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

[Arsalan]

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)

 

[Tempest II]

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

 

[Blue Marlin]

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

 

[MastanKhan]

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.

 

[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]

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---?

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[princefaisal]

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

 

[MastanKhan]

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.

 

[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.

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

 

[JamD]

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.