8f06e1d8
> 
> *END GAME*
> _*
> Like the British submarine, neither the USS Donald Cook or USS Winston Churchill actually fired any Tomahawk cruise missiles.
> 
> It may never have been the point of their presence.
> 
> They were a distraction. A diversion.
> 
> Russia appears to have focused all its attention on these easily seen ‘threats’.
> 
> Instead, six Tomahawk cruise missiles suddenly appeared out of the Eastern Mediterranean from the hidden Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine USS John Warner.
> 
> All the 105 US, British and French missiles came from unexpected directions.
> 
> Bombers had refuelled at and above Cyprus before dashing in to unleash their guided weapons. Tomahawks were fired from warships in the Red Sea to the south and the Persian Gulf to the east.
> 
> It was all intended to overwhelm Syria’s defences.*_
> 
> It isn't.
> 
> Russia wasn't onboard with NATO-led strikes across Syria. They were simply informed in advance that strikes will take place - nothing much else.
> 
> Russia is also utilizing its electronic warfare capabilities to disrupt operations of drones across Syria: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a19747585/russia-jamming-us-drones-over-syria/
> 
> Problem is that advanced American military assets are not easy to jam (virtually impossible); US isn't vulnerable in these matters like Ukraine.
> 
> The *master of warfare* is an underdog? Please compare R&D sector (and) defense budget of US with that of any other country. American weaponry is also superior to that of Russian and Chinese on average. Common sense.



One needs to separate hype from facts. That is common sense. And you have done nothing but quoted hype. Explaining how stealth can be overcome is going to take a bit more time than I am willing to give right now. So I will reply again.


----------



## LeGenD

CriticalThought said:


> One needs to separate hype from facts. That is common sense. And you have done nothing but quoted hype. Explaining how stealth can be overcome is going to take a bit more time than I am willing to give right now. So I will reply again.


Really? I am not interested in _theoretical_ claims of Russia in regards to defeating top-of-the-line stealthy aircraft such as F-35; they lie and exaggerate very often (personal assessment).

Advanced SAM systems have failed to detect F-35 in exercises, designed to simulate real-time battlefield environment:-

_"The F-35s recently had to turn on their transponders in order to make an exercise against Patriot batteries useful (and don’t kid yourself, Patriots are the absolute top of the heap in their class of SAMs). The U.S. also owns an S-300 battery and the Navy has Aegis and E-2D, which is about as good as it gets. Point is…the F-35 was developed against very capable systems."_ - Cory stansbury (quora)

News item:-

_"The F-35 has hit yet another snag. During a recent exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, US Air Force F-35A pilots set out to practice evading surface-to-air missiles, but they could not, because the SAM radars on the ground could not even find the ultra-stealthy planes.

"If they never saw us, they couldn't target us," said Lt. Col. George Watkins, commander of the 34th Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, told the Air Force Times.

To participate in the exercise as planned, the F-35As had to turn on their transponders, essentially announcing their presence so the SAM sites could see and engage them.

"We basically told them where we were at and said, 'Hey, try to shoot at us,'" said Watkins.

Had Watkins and crew not turned on their transponders, "most likely we would not have suffered a single loss from any SAM threats while we were training at Mountain Home."

Air Force planners have been counting on the F-35's ability to enter heavily contested airspace unseen by enemy radar and missiles, and the result of this exercise seems to vindicate that strategy, to say the least.

"When we go to train, it's really an unfair fight for the guys who are simulating the adversaries," Watkins continued. "We've been amazed by what we can do when we go up against fourth-gen adversaries in our training environment, in the air and on the ground."

The idea that F-35s can enter the most heavily defended air spaces on earth, pass by undetected by SAM sites and radars, and soften up those targets as well as legacy fighters represents the entire reasoning behind the trillion-dollar thrust to get this weapons system in the air.

Watkins said that with just four F-35s, he can "be everywhere and nowhere at the same time because we can cover so much ground with our sensors, so much ground and so much airspace. And the F-15s or F-16s, or whoever is simulating an adversary or red air threat, they have no idea where we're at and they can't see us and they can't target us."

Watkins described a "pretty awesome feeling" seeing the grand plans of the F-35 come to fruition in a realistic training exercise, by rendering virtually all other platforms obsolete._

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-too-stealthy-2016-8

Low-frequency early warning radar systems are unreliable:-

_"Various countries have claimed over the last 30 years to be able to counter stealth by various means. The interesting part is that the means keep changing, and never seem to pan out. And, of course, all of those who claim to have countered stealth are those who don’t have it. The basic physics behind stealth haven’t changed in 30 years, and aren’t likely to change in the next 30.

In the past 30 years, stealth aircraft have been extensively used and we have exactly one first generation stealth aircraft lost in combat. That’s a pretty extraordinary record. And the details of what happened to that aircraft are so obscure and classified that speculation is pointless. About the only thing we know for sure is that NATO restrictions on flight planning were so severe that the ill-fated F-117 was flying the same route, altitude and timings used night after night by other F-117s. No serious analyst has ever claimed stealth makes an aircraft invisible to radar, only that it radically reduces detection range. If you are constrained to using the same routes every night, it doesn’t take a genius to see the potential for disaster. However, that was a failure of tactics, not technology. Ask anyone in the stealth community, and they will tell you that tactics are just as important as technology — mess up with one, and the other won’t save you.

I have a good friend who is an ex-USN submariner, and he used to refer to the USAF as the “junior stealth service.” It is an apt comparison, and one that speaks to the question at hand: people have claimed for decades that this or that technology would turn the oceans transparent and make it easy to find submarines. That, too, has never panned out.

Two last points. An answer here listed a number of Russian systems that can “defeat” stealth. First off, Russian propaganda. Need I say more? Secondly, none of the aircraft listed are operational, and are highly unlikely to become so in the foreseeable future. The S-300/S-400 SAMs are formidable, but hardly the monsters they are often made out to be. They are vulnerable to attack, and their supporting radars with counter-stealth claims are, again, largely expensive upgrades of dubious capabilities.

Finally, combat is an interesting thing. It almost never resembles a clean laboratory test. People on Quora seem to inordinately look at weapon systems like they are going to be used in one-on-one duels with no context or tactics involved. But that is ridiculous. Case in point: Yes, a stealth aircraft might give a return to a low-frequency early warning radar. However, the return will be small and intermittent as the aircraft moves through space. A modern synthetic unit would almost certainly fail to even display the hit. An older radar with a raw display would show it…and a thousand other similar hits from false targets. Further, the stealth aircraft is going to know about that radar long before the radar gets that hit, and will adjust course, speed and altitude accordingly. Oh yeah, and that large, basically immobile radar might be destroyed before our stealth aircraft is ever threatened.

A friend of mine who had once been a HAWK SAM battery commander told me that after moving his trailer-mounted radars, it took a lot of time and effort to bring them back up and calibrate them. And often, they simply broke down during the move, and needed to be repaired. The system was advertised as being mobile, but my friend with first-hand experience poo-pooed the idea. The S-300/400 may be a more modern and rugged system than the HAWK of the 1970s, but how good will they be under combat conditions in the field? And in the hands of conscript troops who have never been known for their technical prowess?

Russian/Chinese fanboys seem to think that stealth was invented four decades ago, and then left to fossilize. This, assuredly, is not the case. Second generation stealth was considerably (and visibly) better than the first generation, and the third generation is better than the second. Tactics and support have improved, as well. The problem is, if you don’t even have first generation stealth available to your forces, how can you anticipate where the technology and tactics are taking your opponent who has had it for four decades? The only way for you to find out is to face it in combat, and learn from your hard-won experience."_ - Peter Koves (Quora)

Source: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Russia-can-detect-an-F35-with-their-latest-radar

Related:-

_"But the same qualities that allow a low-frequency radar to detect a stealth fighter also prevent it from detecting the same aircraft with great precision. Mike Pietrucha, a former U.S. Air Force an electronic warfare officer, told reporter Dave Majumdar from The National Interest that early low-frequency radars could poinpoint a target’s location to within only 10,000 feet or so — not nearly accurately enough to guide a missile.

For that reason, low-frequency radars such as Sunflower are useful only as early-warning systems. All they can do is alert air-defenders to the likely presence of low-observable aircraft in a general area."_

Source: https://warisboring.com/dont-sweat-russias-stealth-fighter-detecting-new-radar/

No country is in the position to devise a reliable method to detect/take out entire squadrons of F-35 and F-22 in a battlefield scenario at present; these aircraft are able to _see first_ (and _shoot first_) in comparison to any other airborne asset out there and defeat its electronic warfare capabilities in the process. They tend to achieve absurd kill-ratios in various battlefield simulations (AEWACS in the picture or not). Loren Thompson's disclosure is very telling in this respect.

You are mistakenly assuming that Russia and/or China are at par with the US in the matters of defense; they are not. Russia haven't even fielded a decent stealthy aircraft so far; how is it going to figure out the intricacies of defeating top-of-the-line stealthy aircraft of USAF? Doesn't add up.

_If_ India receive state-of-the-art weapon systems from US (and Russia), we would be in big trouble. Pakistan should have sufficient diplomatic clout to dissuade other countries from providing state-of-the-art weapon systems to India which would imbalance South Asian security situation. 

---

I also dispelled the notion that the game is rigged in Syria, with relevant disclosures which weren't public knowledge before. Pay heed.


----------



## Bratva

JamD said:


> Just to tease the fanboys, there are at least two air launched weapons program being worked upon right now. The Ra'ad isn't the end of the line rather the beginning.
> 
> Also as Quwa pointed out quite rightly the Ra'ad is not made for the standoff role but primarily deployed as a strategic weapon. There are standoff weapons being developed and you will just have to trust me on that.



Any update on the air launched weapons ? @JamD The one JF-17 fired recently, was this one of the air launched weapons ?


----------



## CriticalThought

LeGenD said:


> Really? I am not interested in _theoretical_ claims of Russia in regards to defeating top-of-the-line stealthy aircraft such as F-35; they lie and exaggerate very often (personal assessment).
> 
> Advanced SAM systems have failed to detect F-35 in exercises, designed to simulate real-time battlefield environment:-
> 
> _"The F-35s recently had to turn on their transponders in order to make an exercise against Patriot batteries useful (and don’t kid yourself, Patriots are the absolute top of the heap in their class of SAMs). The U.S. also owns an S-300 battery and the Navy has Aegis and E-2D, which is about as good as it gets. Point is…the F-35 was developed against very capable systems."_ - Cory stansbury (quora)
> 
> News item:-
> 
> _"The F-35 has hit yet another snag. During a recent exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, US Air Force F-35A pilots set out to practice evading surface-to-air missiles, but they could not, because the SAM radars on the ground could not even find the ultra-stealthy planes.
> 
> "If they never saw us, they couldn't target us," said Lt. Col. George Watkins, commander of the 34th Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, told the Air Force Times.
> 
> To participate in the exercise as planned, the F-35As had to turn on their transponders, essentially announcing their presence so the SAM sites could see and engage them.
> 
> "We basically told them where we were at and said, 'Hey, try to shoot at us,'" said Watkins.
> 
> Had Watkins and crew not turned on their transponders, "most likely we would not have suffered a single loss from any SAM threats while we were training at Mountain Home."
> 
> Air Force planners have been counting on the F-35's ability to enter heavily contested airspace unseen by enemy radar and missiles, and the result of this exercise seems to vindicate that strategy, to say the least.
> 
> "When we go to train, it's really an unfair fight for the guys who are simulating the adversaries," Watkins continued. "We've been amazed by what we can do when we go up against fourth-gen adversaries in our training environment, in the air and on the ground."
> 
> The idea that F-35s can enter the most heavily defended air spaces on earth, pass by undetected by SAM sites and radars, and soften up those targets as well as legacy fighters represents the entire reasoning behind the trillion-dollar thrust to get this weapons system in the air.
> 
> Watkins said that with just four F-35s, he can "be everywhere and nowhere at the same time because we can cover so much ground with our sensors, so much ground and so much airspace. And the F-15s or F-16s, or whoever is simulating an adversary or red air threat, they have no idea where we're at and they can't see us and they can't target us."
> 
> Watkins described a "pretty awesome feeling" seeing the grand plans of the F-35 come to fruition in a realistic training exercise, by rendering virtually all other platforms obsolete._
> 
> Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-too-stealthy-2016-8
> 
> Low-frequency early warning radar systems are unreliable:-
> 
> _"Various countries have claimed over the last 30 years to be able to counter stealth by various means. The interesting part is that the means keep changing, and never seem to pan out. And, of course, all of those who claim to have countered stealth are those who don’t have it. The basic physics behind stealth haven’t changed in 30 years, and aren’t likely to change in the next 30.
> 
> In the past 30 years, stealth aircraft have been extensively used and we have exactly one first generation stealth aircraft lost in combat. That’s a pretty extraordinary record. And the details of what happened to that aircraft are so obscure and classified that speculation is pointless. About the only thing we know for sure is that NATO restrictions on flight planning were so severe that the ill-fated F-117 was flying the same route, altitude and timings used night after night by other F-117s. No serious analyst has ever claimed stealth makes an aircraft invisible to radar, only that it radically reduces detection range. If you are constrained to using the same routes every night, it doesn’t take a genius to see the potential for disaster. However, that was a failure of tactics, not technology. Ask anyone in the stealth community, and they will tell you that tactics are just as important as technology — mess up with one, and the other won’t save you.
> 
> I have a good friend who is an ex-USN submariner, and he used to refer to the USAF as the “junior stealth service.” It is an apt comparison, and one that speaks to the question at hand: people have claimed for decades that this or that technology would turn the oceans transparent and make it easy to find submarines. That, too, has never panned out.
> 
> Two last points. An answer here listed a number of Russian systems that can “defeat” stealth. First off, Russian propaganda. Need I say more? Secondly, none of the aircraft listed are operational, and are highly unlikely to become so in the foreseeable future. The S-300/S-400 SAMs are formidable, but hardly the monsters they are often made out to be. They are vulnerable to attack, and their supporting radars with counter-stealth claims are, again, largely expensive upgrades of dubious capabilities.
> 
> Finally, combat is an interesting thing. It almost never resembles a clean laboratory test. People on Quora seem to inordinately look at weapon systems like they are going to be used in one-on-one duels with no context or tactics involved. But that is ridiculous. Case in point: Yes, a stealth aircraft might give a return to a low-frequency early warning radar. However, the return will be small and intermittent as the aircraft moves through space. A modern synthetic unit would almost certainly fail to even display the hit. An older radar with a raw display would show it…and a thousand other similar hits from false targets. Further, the stealth aircraft is going to know about that radar long before the radar gets that hit, and will adjust course, speed and altitude accordingly. Oh yeah, and that large, basically immobile radar might be destroyed before our stealth aircraft is ever threatened.
> 
> A friend of mine who had once been a HAWK SAM battery commander told me that after moving his trailer-mounted radars, it took a lot of time and effort to bring them back up and calibrate them. And often, they simply broke down during the move, and needed to be repaired. The system was advertised as being mobile, but my friend with first-hand experience poo-pooed the idea. The S-300/400 may be a more modern and rugged system than the HAWK of the 1970s, but how good will they be under combat conditions in the field? And in the hands of conscript troops who have never been known for their technical prowess?
> 
> Russian/Chinese fanboys seem to think that stealth was invented four decades ago, and then left to fossilize. This, assuredly, is not the case. Second generation stealth was considerably (and visibly) better than the first generation, and the third generation is better than the second. Tactics and support have improved, as well. The problem is, if you don’t even have first generation stealth available to your forces, how can you anticipate where the technology and tactics are taking your opponent who has had it for four decades? The only way for you to find out is to face it in combat, and learn from your hard-won experience."_ - Peter Koves (Quora)
> 
> Source: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Russia-can-detect-an-F35-with-their-latest-radar
> 
> Related:-
> 
> _"But the same qualities that allow a low-frequency radar to detect a stealth fighter also prevent it from detecting the same aircraft with great precision. Mike Pietrucha, a former U.S. Air Force an electronic warfare officer, told reporter Dave Majumdar from The National Interest that early low-frequency radars could poinpoint a target’s location to within only 10,000 feet or so — not nearly accurately enough to guide a missile.
> 
> For that reason, low-frequency radars such as Sunflower are useful only as early-warning systems. All they can do is alert air-defenders to the likely presence of low-observable aircraft in a general area."_
> 
> Source: https://warisboring.com/dont-sweat-russias-stealth-fighter-detecting-new-radar/
> 
> No country is in the position to devise a reliable method to detect/take out entire squadrons of F-35 and F-22 in a battlefield scenario at present; these aircraft are able to _see first_ (and _shoot first_) in comparison to any other airborne asset out there and defeat its electronic warfare capabilities in the process. They tend to achieve absurd kill-ratios in various battlefield simulations (AEWACS in the picture or not). Loren Thompson's disclosure is very telling in this respect.
> 
> You are mistakenly assuming that Russia and/or China are at par with the US in the matters of defense; they are not. Russia haven't even fielded a decent stealthy aircraft so far; how is it going to figure out the intricacies of defeating top-of-the-line stealthy aircraft of USAF? Doesn't add up.
> 
> _If_ India receive state-of-the-art weapon systems from US (and Russia), we would be in big trouble. Pakistan should have sufficient diplomatic clout to dissuade other countries from providing state-of-the-art weapon systems to India which would imbalance South Asian security situation.
> 
> ---
> 
> I also dispelled the notion that the game is rigged in Syria, with relevant disclosures which weren't public knowledge before. Pay heed.



The fact is, that the above is a long winded way of saying, 'We are better because we made it first'. The laws of physics are equal for both the Americans and the Russians/Chinese. Granted, a nation may not have the technology to realize the full envelope of what the laws of physics allow, but they still have the understanding. And based on that understanding, they can devise a strategy that is simply less complex.

Stealth is not just a technology, it is a strategy. Like any strategy of waging war, stealth realizes on calculations of enemy capability AND knowledge. This 80s era technology was based on a number of factors:

1. Most nations were supplied by Western arms, into which backdoors could be built, given an aura of invincibility to Western arms suppliers whenever an errant nation stepped out of line.

2. The Western forces utilized espionage and influence to gain first hand knowledge of Russian technology, understand its limitations, and devise its counter.

Stealth is a combination of both. Given American supremacy over a nation, there is no way to tell whether it is because of Radar Absorbing Materials, Radar cancelling geometric surfaces, a kill switch within their equipment, or wholesale defection of their generals. Stealth is the propaganda to divert attention from the full range of tactics employed.

Today, this is no longer true. China does not buy arms from Western suppliers, especially not electronics. There is no large danger of a large portion of the communist party defecting. And China is very technologically advanced, understanding the bleeding edge of what's possible given the laws of physics. Given these facts, China can devise a counter to stealth that is cost effective and much simpler. There is no silver bullet solution, no one ring to rule them all, and stealth that can hide from every radar in the world. As such, what you have written above only reflects the degree to which you have bought into Western deception. Shame on you.


----------



## LeGenD

CriticalThought said:


> The fact is, that the above is a long winded way of saying, 'We are better because we made it first'. The laws of physics are equal for both the Americans and the Russians/Chinese. Granted, a nation may not have the technology to realize the full envelope of what the laws of physics allow, but they still have the understanding. And based on that understanding, they can devise a strategy that is simply less complex.
> 
> Stealth is not just a technology, it is a strategy. Like any strategy of waging war, stealth realizes on calculations of enemy capability AND knowledge. This 80s era technology was based on a number of factors:
> 
> 1. Most nations were supplied by Western arms, into which backdoors could be built, given an aura of invincibility to Western arms suppliers whenever an errant nation stepped out of line.
> 
> 2. The Western forces utilized espionage and influence to gain first hand knowledge of Russian technology, understand its limitations, and devise its counter.
> 
> Stealth is a combination of both. Given American supremacy over a nation, there is no way to tell whether it is because of Radar Absorbing Materials, Radar cancelling geometric surfaces, a kill switch within their equipment, or wholesale defection of their generals. Stealth is the propaganda to divert attention from the full range of tactics employed.
> 
> Today, this is no longer true. China does not buy arms from Western suppliers, especially not electronics. There is no large danger of a large portion of the communist party defecting. And China is very technologically advanced, understanding the bleeding edge of what's possible given the laws of physics. Given these facts, China can devise a counter to stealth that is cost effective and much simpler. There is no silver bullet solution, no one ring to rule them all, and stealth that can hide from every radar in the world. As such, what you have written above only reflects the degree to which you have bought into Western deception. Shame on you.


You sure about that? And WHAT METHODS do you think US has adopted to learn about about Chinese and/or Russian military experiments? I suppose that you know a thing or two about *how* SENSOR TECHNOLOGIES work.












You were saying? Those radar systems are not cheap, and things do not look good beyond 0.1 RCS mark.

There is no shame in coming to terms with the ground realities of the world, my friend. I am not asserting that F-22A and F-35 variants are virtually impossible to detect, only that they are very hard to detect *due to numerous factors*, and by the time this is the case, it will be too late to do much about them. This appears to be case in the foreseeable future.

Perhaps you will understand my POV in this way. Suppose that you have managed to develop Suzuki Kizashi but your rival has developed Lamborghini Aventador. Well, you have a lot of catching to do. 

Nevertheless, this is an excellent read: https://aviationweek.com/site-files.../2017/12/12/State of Stealth FINAL 121317.pdf (PDF format alert)


----------



## JamD

Bratva said:


> Any update on the air launched weapons ? @JamD The one JF-17 fired recently, was this one of the air launched weapons ?


Honestly, I am not sure. All I was told was the recent test was a "new product". The more time I spend in the US, the less my friends trust me with these things lol (which is fair).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## JamD

Bratva said:


> Any update on the air launched weapons ? @JamD The one JF-17 fired recently, was this one of the air launched weapons ?


I've been thinking about the recently fired air-launched weapon and I think I have some speculation that may be reasonable.

1. Our armed forces announce and demonstrate weapons systems meant for nuclear deterrence quite openly. By which I mean they give names, ranges, and pictures. This makes sense as these weapon systems are meant for deterrence.
2. The opposite is true for non-strategic systems. For example we rarely see pictures of Mirages with H2/H4 or MAR-1 for JF-17 or the BVRs for Mirages. For these systems deterrence is not the primary objective. The objective is to have a capability that the enemy cannot account for effectively. Only limited (non-strategic) deterrence is expected from such systems.
3. I was told from multiple sources that there were multiple air-launched stand-off projects in the works.

All of this leads me to believe that the recent test was of the "Ra'ad Lite" (naming credits: @Bilal Khan (Quwa) ). All the signs point to this. Ra'ad Lite would not be meant for nuclear delivery so the test was heavily censored and few details were revealed. It was also tested from a JF-17 and was a product made by the same guys that make the actual Ra'ad. I think the test was the first confirmation of Ra'ad Lite's existence. That's the good news.

The bad news is that since it has been classified as a non-strategic weapon, we won't see much about it (not right way at least).

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## The Accountant

JamD said:


> I've been thinking about the recently fired air-launched weapon and I think I have some speculation that may be reasonable.
> 
> 1. Our armed forces announce and demonstrate weapons systems meant for nuclear deterrence quite openly. By which I mean they give names, ranges, and pictures. This makes sense as these weapon systems are meant for deterrence.
> 2. The opposite is true for non-strategic systems. For example we rarely see pictures of Mirages with H2/H4 or MAR-1 for JF-17 or the BVRs for Mirages. For these systems deterrence is not the primary objective. The objective is to have a capability that the enemy cannot account for effectively. Only limited (non-strategic) deterrence is expected from such systems.
> 3. I was told from multiple sources that there were multiple air-launched stand-off projects in the works.
> 
> All of this leads me to believe that the recent test was of the "Ra'ad Lite" (naming credits: @Bilal Khan (Quwa) ). All the signs point to this. Ra'ad Lite would not be meant for nuclear delivery so the test was heavily censored and few details were revealed. It was also tested from a JF-17 and was a product made by the same guys that make the actual Ra'ad. I think the test was the first confirmation of Ra'ad Lite's existence. That's the good news.
> 
> The bad news is that since it has been classified as a non-strategic weapon, we won't see much about it (not right way at least).


I think the test was a message just to confirm that Balakot strikes involved a stand-off weapon being fired from Thunder and it was done at the time things were still hot so it was to creat a fear in the enemy that we have three aircraft capable of percision strike previously only F16s and Mirrages had the capabilities


----------



## Quwa

JamD said:


> I've been thinking about the recently fired air-launched weapon and I think I have some speculation that may be reasonable.
> 
> 1. Our armed forces announce and demonstrate weapons systems meant for nuclear deterrence quite openly. By which I mean they give names, ranges, and pictures. This makes sense as these weapon systems are meant for deterrence.
> 2. The opposite is true for non-strategic systems. For example we rarely see pictures of Mirages with H2/H4 or MAR-1 for JF-17 or the BVRs for Mirages. For these systems deterrence is not the primary objective. The objective is to have a capability that the enemy cannot account for effectively. Only limited (non-strategic) deterrence is expected from such systems.
> 3. I was told from multiple sources that there were multiple air-launched stand-off projects in the works.
> 
> All of this leads me to believe that the recent test was of the "Ra'ad Lite" (naming credits: @Bilal Khan (Quwa) ). All the signs point to this. Ra'ad Lite would not be meant for nuclear delivery so the test was heavily censored and few details were revealed. It was also tested from a JF-17 and was a product made by the same guys that make the actual Ra'ad. I think the test was the first confirmation of Ra'ad Lite's existence. That's the good news.
> 
> The bad news is that since it has been classified as a non-strategic weapon, we won't see much about it (not right way at least).


The challenge with conventional munitions is that we might be relying on many different COTS suppliers. 

With the strategic stuff, most will probably confine any and all help to China; but conventional ALCMs, ARMs, AShMs, SOWs and the like, the help could come from a lot of places. Those places want to earn money, but they don't want the US knocking on their doors -- neither does Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JamD

Quwa said:


> The challenge with conventional munitions is that we might be relying on many different COTS suppliers.
> 
> With the strategic stuff, most will probably confine any and all help to China; but conventional ALCMs, ARMs, AShMs, SOWs and the like, the help could come from a lot of places. Those places want to earn money, but they don't want the US knocking on their doors -- neither does Pakistan.



Yes, agreed. I am just glad there is a Ra'ad Lite.


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

JamD said:


> Yes, agreed. I am just glad there is a Ra'ad Lite.


Since the prospect of big-ticket items in the near-term is nil, I hope we concentrate what resources we have to munitions development. I think there's a big lesson to learn from South Africa here in concentrating on R&D and maximize the JF-17's utility through new missiles and glide bombs. 

One starting point could be to revive South Africa's ramjet R&D (in both SA and Pakistan) to create a new-gen BVRAAM and a lightweight ALCM/AShM. You might not have the fanciest fighters, but hey, 150 jets capable of deploying a Ra'ad Lite ALCM, supersonic-cruising AShM and ALCM, a Meteor-like BVRAAM, a HOBS AAM, and a plethora of other gliding SOWs and tactical missiles (e.g., ARMs, Brimstone-like AGMs, etc) could work...

@denel Do you recall the Long Range Tactical Missile (LRTM) program?

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## CriticalThought

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Since the prospect of big-ticket items in the near-term is nil, I hope we concentrate what resources we have to munitions development. I think there's a big lesson to learn from South Africa here in concentrating on R&D and maximize the JF-17's utility through new missiles and glide bombs.
> 
> One starting point could be to revive South Africa's ramjet R&D (in both SA and Pakistan) to create a new-gen BVRAAM and a lightweight ALCM/AShM. You might not have the fanciest fighters, but hey, 150 jets capable of deploying a Ra'ad Lite ALCM, supersonic-cruising AShM and ALCM, a Meteor-like BVRAAM, a HOBS AAM, and a plethora of other gliding SOWs and tactical missiles (e.g., ARMs, Brimstone-like AGMs, etc) could work...
> 
> @denel Do you recall the Long Range Tactical Missile (LRTM) program?



Very good ideas. Needs to be paired with indigenous AESA radar and EW pods.


----------



## The Accountant

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Since the prospect of big-ticket items in the near-term is nil, I hope we concentrate what resources we have to munitions development. I think there's a big lesson to learn from South Africa here in concentrating on R&D and maximize the JF-17's utility through new missiles and glide bombs.
> 
> One starting point could be to revive South Africa's ramjet R&D (in both SA and Pakistan) to create a new-gen BVRAAM and a lightweight ALCM/AShM. You might not have the fanciest fighters, but hey, 150 jets capable of deploying a Ra'ad Lite ALCM, supersonic-cruising AShM and ALCM, a Meteor-like BVRAAM, a HOBS AAM, and a plethora of other gliding SOWs and tactical missiles (e.g., ARMs, Brimstone-like AGMs, etc) could work...
> 
> @denel Do you recall the Long Range Tactical Missile (LRTM) program?


Furthermore we desperateky need percision cluster munition for anti armour role like cbu 105 and also we need protection against it


----------



## denel

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Since the prospect of big-ticket items in the near-term is nil, I hope we concentrate what resources we have to munitions development. I think there's a big lesson to learn from South Africa here in concentrating on R&D and maximize the JF-17's utility through new missiles and glide bombs.
> 
> One starting point could be to revive South Africa's ramjet R&D (in both SA and Pakistan) to create a new-gen BVRAAM and a lightweight ALCM/AShM. You might not have the fanciest fighters, but hey, 150 jets capable of deploying a Ra'ad Lite ALCM, supersonic-cruising AShM and ALCM, a Meteor-like BVRAAM, a HOBS AAM, and a plethora of other gliding SOWs and tactical missiles (e.g., ARMs, Brimstone-like AGMs, etc) could work...
> 
> @denel Do you recall the Long Range Tactical Missile (LRTM) program?


Yes i do.


----------



## JamD

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Since the prospect of big-ticket items in the near-term is nil, I hope we concentrate what resources we have to munitions development. I think there's a big lesson to learn from South Africa here in concentrating on R&D and maximize the JF-17's utility through new missiles and glide bombs.
> 
> One starting point could be to revive South Africa's ramjet R&D (in both SA and Pakistan) to create a new-gen BVRAAM and a lightweight ALCM/AShM. You might not have the fanciest fighters, but hey, 150 jets capable of deploying a Ra'ad Lite ALCM, supersonic-cruising AShM and ALCM, a Meteor-like BVRAAM, a HOBS AAM, and a plethora of other gliding SOWs and tactical missiles (e.g., ARMs, Brimstone-like AGMs, etc) could work...
> ?


Agreed.

Also, at the risk of being tinder to the fanboy flames: I was pleasantly surprised to find out that there is work on solid fuel ramjets being carried out locally. It sounded in its very early stages (simulations and feasibilities) but is definitely there. Could be a product in 10 years. Could fizzle out too.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

JamD said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Also, at the risk of being tinder to the fanboy flames: I was pleasantly surprised to find out that there is work on solid fuel ramjets being carried out locally. It sounded in its very early stages (simulations and feasibilities) but is definitely there. Could be a product in 10 years. Could fizzle out too.


It's not easy, but I imagine miniature air breathing engines (we need both ramjet and subsonic turbofans) should be much more attainable than a fighter-grade powerplant.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## RadarGudumluMuhimmat

I'm asking because I don't know. Is there a local engine in Pakistan for Ra'ad and similar derivative missiles? @Quwa


----------



## S.Y.A

LeGenD said:


> And WHAT METHODS do you think US has adopted to learn about about Chinese and/or Russian military experiments?


Simple, educated guess. and since US is the pioneer in most technologies, electronics included, their educated guesses are quite close to the real thing. because they understand the capabilities, strengths and short comings of nearly every material. a simple case of "been there, done that". People seem to forget that US is US.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Safriz

JamD said:


> *The Future*
> Having discussed what the Ra’ad is, let’s move to what Ra’ad could or should become.
> 
> 1. Depending on whether the PAF prefers to carry a single Ra’ad on the centerline hardpoint or two on the wing hardpoints I propose the following easy modifications to reduce the height/width of the missile when mounted.
> 
> View attachment 313925
> 
> 
> 2. Develop Ra’ad Lite (as suggested by @Quwa). Reduce the payload to 300 kg and everything else should reduce accordingly. This should be a more manageable size for an ALCM with JF-17.
> 
> 3. If it is absolutely vital for the strategic planners that an ALCM with a 450 kg payload be carried by a JF-17 then add artificial stability using drag devices and an advanced control system. This is what is done for ‘tail-less’ aircraft like the B-2 Spirit and numerous UCAVs. This is an expensive and long-term option that will also give AWC some additional expertise in differential braking that should prove useful in future UAV/UCAV development. Unfortunately, this will be expensive and require a complex control system with a drag penalty incurred by differential braking.
> View attachment 313923
> 
> 
> *Conclusion*
> In its current form the Ra’ad ALCM cannot be carried by the JF-17 according to my analysis. Fortunately some modifications may allow the JF-17 to carry the Ra’ad which I have described. Some of the modifications I have suggested are simple to implement and it is upto the PAF higher command on how far they want to let the Ra’ad evolve before going for a new ALCM altogether.
> 
> @MastanKhan @Tempest II


Hi,
Looks like PAF listened to you. The new Raad-2 has no a sideways jutting rear wings and seems narrower.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## JamD

شاھین میزایل said:


> Hi,
> Looks like PAF listened to you. The new Raad-2 has no a sideways jutting rear wings and seems narrower.


They took the logical next step. Which is always good news.


----------



## Safriz

JamD said:


> They took the logical next step. Which is always good news.


Can you do a similar exercise with raad-2 on JF-17 as you did with raad-1 on JF-17?

Here are some enhanced screenshot of actual missile and a model shown in ispr video. The trace was done by @graphican

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/paki...-missile-raad-ii.653750/page-21#post-12151592

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JamD

شاھین میزایل said:


> Can you do a similar exercise with raad-2 on JF-17 as you did with raad-1 on JF-17?
> 
> Here are some enhanced screenshot of actual missile and a model shown in ispr video. The trace was done by @graphican
> 
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/paki...-missile-raad-ii.653750/page-21#post-12151592


I've actually been meaning to do this. Unfortunately I am unable due to two big reasons:
1. Crazy workload.
2. Not enough information and pictures. I had a lot to go by for the original article.

As soon as more information and pictures become available and I am able to find time I will certainly write an article on this.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Safriz

JamD said:


> I've actually been meaning to do this. Unfortunately I am unable due to two big reasons:
> 1. Crazy workload.
> 2. Not enough information and pictures. I had a lot to go by for the original article.
> 
> As soon as more information and pictures become available and I am able to find time I will certainly write an article on this.


Hi,
Whenever you want to do that.
I can suggest following.
There are clear enough pictures of mirage with the missile. 
So if a size comparison between the missile and mirage can be done, and a size comparison between thunder and mirage can be done, by extrapolation a size comparison between missile and thunder can be done pretty accurate.


----------



## Safriz

JamD said:


> *The Future*
> Having discussed what the Ra’ad is, let’s move to what Ra’ad could or should become.
> 
> 1. Depending on whether the PAF prefers to carry a single Ra’ad on the centerline hardpoint or two on the wing hardpoints I propose the following easy modifications to reduce the height/width of the missile when mounted.
> 
> View attachment 313925
> 
> 
> 2. Develop Ra’ad Lite (as suggested by @Quwa). Reduce the payload to 300 kg and everything else should reduce accordingly. This should be a more manageable size for an ALCM with JF-17.
> 
> 3. If it is absolutely vital for the strategic planners that an ALCM with a 450 kg payload be carried by a JF-17 then add artificial stability using drag devices and an advanced control system. This is what is done for ‘tail-less’ aircraft like the B-2 Spirit and numerous UCAVs. This is an expensive and long-term option that will also give AWC some additional expertise in differential braking that should prove useful in future UAV/UCAV development. Unfortunately, this will be expensive and require a complex control system with a drag penalty incurred by differential braking.
> View attachment 313923
> 
> 
> *Conclusion*
> In its current form the Ra’ad ALCM cannot be carried by the JF-17 according to my analysis. Fortunately some modifications may allow the JF-17 to carry the Ra’ad which I have described. Some of the modifications I have suggested are simple to implement and it is upto the PAF higher command on how far they want to let the Ra’ad evolve before going for a new ALCM altogether.
> 
> @MastanKhan @Tempest II


Reviving this 4 year old thread.
The width of Raad 2 is smaller than Raad-1.
So the width problem is solved.
However the weight although unknown may be same or higher than Raad-1.
What's the maximum weight Thunder's inner pylons can carry?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Safriz said:


> Reviving this 4 year old thread.
> The width of Raad 2 is smaller than Raad-1.
> So the width problem is solved.
> However the weight although unknown may be same or higher than Raad-1.
> What's the maximum weight Thunder's inner pylons can carry?


We know the inner pylons can take 459 kg Mk83s and 800 kg C-802As, but those are still light compared to a KEPD 350-class ALCM (1,400 kg). 

If there's a weight issue, it should be less of a constraint in the JF-17B and Block-III, which are reportedly capable of carrying 925 kg Mk84s.


----------



## Safriz

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> We know the inner pylons can take 459 kg Mk83s and 800 kg C-802As, but those are still light compared to a KEPD 350-class ALCM (1,400 kg).
> 
> If there's a weight issue, it should be less of a constraint in the JF-17B and Block-III, which are reportedly capable of carrying 925 kg Mk84s.


But we have also seen the 900+ kg CM400AKG being carried on inside pylons of Thunder Block II.

So if there's an improvement in weight carrying capacity of single pylon,on Block III and B variant, then it must be above that of the weight of CM400AKG

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Safriz said:


> But we have also seen the 900+ kg CM400AKG being carried on inside pylons of Thunder Block II.
> 
> So if there's an improvement in weight carrying capacity of single pylon,on Block III and B variant, then it must be above that of the weight of CM400AKG


You're right.

I think it's reasonable to bet that the JF-17B/Block-III can carry 2 Ra'ad II. 

Not a coincidence that the PAF solved the most obvious issue/obstacle preventing the JF-17 from carrying the Ra'ad in the first place (replace horizontal stabilizers with new compact tail-stock).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Safriz

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> You're right.
> 
> I think it's reasonable to bet that the JF-17B/Block-III can carry 2 Ra'ad II.
> 
> Not a coincidence that the PAF solved the most obvious issue/obstacle preventing the JF-17 from carrying the Ra'ad in the first place (replace horizontal stabilizers with new compact tail-stock).


Thats what i am speculating. Until now there was no point in developing a new version of Raad as other than Mirages, no other PAF jet could carry them.
To make a new sleek version must have more reasons than just an increase in range.
Probably another type of PAF aircraft can also carry Raad now.
However ths new Raad-2 looks a bit longer than Raad-1, but slimmer.
In my estimation the length of Raad-2 is 5.4 meters.
According to @JamD estimation Raad-1 is 4.88 meters long. So thats a 50 Cm increase in length for the new Raad-2.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## JamD

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> You're right.
> 
> I think it's reasonable to bet that the JF-17B/Block-III can carry 2 Ra'ad II.
> 
> Not a coincidence that the PAF solved the most obvious issue/obstacle preventing the JF-17 from carrying the Ra'ad in the first place (replace horizontal stabilizers with new compact tail-stock).


Ra'ad I/II are strategic weapons (as opposed to tactical weapons) so there is no benefit in telling the Indian planners that only our Mirages can carry this nuclear capable weapon so you can more easily target them. This means as soon as the JF-17 is able to launch Ra'ads well see it announced and shown.

I think the size and weight are not a problem anymore with the introduction of Ra'ad II. The only hurdle now is integration and certification. Normally this wouldve been done in China but cant be for Ra'ad for obvious reasons. The newly acquired dynamic simulations and integration setup at PAC is probably working on integrating the Ra'ad II on the JF-17 as we speak. 

I'd give it a year (or two at most) before we see a JF-17 launch of Ra'ad II. I will also strongly suspect a JF-17B to do it.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Falcon26

I will never understand why PAF hasn’t procured the SOM-missiles. PAF sorely needs stealth next generation cruise missiles to neutralize Indian air defense systems. There are no two ways about it. Ra’ad is not going to cut it and PAF will learn this the hard way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RadarGudumluMuhimmat

Falcon26 said:


> I will never understand why PAF hasn’t procured the SOM-missiles. PAF sorely needs stealth next generation cruise missiles to neutralize Indian air defense systems. There are no two ways about it. Ra’ad is not going to cut it and PAF will learn this the hard way.



Why did you assume that Raad isn't stealth?


----------



## MastanKhan

Falcon26 said:


> I will never understand why PAF hasn’t procured the SOM-missiles. PAF sorely needs stealth next generation cruise missiles to neutralize Indian air defense systems. There are no two ways about it. Ra’ad is not going to cut it and PAF will learn this the hard way.



Hi,

That is one strange post---. Why would pakistan go for an inferior missiles
---.

Hatf V111 has a 600 + km range declared ie---378 miles range---on a 2500 + lbs missile---which is a massive strike range for an alcm in our arena---. But the actual range is closer to 500 - 600 miles---.

378 miles range means that a mirage 3 can do a strike at mumbai---or make an easier target from farther away if a lighter war head was used and more fuel capability enhanced---.

It is our missile---It has no restrictions on it---we can do whatever we want to do with it---.

Our weapons are not for show and strut---but for actual use---.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Falcon26 said:


> I will never understand why PAF hasn’t procured the SOM-missiles. PAF sorely needs stealth next generation cruise missiles to neutralize Indian air defense systems. There are no two ways about it. Ra’ad is not going to cut it and PAF will learn this the hard way.


It looks like the Ra'ad II will make its way to the JF-17. It'll get the job done, but since it's a strategic weapon at its core, the PAF won't use the Ra'ad I/II for skirmishes or conventional ops.

The H-2/H-4 and IREK are the conventional ops weapons, and the JF-17 can carry the latter. To H-2/H-4 will not work from the JF-17 (the horizontal stabilizers will interfere with the JF-17's mechanical functions). 

However, a Raptor-III type weapon (let's call it 'H-6') could be an option, and the PAF might have already taken it up (since the reveal of the new blacked-out 'smart weapon' in 2019). If not, the SOM could be an option too. Either way, it'll take time and money to integrate, test and certify a new SOW.

That said, if Azerbaijan orders the JF-17, I think SOM-integration will come (since Azerbaijan is a customer of that ALCM), and on Azerbaijan's bill. However, I'd prefer if we could manufacture our own SOM-type ALCM by reducing the Ra'ad II in size. It might be tough to roll-out in large numbers though.

@JamD I wonder how long it'll be before AWC and PAC spin-off smart munitions production to an entity focused on that work. In Turkey, you have Roketsan that's managing that entire channel, even when some other entity designs and develops the weapon (e.g., Tubitak-SAGE). A new facility could free-up capacity at both AWC and PAC, allowing them to focus on design/development and aircraft production, respectively.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## JamD

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> @JamD I wonder how long it'll be before AWC and PAC spin-off smart munitions production to an entity focused on that work. In Turkey, you have Roketsan that's managing that entire channel, even when some other entity designs and develops the weapon (e.g., Tubitak-SAGE). A new facility could free-up capacity at both AWC and PAC, allowing them to focus on design/development and aircraft production, respectively.


I don't see that happening anytime soon. AWC (like most strategic organizations that are often competing instead of cooperating) is possessive about the work it does. Also it does have a lot of capability. Maybe in the far future we'll see a parallel set up at PAC but that too is unlikely. Turkey operates in a much more open manner than us. For us everything is under the "cotton" curtain (lol). There will be, and there is a lot of resistance to opening up military research in the way it is in Turkey or how they want to at PAC. Nobody wants their monopoly to go away.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Falcon26

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> That is one strange post---. Why would pakistan go for an inferior missiles
> ---.
> 
> Hatf V111 has a 600 + km range declared ie---378 miles range---on a 2500 + lbs missile---which is a massive strike range for an alcm in our arena---. But the actual range is closer to 500 - 600 miles---.
> 
> 378 miles range means that a mirage 3 can do a strike at mumbai---or make an easier target from farther away if a lighter war head was used and more fuel capability enhanced---.
> 
> It is our missile---It has no restrictions on it---we can do whatever we want to do with it---.
> 
> Our weapons are not for show and strut---but for actual use---.



one word: stealth 

SOM is at least a generation ahead of Ra’ad and uses composite materials and advanced subsystems. Has considerable input from Lockheed Martin which wanted it for the F-35. Assuming Ra’ad is superior missile is a bold audacious statement. As @Bilal Khan (Quwa) said, Ra’ad would most likely be used for noNconventional attacks; SOM is the ideal platform for conventional strikes and SEAD missions, Raptor III is also another fine alternative.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MastanKhan

Falcon26 said:


> one word: stealth
> 
> SOM is at least a generation ahead of Ra’ad and uses composite materials and advanced subsystems. Has considerable input from Lockheed Martin which wanted it for the F-35. Assuming Ra’ad is superior missile is a bold audacious statement. As @Bilal Khan (Quwa) said, Ra’ad would most likely be used for noNconventional attacks; SOM is the ideal platform for conventional strikes and SEAD missions, Raptor III is also another fine alternative.



Hi,

Only if I could tell you---.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

Falcon26 said:


> one word: stealth
> 
> SOM is at least a generation ahead of Ra’ad and uses composite materials and advanced subsystems. Has considerable input from Lockheed Martin which wanted it for the F-35. Assuming Ra’ad is superior missile is a bold audacious statement. As @Bilal Khan (Quwa) said, Ra’ad would most likely be used for noNconventional attacks; SOM is the ideal platform for conventional strikes and SEAD missions, Raptor III is also another fine alternative.


On top of it, the turbo jet engines will be from KALE group...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JamD

The Ra'ad I may fit on the JF-17 afterall. This picture is recent (last month).

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
8


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

JamD said:


> The Ra'ad I may fit on the JF-17 afterall. This picture is recent (last month).
> View attachment 648160


There's always a chance it could be the GB6 though.


----------



## JamD

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> There's always a chance it could be the GB6 though.


I've stared at the Ra'ad enough to know that that is a Ra'ad-1. Also this is recent and reads second phase. So good news I suppose. We should see the JF-17 with Ra'ad soon.

Let me be the first to admit I was wrong about the Ra'ad not being able to fit under the JF-17. The issues must have been of local integration instead.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

JamD said:


> I've stared at the Ra'ad enough to know that that is a Ra'ad-1. Also this is recent and reads second phase. So good news I suppose. We should see the JF-17 with Ra'ad soon.
> 
> Let me be the first to admit I was wrong about the Ra'ad not being able to fit under the JF-17. The issues must have been of local integration.


Interesting!


----------



## JamD

JamD said:


> Ra'ad I/II are strategic weapons (as opposed to tactical weapons) so there is no benefit in telling the Indian planners that only our Mirages can carry this nuclear capable weapon so you can more easily target them. This means as soon as the JF-17 is able to launch Ra'ads well see it announced and shown.
> 
> I think the size and weight are not a problem anymore with the introduction of Ra'ad II. The only hurdle now is integration and certification. Normally this wouldve been done in China but cant be for Ra'ad for obvious reasons. *The newly acquired dynamic simulations and integration setup at PAC is probably working on integrating the Ra'ad II on the JF-17 as we speak.*
> 
> *I'd give it a year (or two at most) before we see a JF-17 launch of Ra'ad* II. I will also strongly suspect a JF-17B to do it.



So I was at least half (or a third) right lol.

Damn so I was basically on point with the scale and pixel counting but wrong about whether not the landing gear would interfere with the fins or not. Also, not on the centerline which was obvious I guess.
Also, this might just be a lazy graphics designer and they're actually integrating Raad 2.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Safriz

JamD said:


> So I was at least half (or a third) right lol.
> 
> Damn so I was basically on point with the scale and pixel counting but wrong about whether not the landing gear would interfere with the fins or not. Also, not on the centerline which was obvious I guess.
> Also, this might just be a lazy graphics designer and they're actually integrating Raad 2.
> View attachment 648167


Raad 1 wasn't made for thunder.
Raad 2 is the one made like storm shadow and meant to be integrated with thunder

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## KAKhan

Maybe a stupid thought but can we put Raads on C130s? One under each wing and 4 under belly?....a formation of 3 C130s flying within Pakistani territory lauching 18 Raads simultaneously for a saturation attack on a key enemy target ~400km from international border!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## JamD

Safriz said:


> Raad 1 wasn't made for thunder.
> Raad 2 is the one made like storm shadow and meant to be integrated with thunder


That's what I thought as well. But that picture I shared has thrown me off. Maybe it's just a lazy graphics designer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Safriz




----------



## ziaulislam

JamD said:


> So I was at least half (or a third) right lol.
> 
> Damn so I was basically on point with the scale and pixel counting but wrong about whether not the landing gear would interfere with the fins or not. Also, not on the centerline which was obvious I guess.
> Also, this might just be a lazy graphics designer and they're actually integrating Raad 2.
> View attachment 648167


You forget to take the position of landing gear in long axis



KAKhan said:


> Maybe a stupid thought but can we put Raads on C130s? One under each wing and 4 under belly?....a formation of 3 C130s flying within Pakistani territory lauching 18 Raads simultaneously for a saturation attack on a key enemy target ~400km from international border!


Why not use 18 mirages for that?
You have over 100 in service

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JamD

ziaulislam said:


> You forget to take the position of landing gear in long axis


Right. I was just looking back on the original post. I made a side view for the centerline hardpoint but not the wing hardpoint. I was too quick to disregard the possibility. Of course it still might be a lazy graphics designer and it's actually Raad 2 that's being integrated into the JF17.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kabotar

This might be a dumb question but do we use imported it local engines on our cruise missiles like Raad and Babur?


Safriz said:


> Raad 1 wasn't made for thunder.
> Raad 2 is the one made like storm shadow and meant to be integrated with thunder

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JamD

KAKhan said:


> Maybe a stupid thought but can we put Raads on C130s? One under each wing and 4 under belly?....a formation of 3 C130s flying within Pakistani territory lauching 18 Raads simultaneously for a saturation attack on a key enemy target ~400km from international border!


Not a completely crazy idea. But in a war situation we wont have C130s available for these things. Our c130 fleet is already overstretched. Furthermore, I doubt Raad is designed to be used in great numbers with nonnuclear warheads. We have other SOWs for that purpose. Also, Mirages can let you hit much deeper into India which would be the only reason to use Raad as a nonnuclear weapon. Launching it from 400km inside would have the same effect as launching a MUCH cheaper IREK from the border using a JF17. Remember, Raad is just an advanced kamikaze UAV.



Kabotar said:


> This might be a dumb question but do we use imported it local engines on our cruise missiles like Raad and Babur?


Initially I believe turbojets were imported from Ukraine (I vaguely recall seeing some MoD documents regarding procurement on this forum). However this was a long time ago so hard to say whether the current powerplant is imported or local. Its "relatively" easier to manufacture low reliability small turbojets for missiles (since they only need to operate for a couple of hours at most) as opposed to those for let's say a UAV that may fly a thousand hours over its life. But I dont think theres any concrete information on whether the powerplant is imported, license manufactured, or local.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Safriz

JamD said:


> Not a completely crazy idea. But in a war situation we wont have C130s available for these things. Our c130 fleet is already overstretched. Furthermore, I doubt Raad is designed to be used in great numbers with nonnuclear warheads. We have other SOWs for that purpose. Also, Mirages can let you hit much deeper into India which would be the only reason to use Raad as a nonnuclear weapon. Launching it from 400km inside would have the same effect as launching a MUCH cheaper IREK from the border using a JF17. Remember, Raad is just an advanced kamikaze UAV.
> 
> 
> Initially I believe turbojets were imported from Ukraine (I vaguely recall seeing some MoD documents regarding procurement on this forum). However this was a long time ago so hard to say whether the current powerplant is imported or local. Its "relatively" easier to manufacture low reliability small turbojets for missiles (since they only need to operate for a couple of hours at most) as opposed to those for let's say a UAV that may fly a thousand hours over its life. But I dont think theres any concrete information on whether the powerplant is imported, license manufactured, or local.


Even Indians are using NPO turbofan in their Nirbhay despite spending time and money on developing similar engine at home.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JamD

Safriz said:


> Even Indians are using NPO turbofan in their Nirbhay despite spending time and money on developing similar engine at home.


We did have a long headstart in this area but you're right: development of turbojets/fans even for missiles is not at all trivial. I didn't mean to give that impression.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MastanKhan

Falcon26 said:


> one word: stealth
> 
> SOM is at least a generation ahead of Ra’ad and uses composite materials and advanced subsystems. Has considerable input from Lockheed Martin which wanted it for the F-35. Assuming Ra’ad is superior missile is a bold audacious statement. As @Bilal Khan (Quwa) said, Ra’ad would most likely be used for noNconventional attacks; SOM is the ideal platform for conventional strikes and SEAD missions, Raptor III is also another fine alternative.



Hi,

In the late 80's I was shopping for a computer here in the US---. I came across a pakistani salesperson---I asked him what the computer can do---the one he is selling---he replied ' it is not what the computer can do---it is what you can do with the computer '---.

So SOM or Ra'ad---. Bilal Khan or me---we can only share---and neither one of ours word is written in stone but I can tell you this much---Ra'ad will do what needs to be done---.

A generation behind weapons just simply don't go obsolete.



KAKhan said:


> Maybe a stupid thought but can we put Raads on C130s? One under each wing and 4 under belly?....a formation of 3 C130s flying within Pakistani territory lauching 18 Raads simultaneously for a saturation attack on a key enemy target ~400km from international border!



Hi,

Off course something like that can be done

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## KAKhan

ziaulislam said:


> You forget to take the position of landing gear in long axis
> 
> 
> Why not use 18 mirages for that?
> You have over 100 in service



I read somewhere about 1965 war that in one mission 3 sabres were allocated for a mission but at the last minute 1 developed an issue and only 2 went to attack inside India. So an 18 mirage mission might mean more required to ensure final success on D-Day. C130 seems less likely to develop last minute issues as compared to fighter aircraft. Also in 1965 war we used C130 for bombing missions in Kashmir. So just thought we could repeat something similar. Fly them close to Indian border and offload a big chunk of Raads which can go deep inside India ~400-600Km and overwhelm a radar defence site or an airfield.


----------



## The Accountant

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> In the late 80's I was shopping for a computer here in the US---. I came across a pakistani salesperson---I asked him what the computer can do---the one he is selling---he replied ' it is not what the computer can do---it is what you can do with the computer '---.
> 
> So SOM or Ra'ad---. Bilal Khan or me---we can only share---and neither one of ours word is written in stone but I can tell you this much---Ra'ad will do what needs to be done---.
> 
> A generation behind weapons just simply don't go obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Off course something like that can be done


Fantastic reply

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tipu7

KAKhan said:


> Maybe a stupid thought but can we put Raads on C130s? One under each wing and 4 under belly?....a formation of 3 C130s flying within Pakistani territory lauching 18 Raads simultaneously for a saturation attack on a key enemy target ~400km from international border!


We cannot wraponize C-130s... You know, American stuff -> American Approval.


----------



## ACE OF THE AIR

Tipu7 said:


> We cannot wraponize C-130s... You know, American stuff -> American Approval.


we had that approval in 1965 hence no need to ask them again.

EDIT.
If the Americas ask why did we do this tell them in their own language.
WE DID IT ON GRAND MAMA RIGHT. This is what the Americans say when they have been doing business for a very long time (over 50 Years).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Imran Khan

Tipu7 said:


> We cannot wraponize C-130s... You know, American stuff -> American Approval.


There is no such thing as aproval for use . The aproval is for sale or technology transfered to china .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tipu7

Imran Khan said:


> There is no such thing as aproval for use . The aproval is for sale or technology transfered to china .


Each and every weapon of US origin is bound to US approvals for further modifications.



ACE OF THE AIR said:


> we had that approval in 1965 hence no need to ask them again.
> 
> EDIT.
> If the Americas ask why did we do this tell them in their own language.
> WE DID IT ON GRAND MAMA RIGHT. This is what the Americans say when they have been doing business for a very long time (over 50 Years).


There is no such thing as 'our own language' and other patriotic stuff in military arms agreement. There are clauses which are meant to be followed. If you follow them, you earn the reputation of trust worth customer, if you don't then it create issues. And that's the reason we still fly C130 acquired in early 1964s and have repeatedly failed (till now) to acquire more and modern versions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mr.Cringeworth

JamD said:


> I've stared at the Ra'ad enough to know that that is a Ra'ad-1. Also this is recent and reads second phase. So good news I suppose. We should see the JF-17 with Ra'ad soon.
> 
> Let me be the first to admit I was wrong about the Ra'ad not being able to fit under the JF-17. The issues must have been of local integration instead.


No i still think it can't fit under the belly but as shown in the pic it can easily fit under the wing pylon.


----------



## Imran Khan

Tipu7 said:


> Each and every weapon of US origin is bound to US approvals for further modifications.
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as 'our own language' and other patriotic stuff in military arms agreement. There are clauses which are meant to be followed. If you follow them, you earn the reputation of trust worth customer, if you don't then it create issues. And that's the reason we still fly C130 acquired in early 1964s and have repeatedly failed (till now) to acquire more and modern versions.


really ? then how was pakistani f-16 mentioned as nuclear attack capable in early 2000s ad late 90s ??????
how cobras were using baktar shiken ????
there is no such thing for older weapons pnly new tech have such paper work .


----------



## Tipu7

Imran Khan said:


> really ? then how was pakistani f-16 mentioned as nuclear attack capable in early 2000s ad late 90s ??????
> how cobras were using baktar shiken ????
> there is no such thing for older weapons pnly new tech have such paper work .


Because none of it demanded air frame modifications and we have taken advantage of gaps in terms and conditions about which Americans were not so happy but couldn't do any thing as we didn't violate any clauses. In past, We have acquired kits to assumable M113 kits domestically (M113-P) without weapons mount as these armored vehicles don't qualify as weapon systems in shape of kits. Later we installed Chinese 12.7 and raised fleet of hundreds of them despite being under arms embargo. Similarly, We have used our indigenous kits to convert standard Mk80 series of bombs into LGBs and have used it through out WOT. Americans objected initially but were satisfied later on.

Take example of C-130B serial 3751, we wanted a specific major modification on that platform but Americans didn't allow it. Instead a portion of the upgrade was given green light and we see that upgrade applied today.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JamD

Mr.Cringeworth said:


> No i still think it can't fit under the belly but as shown in the pic it can easily fit under the wing pylon.


under = on (that is anywhere on the JF-17). The picture I shared clearly shows on the wing hard-point and my original post shows it's impossible on the centerline hard-point. Sorry for the confusion.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Safriz

I did some Pixel counting and it seems like Raad-2 has the same dimensions as MBDA Storm Shadow.
It looks like between 5.1 meters and 5.3 meters long and same dia as of Storm Shadow/ SCALP.
Thunder carries fuel tanks under the wings which are 5.5 meters long .
So dimensions may not be an issue with Raad-2.. but the other variant is the weight of the missile, which we dont know yet.
It is surely longer and thinner than Raad-1, but what's the weight? 
Obviously Thunder has limitations about what weight it can carry under the wings.


----------



## ziaulislam

Safriz said:


> I did some Pixel counting and it seems like Raad-2 has the same dimensions as MBDA Storm Shadow.
> It looks like between 5.1 meters and 5.3 meters long and same dia as of Storm Shadow/ SCALP.
> Thunder carries fuel tanks under the wings which are 5.5 meters long .
> So dimensions may not be an issue with Raad-2.. but the other variant is the weight of the missile, which we dont know yet.
> It is surely longer and thinner than Raad-1, but what's the weight?
> Obviously Thunder has limitations about what weight it can carry under the wings.


we know thunder can carry 1000 kg under wing hard points.
so i doubt weight will be an issue

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MastanKhan

Tipu7 said:


> We cannot wraponize C-130s... You know, American stuff -> American Approval.



Hi,

There are no restrictions on use---. Americans would love to see their equipment chew up indian equipment and then spit it out---.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## volatile

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> There are no restrictions on use---. Americans would love to see their equipment chew up indian equipment and then spit it out---.


Agreed Sir ,there is no such thing as bad publicity its always publicity and In hearts kicking Russian equipment with US made ones are part of sales power point examples ,e.g F16 /AIM 120 got publicity by shooting down SU-30

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ali_Baba

volatile said:


> Agreed Sir ,there is no such thing as bad publicity its always publicity and In hearts kicking Russian equipment with US made ones are part of sales power point examples ,e.g F16 /AIM 120 got publicity by shooting down SU-30



Despite USA being India ally, i am sure the USA quite enjoyed the F16 shooting down the Su30MKI. One of the most modern Russian fighters equipped with Russian Radars and Missiles !

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Riz

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> There are no restrictions on use---. Americans would love to see their equipment chew up indian equipment and then spit it out---.


US will keep selling us better then what india have until India not buying US jets which i can see happens very soon in ongoing confrontation with China


----------



## Tipu7

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> There are no restrictions on use---. Americans would love to see their equipment chew up indian equipment and then spit it out---.


No Sir, there are regulations and controls. Americans think far beyond then loving their stuff blowing up stuff of non-American guys.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Ali_Baba said:


> Despite USA being India ally, i am sure the USA quite enjoyed the F16 shooting down the Su30MKI. One of the most modern Russian fighters equipped with Russian Radars and Missiles !


They even celeberated with PAF in their base and presented a cake

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MastanKhan

Tipu7 said:


> No Sir, there are regulations and controls. Americans think far beyond then loving their stuff blowing up stuff of non-American guys.



Hi,

You don't know the americans more than I do---. So---let us leave it at that---.


----------



## Tipu7

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> You don't know the americans more than I do---. So---let us leave it at that---.


There are numerous types of them, just like numerous types of Pakistanis. And why search the answers among Common people or Armed Forces? The answer is with policy makers who are the actual decision makers.

If you cannot approach either of them, then you can sit with F16 ADF and ask, why Americans didn't allow the integration of Aim120C to this aircraft? Or why certain Turkish solutions cannot find their way into PAF F16s?
Or you can stand on deck of PNS Alamgir, and question that why Americans didn't allow the integration of new radar and air defense systems on this ship to make it 'more lethal'?

Examples are numerous, but you should not use speculation in such subjects. It don't match reality on ground.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## JamD

This is long overdue but here it is my best guess of Ra'ad II measurements based on pixel counting:




For comparison Ra'ad I:


















@Bilal Khan (Quwa) IMHO this change to X-tail is purely driven by a drag reduction reason because:
1. We have already seen the plaque with Ra'ad-I on JF-17 so my initial conjecture was wrong and Ra'ad-I can indeed fit on the wing pylon. Of course there have been other hindrances in its integration but that is besides the point.
2. Ra'ad II doesn't seem to be any smaller in terms of its fins covering a large area.

Why is there a drag reduction? Well, first of all the ventral fins have been removed. This reduces drag. Next, the H-tail presented many more surfaces (and thus a total larger surface area) to the air, which has been replaced with an X-tail. Designing a control system for X-tail (which is like a missile) is slightly more difficult than that for an H-tail (which is like a conventional aircraft) but only slightly. I am glad we got there on the Ra'ad. It's not like we couldn't do it given we have x-tails on all sorts of ballistic missiles and artillery rockets. It probably also reduces mechanical complexity since now you just have 4 body mounted servos, whereas previously you probably needed a complicated system of servos and link rods.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
6


----------

