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

[Bilal Khan 777]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Arsalan]

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.

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.

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

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.

 

[CHI RULES]

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]

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.

 

[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.

 

[[--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?

 

[Nigel Farrage]

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?

 

[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]

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

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.

 

[JamD]

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.

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.

 

[Nigel Farrage]

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.

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.