flameboard
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2010
- Messages
- 1,696
- Reaction score
- 0
Comparatively looks like the newer model has fins closer to the body
RAAD 2
- Thread starter khanasifm
- Start date
JamD
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,238
- Reaction score
- 94
- Country
- Location
Fan made or official?
Maybe a stupid thought but can we put Raads on C130s? One under each wing and 4 under belly?....a formation of 3 C130s flying within Pakistani territory lauching 18 Raads simultaneously for a saturation attack on a key enemy target ~400km from international border!
syed_yusuf
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,774
- Reaction score
- 0
Why not babur alcm version
I dont really know the difference between Raad and babur....so whichever is better/suitable i guess could be considered.
CHI RULES
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2015
- Messages
- 1,947
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
Babur is ground attack version. designed to be launched from missile launchers, meanwhile Raad is air to ground version prepared for PAF.
JamD
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,238
- Reaction score
- 94
- Country
- Location
Wrong thread. I didn't post that picture here because that is the Raad ONE not Raad TWO.
Deino
INT'L MOD
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
- Messages
- 12,780
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
But why Ra'ad-I and not the improved -II?
Probably because it’s already operational with stocks?
Deino
INT'L MOD
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
- Messages
- 12,780
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
Pardon, in case I missed your point; Since when is Ra'ad-II operational with the JF-17?
I was speculating. What I meant was the missile system RAAD 1 is operational and may have significant numbers already produced so having it integrated on JFT would make sense. Raad 2 which has been tested very recently may still take some time to reach maturity and production.
Ali_Baba
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 27, 2018
- Messages
- 6,417
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
The integration of Ra'ad 1 onto the JF17 is fantastic news. Pakistans own storm shadow missile at a fraction of the price.
I guess, it indicates that PAF/PAC wanted to do the integration itself, versus do it within China. Mostly to gain the experience of weapons integration of a platform it understands with a view of extrapolating that experience into integration of weapons systems it does not understand eg the integration of Turkish weapons and systems onto the JF17 itself. There is a learning process with all of this.
Fianlly some good news on the JF17 front for weapons integration.
I wonder when we can see the integration of the H2/H4 series onto the platform?
( Can the H-4 be upgraded to be autonomous versus TV guided ? ) ?
Could we see the integration of the PAF/PN stock of Exocets onto the JF17? Granted, not as capable as the latest anti-ship weapons on the JF17 has, but you don't always need to fire the latest weapons at somebody to a) send a shot across the bows as a warning ... b) small vessels that may not have sophisticated defensive measures, eg corvettes etc?
It would be a shame to leave some weapons / missile stockpiles behind just because the host platforms are being retired and the weapons are still relevant, capable.
I guess, it indicates that PAF/PAC wanted to do the integration itself, versus do it within China. Mostly to gain the experience of weapons integration of a platform it understands with a view of extrapolating that experience into integration of weapons systems it does not understand eg the integration of Turkish weapons and systems onto the JF17 itself. There is a learning process with all of this.
Fianlly some good news on the JF17 front for weapons integration.
I wonder when we can see the integration of the H2/H4 series onto the platform?
( Can the H-4 be upgraded to be autonomous versus TV guided ? ) ?
Could we see the integration of the PAF/PN stock of Exocets onto the JF17? Granted, not as capable as the latest anti-ship weapons on the JF17 has, but you don't always need to fire the latest weapons at somebody to a) send a shot across the bows as a warning ... b) small vessels that may not have sophisticated defensive measures, eg corvettes etc?
It would be a shame to leave some weapons / missile stockpiles behind just because the host platforms are being retired and the weapons are still relevant, capable.
Last edited:
Bilal Khan (Quwa)
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2016
- Messages
- 7,004
- Reaction score
- 97
- Country
- Location
I think H-2/H-4 is a legacy weapon. The ideal course would be to replace it with the Raptor III (call it 'H-6') and use that from aboard the JF-17. The concept is similar as the H-2/H-4 -- i.e., very large warhead (600 kg) and ability to fly from stand-off ranges, except the range is much longer (280 km vs. 120 km of the H-4). The Raptor III is almost a hybrid of sorts of a gliding SOW (like H-2/H-4) and a cruise missile due to it having an air-breathing engine (and a good airframe design).
