Hatf-VIII Ra'ad II (ALCM) | Updates, News & Discussion

[RAMPAGE]

Was Ra'ad's design, to some degree, inspired by the H-2 or H-4 SOW?

@JamD

 

[Amaa'n]

 

[Muhammad Saftain Anjum]

Finally some high quality Images

Are the wings of Raad 2 foldable??
And one more question!
The wings of Raad 2 appear to be on air intake side while mostly subsonic cruise Missiles have wings on side opposite to air intake side.Does this have some(major or minor) aerodynamic effect?

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Here the best image I found so far …

View attachment 826773

IMO an attritable loyal wingman/UCAV would only be a bit bigger than this ALCM. The main focus of said loyal wingman would be to carry 2~4 AAMs OR light PGBs OR ECM jamming equipment. You could maybe design it such that it launches from the ground via a rocket, and then switches to its internal engine.

Basically, develop the Ra'ad stack into something like the Chinese FH-97 (though, given our procurement tract as of late, we might literally just get the FH-97). Seriously, I'm not sure why they didn't just pare AZM down something like this as the starting project. It's within our budget and our technical reach (albeit with additional, but plausibly doable, development work). tbh at this point it seems Baykar Makina's on a more realistic track to developing its own manned stealth fighter... @JamD

 

[JamD]

Was Ra'ad's design, to some degree, inspired by the H-2 or H-4 SOW?

@JamD

I don't know for sure but there are many things that point to that.

IMO an attritable loyal wingman/UCAV would only be a bit bigger than this ALCM. The main focus of said loyal wingman would be to carry 2~4 AAMs OR light PGBs OR ECM jamming equipment. You could maybe design it such that it launches from the ground via a rocket, and then switches to its internal engine.

Basically, develop the Ra'ad stack into something like the Chinese FH-97 (though, given our procurement tract as of late, we might literally just get the FH-97). Seriously, I'm not sure why they didn't just pare AZM down something like this as the starting project. It's within our budget and our technical reach (albeit with additional, but plausibly doable, development work). tbh at this point it seems Baykar Makina's on a more realistic track to developing its own manned stealth fighter... @JamD

View attachment 826920

Wrong thread. I think you meant PN Discussions thread lol.

 

[HRK]

Wrong thread. I think you meant PN Discussions thread lol.

Well in case of RA'AD wishes may come true few years back I wished RA'AD to have X configuration for its tail and now see my wish have come true in the form of RA'AD-II

I remember @Bilal. was the first person to recognize this change when the video of the first test of RA'AD-II was released but at that time video was not in good quality.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I don't know for sure but there are many things that point to that.


Wrong thread. I think you meant PN Discussions thread lol.

PN next-gen fighter program: Project G-HAD (jk)

 

[Riz]

View attachment 826902

Raad 2 wings are bigger then Raad 1 ??

 

[JamD]

IMO an attritable loyal wingman/UCAV would only be a bit bigger than this ALCM. The main focus of said loyal wingman would be to carry 2~4 AAMs OR light PGBs OR ECM jamming equipment. You could maybe design it such that it launches from the ground via a rocket, and then switches to its internal engine.

Basically, develop the Ra'ad stack into something like the Chinese FH-97 (though, given our procurement tract as of late, we might literally just get the FH-97). Seriously, I'm not sure why they didn't just pare AZM down something like this as the starting project. It's within our budget and our technical reach (albeit with additional, but plausibly doable, development work). tbh at this point it seems Baykar Makina's on a more realistic track to developing its own manned stealth fighter... @JamD

View attachment 826920

On a serious note the reason that what you say is a great idea and is something that I have been advocating for as well is because there is a particular idara that has managed to accumulate ALL of the expertise to manufacture the Ra'ad. This is sort of amazing considering the compartmentalization in our idaras. So it would be a waste if that idara sticks to Ra'ads and Shahpar-IIs. Most of the inputs and the expertise are there - all that is needed is a desire and money.

 

[Dreamer.]

It looks really compact. IMO a clear lock for the JF-17 @JamD

Raad-2 is no more compact then it was before, not even much more than Raad-1.

So IF there was any issue with JF-17 carrying it due to size earlier, that'd still be there.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Raad-2 is no more compact then it was before, not even much more than Raad-1.

So IF there was any issue with JF-17 carrying it due to size earlier, that'd still be there.

The compactness isn't just the core airframe, but also the horizontal stabilizers. With that in mind, the Ra'ad-I had a bigger footprint, but with the 'x-stock' tail, the Ra'ad-II is more compact. That said, the qualification picture @JamD shared earlier suggests that the PAF was working on integrating the Ra'ad-I to the JF-17. So, in the end, it may not have been a blocker.

 

[JamD]

The compactness isn't just the core airframe, but also the horizontal stabilizers. With that in mind, the Ra'ad-I had a bigger footprint, but with the 'x-stock' tail, the Ra'ad-II is more compact. That said, the qualification picture @JamD shared earlier suggests that the PAF was working on integrating the Ra'ad-I to the JF-17. So, in the end, it may not have been a blocker.

See the post that I just made on the anatomy of Ra'ad thread

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.