What's new

Air Forces Monthly - summary of updates to JF-17

Thankyou for the detailed answer. Sometime back there was a detailed discussion in one of the threads that Ra'ad is too heavy to be placed on wings and JF-17 doesn't have enough height for Ra'ad placement underbelly. I was under the impression that this the reason Ra'ad was a;ways seen on mirages rather than on Thunders.
But if there was always this capability, why is it only being announced with the arrival of Block 3? The timing implies that there was some issue previously that has been resolved in this block?
there was assumptions based on

- Dimension of RA'AD

RA'AD-II indeed have slight changes in its tail section, therefore it is still not known that JF-17 would carry older RAAD or not

- Assumption about the strength of JF-17 wings

After JF-17 blk-I wings were strengthened for blk-II later wings of blk-I were also strengthened; but keep in mind even the base line blk-I was capable to carry 1,200 Litre fuel tank under both of its wing while RA'AD weight around 1,100 KG so I don't think it was valid assumption based on the weight of RA'AD.
 
.
It'll be AWACS that'll take it from here. In fact, JF17 may not even need to turn its radar on, it'll see what the AWACS sees and once it launches, the AWACS takes over and guides the PL15 to its target. poor baby rafale won't even know where the PL15 came from.
I don't know much but aren't AWACS vulnerable. How safe it is to rely on AWACS for missile launch
 
.
there was assumptions based on

- Dimension of RA'AD

RA'AD-II indeed have slight changes in its tail section, therefore it is still not known that JF-17 would carry older RAAD or not

- Assumption about the strength of JF-17 wings

After JF-17 blk-I wings were strengthened for blk-II later wings of blk-I were also strengthened; but keep in mind even the base line blk-I was capable to carry 1,200 Litre fuel tank under both of its wing while RA'AD weight around 1,100 KG so I don't think it was valid assumption based on the weight of RA'AD.
The H-2/H-4 have the same design issues as the original Ra'ad (big horizontal stabilizers). I wonder if the bit about adding H-2/H-4 to JF-17 is actually a hint that we're getting the Denel Raptor-III (as that would fit). Basically, use Ra'ad II and Raptor-III ("H-6?")
 
.
The H-2/H-4 have the same design issues as the original Ra'ad (big horizontal stabilizers). I wonder if the bit about adding H-2/H-4 to JF-17 is actually a hint that we're getting the Denel Raptor-III (as that would fit). Basically, use Ra'ad II and Raptor-III ("H-6?")
A few inaccuracies in the article also got through As the H2/H4 are still called air to air missiles.
 
.
Bro!
I am unaware of any physical changes made to either raad or Jf-17. If wing load capacity has been increased, or raad shape has been changed, it would be news to me!

And if without physical changes, ra'ad has been integrated (as if only software was the issue), then I wonder why this news comes out now simultaneously with launch of block 3.

Hope to see Ra'ad on previous blocks soon!

PS:- I have never seen a real pic of jf-17 carrying ra'ad!
Its ok..
You are doing good. We all learn through questions
I don't know much but aren't AWACS vulnerable. How safe it is to rely on AWACS for missile launch
Awacs stay well out of range and in war time will have escort foe sure.
 
.
Thanks for sharing the article. This article seems to raise more questions than answers. I am now more confused about: 1) blk III radar range, 2) what is meant by “homegrown integrated EW”.. is this the same panjnad pod as before or maybe a new indigenous fully integrated EW system (an impressive accomplishment if so).
 
.
you are way off in the time line .. Full-scale development and production of Meteor began in 2003 with the signature of a £1.2 billion contract by the UK on behalf of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the UK. 2nd January, 2003 was the precise date, from when development of the missile started. But you are saying that French pitched a missile which was not even properly on the drawing board to PAF in 2004 ..

Metero was inducted into services in 2016, the same year PL 15 was inducted. Meteor has a ramjet engine vs a dua pulse solid fuel rocket for PL15. In all probability, Meteor would have more kinetic energy at the terminal phase than a solid fuel missile. Given the diameter of both the missile being same, probably both will have AESA radar with similar number of modules. There is no specific technology in PL15 to indicate that it can outgun a ramjet missile
Yes - I saw the missile in MBDA brochures in ideas 2006 so what timeline are you talking about? They were willing to discuss it then as part of sales pitches. It was expected to be in serial production by 2010 not 2016 but technical and budget delays happen. You think India wasn’t aware of the meteor when MMRCA was first floated?

Having an AESA is no precursor to deploying a missile -please find me a single proof of that ridiculous statement.The french were willing to field it on the M2K-5s as well but the combination is definitely more effective with the RBE-2 vs the RDY.
When did that happen?

https://www.24newshd.tv/22-Sep-2021...e-of-integrated-air-defence-battle-management
 
.
The acquisition of J-10s kind of makes sense now. They have a more powerful radar. PL-15s on the Jeffs might use the input from the J-10s in targetting enemy jets???

Not much is known about Chinese data links but it was stated by a few pilots many years ago that the Chinese/PAF are working on such a concept via Chinese AWACS.

The PLAAF has invested many funds into such capabilities. I would not be surprised if AWACS/J10 could take over in certain circumstances, but then again the chances of the JF17 lobbing a PL15 at 150km+ ranges is very very slim as the chances of making a kill is next to slim and would be a waste of resources/missiles. Fighter pilots operate in many ways similar to snipers ie range means nothing if target acquisition is not there.

The kill zone of such a missile is around 100KM. PAF pilots would launch PL15s at closer to such ranges.
 
.
@Bratva @Bilal. @HRK @Goritoes

I wanted to set the record straight on the whole Ra'ad situation. Keep in mind I am human and can/will make mistakes.

1. Back in 2016 I wrote an article on Ra'ad 1 on PDF that argued that JF-17 was unable to carry the Ra'ad 1 either on centerline or wing pylon.
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.

1642692550712.png


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).

1642692564543.png


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.

1642692590700.png


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.


Now I still stand by the statement that Ra'ad 1 cannot possibly fit on the centerline HP but I believe I was wrong about the wing pylon for reasons given later.



2. In 2020 I posted this:
The Ra'ad I may fit on the JF-17 afterall. This picture is recent (last month).
1642693434312.png
which shows Ra'ad 1 (not 2) being carried by JF-17. This is the reason that I stand corrected about carriage of Ra'ad on wing pylon. This plaque is way more official than my pixel counting exercise. The simple explanation for why it wouldn't interfere with the landing gear is that the wide part of the missile would be behind the landing gear - the wing mounted Ra'ad would be further back than the centerline one:
1642693566180.png


A point about the plaque:
It reads "aeromechanical qualification contract," and this is referring to detailed CFD analysis and structural FEM analysis to ensure that the JF-17 can carry the Ra'ad 1. I am reasonably sure this is for Block 2 and will carry on to Block 3. Aerodynamics + Mechanics = Aeromechanical. Why I am stressing this will become important in a second.


3. This may be controversial to some but it needs to be said. I have confirmed the following from multiple sources so I can vouch for this. But I am just some guy on the internet so you can choose to ignore it.
PAC is NOT free to integrate whatever it wants on the JF-17 ON ITS OWN as is often claimed. Since we have very little to do with the designing and implementation of the JF-17 flight control hardware and software, we are unable to modify and test it freely. I don't know if this is a lack of capability on our part or the unwillingness of the Chinese to share this tech with us. Basically, PAF tried integrating "a local payload" (possibly Ra'ad, maybe H2/H4, or even IREK) and the JF-17 flight control system went into a "safe mode" because it didn't recognize what had been mounted. This had some pretty disastrous consequences. So anytime we want to integrate a new system onto the JF-17, we have to collaborate with China to do so. It is NOT something that PAC can do independently.
So this is why the plaque probably shows "aeromechanical" and not something like "integration". Our side did what it was able to/allowed to do. That is make sure the JF-17 can handle the static and dynamic loads and fly reasonably well and have proper store separation. The actual integration for the flight control system will have to be done with the help of the Chinese. Considering how Ra'ad is a strategic weapon I can understand why the PAF would hesitate with handing over all the data to China so PAC may have been gaining the capability to integrate some stuff on their own. I don't know. This part is speculation.
This is another reason PAC needs to focus on flight control systems. But maybe I give undue importance to FCS because I'm a controls engineer.
 
Last edited:
.
@Bratva @Bilal. @HRK @Goritoes

I wanted to set the record straight on the whole Ra'ad situation. Keep in mind I am human and can/will make mistakes.

1. Back in 2016 I wrote an article on Ra'ad 1 on PDF that argued that JF-17 was unable to carry the Ra'ad 1 either on centerline or wing pylon.



Now I still stand by the statement that Ra'ad 1 cannot possibly fit on the centerline HP but I believe I was wrong about the wing pylon for reasons given later.



2. In 2020 I posted this:

which shows Ra'ad 1 (not 2) being carried by JF-17. This is the reason that I stand correct about carriage of Ra'ad on wing pylon. This plaque is way more official than my pixel counting exercise. The simple explanation for why it wouldn't interfere with the landing gear is that the wide part of the missile would be behind the landing gear - the wing mounted Ra'ad would be further back than the centerline one:
View attachment 810102

A point about the plaque:
It reads "aeromechanical qualification contract," and this is referring to detailed CFD analysis and structural FEM analysis to ensure that the JF-17 can carry the Ra'ad 1. I am reasonably sure this is for Block 2 and will carry on to Block 3. Aerodynamics + Mechanics = Aeromechanical. Why I am stressing this will become important in a second.


3. This may be controversial to some but it needs to be said. I have confirmed the following from multiple sources so I can vouch for this. But I am just some guy on the internet so you can choose to ignore it.
PAC is NOT free to integrate whatever it wants on the JF-17 ON ITS OWN as is often claimed. Since we have very little to do with the designing and implementation of the JF-17 flight control hardware and software, we are unable to modify and test it freely. I don't know if this is a lack of capability on our part or the unwillingness of the Chinese to share this tech with us. Basically, PAF tried integrating "a local payload" (possibly Ra'ad, maybe H2/H4, or even IREK) and the JF-17 flight control system went into a "safe mode" because it didn't recognize what had been mounted. This had some pretty disastrous consequences. So anytime we want to integrate a new system onto the JF-17, we have to collaborate with China to do so. It is NOT something that PAC can do independently.
So this is why the plaque probably shows "aeromechanical" and not something like "integration". Our side did what it was able to/allowed to do. That is make sure the JF-17 can handle the static and dynamic loads and fly reasonably well and have proper store separation. The actual integration for the flight control system will have to be done with the help of the Chinese. Considering how Ra'ad is a strategic weapon I can understand why the PAF would hesitate with handing over all the data to China so PAC may have been gaining the capability to integrate some stuff on their own. I don't know. This part is speculation.
This is another reason PAC needs to focus on flight control systems. But maybe I give undue importance to FCS because I'm a controls engineer.
Thank you for the explanation. Can we take it that the aero-mechanical evaluation of RAAD on JFT was like a preliminary feasibility and when it was found feasible all the requisite integration was done (in conjunction with China) as the AFM article now says that Raad (and H2/H4) are now integrated.

Also would love to hear your impression about the revelation of a loyal wingman program being executed with China and Turkey.
 
.
It'll be AWACS that'll take it from here. In fact, JF17 may not even need to turn its radar on, it'll see what the AWACS sees and once it launches, the AWACS takes over and guides the PL15 to its target. poor baby rafale won't even know where the PL15 came from.
Unfortunately, it's still not possible with the current technology. To launch and guide an AAM, one needs a true fire control radar. AWACs just works in either broadcast mode initially or more fluid tactical control in advanced stages of an air battle. Either by voice or data link, it provides general target information to a fighter formation. Rest everything has to be done by the airborne FCR on the jets. Aerial CEC has been displayed in a few cases by fighters shooting IR shots like MICA heaters. Also, fighter radars have longer or max ranges in search mode. Tracking/missile guidance range is almost half. So a 100 NM range sensor would most likely provide launch support up to 50-60NM.
Naval CEC is something else. AEGIS-based ship-borne radars are dedicated systems with fire control capabilities.
 
.
Correct me if I'm wrong, the Raad ALCM is pre-programmed hence it's fire and forget weapon system.
Once it's launched, the operator has no control over it.
So say if it was programmed to be launched at 20,000 feet to strike a target at 350 Miles range...what happens if the launch platform say counters bad weather or due to other circumstances the weapon can only be launched from 15,000 feet at the same target which is now only at 300 miles distance.

@SQ8 @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @HRK
 
.
Thank you for the explanation. Can we take it that the aero-mechanical evaluation of RAAD on JFT was like a preliminary feasibility and when it was found feasible all the requisite integration was done (in conjunction with China) as the AFM article now says that Raad (and H2/H4) are now integrated.
Yes, that is what I suspect has happened.


Also would love to hear your impression about the revelation of a loyal wingman program being executed with China and Turkey.
Total surprise. I talked to a bunch of guys inside places and they had no idea about this. So either this is super secret or it's an off-the-cuff remark by some official taken as existence of a program.
 
.
Total surprise. I talked to a bunch of guys inside places and they had no idea about this. So either this is super secret or it's an off-the-cuff remark by some official taken as existence of a program.
Could very well be. As there are some inconsistencies in the article.
 
.
Correct me if I'm wrong, the Raad ALCM is pre-programmed hence it's fire and forget weapon system.
Once it's launched, the operator has no control over it.
So say if it was programmed to be launched at 20,000 feet to strike a target at 350 Miles range...what happens if the launch platform say counters bad weather or due to other circumstances the weapon can only be launched from 15,000 feet at the same target which is now only at 300 miles distance.

@SQ8 @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @HRK
Basically this:
The aircraft is constantly computing a whole bunch of conditions (altitude, speed, heading) where you can release the missile and still have it be able to hit the target. As long as you are within those parameters the missile hits the target.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom