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

[Rocky rock]

RA'AD II

 

[WarFariX]

RA'AD II

View attachment 386680

thnx for the clear image

 

[Furqan Sarwar]

Hi,

I have a noob input as well.

Everyone is saying that JF-17 might not be able to carry Raad as size is too large. Has anyone thought that it might be JF-17B (Twin Seater) / JF-17A (Block-3) which might be able to carry it.

As we now have a clear knowledge from Allan Warnes that there has been some design changes on JF-17B and hopefully these changes will surely be implemented on JF-17A (Block-3) as well.

Thanks.

 

[Windjammer]

This looks funny. Must be a badly made mockup.
View attachment 386699

Cover on the intake.

 

[Safriz]

 

[The SC]

Critics say that RA'AD 2 was not tested (publicly) yet! what you guys make of this?

This looks funny. Must be a badly made mockup.
View attachment 386699

Looks like a different "oval" intake.. for stealth!?

 

[JamD]

Critics say that RA'AD 2 was not tested yet! what you guys make of this?


Looks like a different "oval" intake.. for stealth!?

I don't think so. There has to be an opening in an intake which I can't spot. It is either a bad mockup, or a (very strangely aerodynamic) cover as @Windjammer suggested.

EDIT: The intake is also shaped differently. MAYBE they've taken out the retraction mechanism as a weight/volume saving measure. And the cover is jettisoned when the missile is deployed from the aircraft.

 

[The SC]

Hi,

I have a noob input as well.

Everyone is saying that JF-17 might not be able to carry Raad as size is too large. Has anyone thought that it might be JF-17B (Twin Seater) / JF-17A (Block-3) which might be able to carry it.

As we now have a clear knowledge from Allan Warnes that there has been some design changes on JF-17B and hopefully these changes will surely be implemented on JF-17A (Block-3) as well.

Thanks.

The problem is with the height of the JF-17, the changes on the JF-17B were reported to be a longer tail and the addition of fuel compartments to compensate for place taken by the second seat..

I don't think so. There has to be an opening in an intake which I can't spot. It is either a bad mockup, or a (very strangely aerodynamic) cover as @Windjammer suggested.

A cover would have been rectangular tough, as the intake is rectangular..This is a mystery!!!

 

[JamD]

A cover would have been rectangular tough, as the intake is rectangular..This is a mystery!!!

That's not a very good model of the actual Ra'ad. It's not THAT rectangular (as you can sort of see below). But I get your point.

There is definitely something up with the intake (or just a bad mockup):

@The Deterrent thoughts about my "losing the retraction mechanism for weight/volume saving" idea?

 

[Safriz]

Critics say that RA'AD 2 was not tested (publicly) yet! what you guys make of this?


Looks like a different "oval" intake.. for stealth!?

For a Cruise Missile NOTAms or giving notices to India isnt necessary. For Ballistic missiles it is.
So Raad could be tested many times without telling anyone.

 

[WarFariX]

Hi,

I have a noob input as well.

Everyone is saying that JF-17 might not be able to carry Raad as size is too large. Has anyone thought that it might be JF-17B (Twin Seater) / JF-17A (Block-3) which might be able to carry it.

As we now have a clear knowledge from Allan Warnes that there has been some design changes on JF-17B and hopefully these changes will surely be implemented on JF-17A (Block-3) as well.

Thanks.

the problem is something else...reason for raad not carried is something else

 

[Itachi]

Critics say that RA'AD 2 was not tested (publicly) yet! what you guys make of this?

"A third successful test of Ra'ad (ALCM) was carried out on 29 April 2011, this time again fired from a Dassault Mirage fighter of Pakistan Air force. Fourth test of Ra'ad (ALCM) was carried out on 30 May 2012. Another test (5th) of Ra'ad (ALCM) was carried out on 2 Feb 2015" (Source: Wiki).

These tests (the fourth & fifth being 3 years apart) tell us that improvements were definitely made on Raad-I, such that it had to be tested 4 more times after it's official 1st test in 2007. Now we don't know what was being tested but surely, the test in 2011 (3-4 years after Ra'ad-I) could have meant an increase in range (or payload or better electronics, etc or just another test of the same version). So, the test(s) in 2012 & 2015 must have been of Ra'ad-II (5-8 years after the unveiling of Ra'ad-II).

A cover would have been rectangular tough, as the intake is rectangular..This is a mystery!!!

No, the intake (from the pic) doesn't look like a rectangular shape. Your image is rectangular but the Parade Ra'ad-II's have circular intakes (if you look closely) thus the cone-like caps on both of them (and not on the other 2).

 

[Safriz]

Doesn't look like any change in dimensions. same length and width.
They have created extra fuel space by scuttling intake retraction mechanism,as already suggested by another member

 

[The Deterrent]

There is definitely something up with the intake (or just a bad mockup):
View attachment 386729
@The Deterrent thoughts about my "losing the retraction mechanism for weight/volume saving" idea?

That's right, I didn't notice it at first. The retractable air-intake on mechanism Ra'ad-I was inherited from Babur. However it take a lot of space inside which is affordable in a system the size of Babur, but not Ra'ad. So most probably they removed that, and introduced a fixed air-intake with an aerodynamic cover (to reduce the additional drag).

All that said, this modification alone contributes a fraction to all of the 200km range extension. The range extension on Ra'ad-I is based on similar volume-saving techniques implemented on Babur-I.

the problem is something else...reason for raad not carried is something else

It will be solved soon.

 

[WarFariX]

Doesn't look like any change in dimensions. same length and width.
They have created extra fuel space by scuttling intake retraction mechanism,as already suggested by another member

No dear . Length looks a bit larger