What's new

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

Just look at the official poster of JF-17 by PAF
JF-17+Thunder+Pakistan+Air+Force+PAF+C-802A+Anti-ship+Missile+SD-10A+BVRAAM+PL-5E+II+WVRAAM++500+kg+LS-6+Satellite+Inertially+Guided+Bomb+LT-3+LT-2LS-500J+Laser++HAFER+H-4PGM+RAAD+MAR-1+%25286%2529.jpg


jf-17_thunder_pt-06_sd-10a_bvr_missile.jpg

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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

178200035.jpg


new+picture+image+jf-17+thunder+FC-1+06+%252B+YJ-83+c803+c802a+255+180+antiship+kd88+air+to+surface++maritime++plaaf+paf+pakistan+air+force++test+fire+%25282%2529.jpg


JF-17+Thunder+C-802A+Anti-Ship+cruise+missile+with+range+of+180+kilometers+255+c803+yj83+PLAAF+Navy+attack+operational+maritime+fighter+jet+pakistan+air+force+china+%25282%2529.jpg



sd-10+JF-17+Thunder+Fighter+Jets+Fitted+sd-10+bvr+aam+c-802a+antiship+missile+Fixed+In-Flight+Refuelling+(IFR)+Probe+pakistan+air+force+paf+il-78+tanker+blcok+I+II+III+IV(1).jpg


JF-17+Thunder+C-802A+Anti-Ship+cruise+missile+with+range+of+180+kilometers+255+c803+yj83+PLAAF+Navy+attack+operational+maritime+fighter+jet+pakistan+air+force+china+%25285%2529.jpg
 
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.
C801-C802-Missiles.jpg

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.

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
PAFCruiseMissileRaadHatf-VIIIMirage.jpg


Pakistan+Successfully+Tests+Hatf-VIII+Ra%25E2%2580%2599ad+Air-Launched+Cruise+Missile+%25285%2529.bmp
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.
 
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?

pGM2D7q.jpg
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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 ?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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 ?
 
Back
Top Bottom