What's new

IRIAF | News and Discussions

OldTwilight

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 10, 2016
2,526
-1
3,485
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
What a beauty this J10C is. If Iran had 250 of these, and license to build it, wow that would be great. Add to this 80 J11s, and now Iran has an airforce.


I was wondering when this was going to come out. Still it is not all done. Keep fingers crossed. Two aspects of this will make lots of you in this forum pretty unhappy. But hey, it is what it is.
250 is over kill ...

I think we can have our way with 150 J10c or 120 su 30 ... if we can upgrade our Mig 29 , Su 24 and F14 , then we can have our ways with even 100 J10c with 50 Su30 ....

after all , all these fighters are 4 gen and spending so much on 4th gen fighter is not wise ...

anyway , if I have a say , I would buy both Su-30 From Russia and J10c from China with same engine ... so in case of anything goes wrong with either country, another one could supply us ...
 
Last edited:

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
3,006
-10
4,894
Country
United States
Location
United States
250 is over kill ...

I think we can have our way with 150 J10c or 120 su 30 ... if we can upgrade our Mig 29 , Su 24 and F14 , then we can have our ways with even 100 J10c with 50 Su30 ....

after all , all these fighters are 4 gen and spending so much on 4th gen fighter is not wise ...

anyway , if I have a say , I would buy both Su-30 From Russia and J10c from China with same engine ... so in case of anything goes wrong with either country, another one could supply us ...
Other country cannot supply engine of Russian engine without re-export permit. So if Russia doesn’t allow it, it would be unlikely that they would allow China too.
 

sha ah

FULL MEMBER
Mar 2, 2018
603
0
757
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
China has never cared much about permits when it comes to copying weapons, especially Russian/Soviet weapons. In any case, any jet that Iran buys has to come with technology transfer clause anyways.

Other country cannot supply engine of Russian engine without re-export permit. So if Russia doesn’t allow it, it would be unlikely that they would allow China too.
I've heard that even the US cannot launch more than 200-300 cruise missiles in one salvo. I might be mistaken but that's what I've heard.

Only countries with nuclear power can be assure that enemy won't devastated their air base and their infrastructure in first place in near future big war ....

so , even air force survivability is depend on having nukes ... or else even a regional power can start a war with more than 500 cruise missiles in first wave and at lease send 5-10 missiles against each air base ... super power can start war with more than 3000 cruise missiles and thousands guided air to ground missiles and bomb ... after that they will targer powerhouse and petrochemical and fuel storages ...

the only salvation is to have nuclear arsenal which you can use in all out war ...
The only reason Iran hasn't gone nuclear already and developed ICBMs is to attain the support of Russia and China for the JCPOA and for the procurement of various weapons systems. If the Russians and Chinese don't go through with serious weapons and economic deals, then Iran might as well go nuclear. As far as the Zionists go, they're not going to accept a nuclear Iran without raving and ranting like maniacs. If Iran were to go nuclear then they could say "See we were right all along, Iran is evil and is determined to destroy Israel, blah blah blah" Only time will tell how things will turn out.

If Iran goes (officially) Nuclear and Trump is reelected you will hear: "Iran is a great country, I swear, we will make the best deal in the World, good, intelligent guys these iranians." :cheesy:
(NO other option left except total destruction)
Look, with thicc Kimmi Boi it happened too.
Now you could say but the "Zionists".
Well, what can they do THEN? NOTHING.
The best would be THEN a FAIR (forced because of the circumstances) PEACE.
Shall prosperity and new shine come for (Shia version) of Persian Empire.
Couldn't harm the world as a counterbalance to so many others ... I like a multipolar world, in balance, rather unpleasant when ONE (and his followers) can decide how the world has to function.
 
Last edited:

sahureka2

FULL MEMBER
Apr 23, 2016
785
0
2,371
Country
Italy
Location
Italy
China has never cared much about permits when it comes to copying weapons, especially Russian/Soviet weapons. In any case, any jet that Iran buys has to come with technology transfer clause anyways.
the problem is different, the russian engines used by the chinese are supplied directly from russia and not made under license, for what the chinese try to build the WS-10 to re-power the J-11, or the WS-13 to re-power the JF -17 which currently uses the Russian RD-93 engine also supplied directly by Russia.
Therefore if you want Chinese aircraft with Russian engines, you need the Moscow permit for re-export, otherwise you have to buy Chinese aircraft with Chinese engines and this does not involve the standardization indicated if you also buy the SU-30
 

zectech

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 12, 2018
2,952
-1
3,552
Country
Italy
Location
Netherlands
he is saying that i'm disappointed , i found thare is no purchase for air force yet and what DM said was that they ( Russians ) just going to upgrade there fighter jets that Iran has.
:rofl: Iran and Russia, friends forever! :sarcastic:

Don't worry Iran, I am sure after Netanyahu approves the deal, Iran will be sold some SU-57s.
 

zectech

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 12, 2018
2,952
-1
3,552
Country
Italy
Location
Netherlands
Last edited:

Oldman1

SENIOR MEMBER
May 28, 2011
7,391
1
3,484
Country
United States
Location
United States
I've heard that even the US cannot launch more than 200-300 cruise missiles in one salvo. I might be mistaken but that's what I've heard.
Where you heard that from? Because that's a load of BS. 2 U.S. naval ships launched 60 cruise missiles in Syria. So imagine a whole entire battlegroup alone. Not to mention submarines and aircraft.
 

sha ah

FULL MEMBER
Mar 2, 2018
603
0
757
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
I'm assuming that you're talking about the April 2018 missile strike on Syria, which was conducted jointly by the US, France and the UK.

According to the US narrative, 105 missiles were launched by the US, UK, France, not just the US. Of course there are two diverging narratives when it comes what happened that night.

The US claims they hit every single target with 100% accuracy. Russia claims that 71 or 103 missiles were intercepted.

The US disputes the Russian narrative however Russia later showed off remnants of Tomahawks that had been allegedly intercepted.

Also according to the US narrative 76 missiles hit the Barzah Research and Development Center and another 29 hit a chemical weapons storage site at Him Shinshar.

Most military however analysts doubt the US narrative because the very next day there were pictures of Barzah released showing buildings still standing on the site with no sign that 76 missiles had hit the area.

Also the missiles that supposedly hit the chemical weapons storage facility left absolutely no debris of any chemicals and no secondary explosions.

I don't really want to get into a debate on this topic but the US doesn't really have very good credibility when it comes to things like this.

Remember the WMDs in Iraq ? Or the RQ-4 which flew in international airspace yet somehow Iranian fishermen and navy salvaged the remains ? Or how Trump stated that "all was well" after the Iranian missile strike on Al Asad and then later we found out that 12, then 30, then 60, then finally over 100 US soldiers had suffered traumatic brain injuries ?

There's a saying, in war the first casualty is the truth. And in war there's always a propaganda war simultaneously being waged by warring sides. In Vietnam the US even used weird tactics like playing the sounds of wailing restless Vietnamese ghosts to try and scare and demoralize the Vietcong.

So when it comes to things like this, you always have to take analyze diverging statements with a pinch of salt. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

Anyways, 200-300 cruise missiles sounds pretty reasonable for one single volley. In the entire 1991 Gulf war the US used 288 Tomahawks. If you disagree then what are you saying ? The US would launch 500 in one volley ? or 1000 ? When have we ever seen them do anything like that ?

Where you heard that from? Because that's a load of BS. 2 U.S. naval ships launched 60 cruise missiles in Syria. So imagine a whole entire battlegroup alone. Not to mention submarines and aircraft.
 

Ich

FULL MEMBER
Mar 14, 2018
586
0
762
Country
Germany
Location
Germany
Anyways, 200-300 cruise missiles sounds pretty reasonable for one single volley. In the entire 1991 Gulf war the US used 288 Tomahawks. If you disagree then what are you saying ? The US would launch 500 in one volley ? or 1000 ? When have we ever seen them do anything like that ?
It is possible. Launch not only from naval, but also from air. Me think 500 at once is possible. Two waves of that also. But these would be mostly subsonic.
 

Oldman1

SENIOR MEMBER
May 28, 2011
7,391
1
3,484
Country
United States
Location
United States
I'm assuming that you're talking about the April 2018 missile strike on Syria, which was conducted jointly by the US, France and the UK.

According to the US narrative, 105 missiles were launched by the US, UK, France, not just the US. Of course there are two diverging narratives when it comes what happened that night.

The US claims they hit every single target with 100% accuracy. Russia claims that 71 or 103 missiles were intercepted.

The US disputes the Russian narrative however Russia later showed off remnants of Tomahawks that had been allegedly intercepted.

Also according to the US narrative 76 missiles hit the Barzah Research and Development Center and another 29 hit a chemical weapons storage site at Him Shinshar.

Most military however analysts doubt the US narrative because the very next day there were pictures of Barzah released showing buildings still standing on the site with no sign that 76 missiles had hit the area.

Also the missiles that supposedly hit the chemical weapons storage facility left absolutely no debris of any chemicals and no secondary explosions.

I don't really want to get into a debate on this topic but the US doesn't really have very good credibility when it comes to things like this.

Remember the WMDs in Iraq ? Or the RQ-4 which flew in international airspace yet somehow Iranian fishermen and navy salvaged the remains ? Or how Trump stated that "all was well" after the Iranian missile strike on Al Asad and then later we found out that 12, then 30, then 60, then finally over 100 US soldiers had suffered traumatic brain injuries ?

There's a saying, in war the first casualty is the truth. And in war there's always a propaganda war simultaneously being waged by warring sides. In Vietnam the US even used weird tactics like playing the sounds of wailing restless Vietnamese ghosts to try and scare and demoralize the Vietcong.

So when it comes to things like this, you always have to take analyze diverging statements with a pinch of salt. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

Anyways, 200-300 cruise missiles sounds pretty reasonable for one single volley. In the entire 1991 Gulf war the US used 288 Tomahawks. If you disagree then what are you saying ? The US would launch 500 in one volley ? or 1000 ? When have we ever seen them do anything like that ?
Really? You based on how many were launched during Gulf War 1? So less than 300 were launched during that conflict? Okay how about during 2003 Invasion of Iraq when more than 800 missiles were launched? Or back during Operation Desert Fox in 1998 more than 400 were launched? Come on you got to do better than that. That's like saying U.S. launched a few aircraft in this so and so conflict so that must mean they can only launch a dozen aircraft. Of course the Russians would like to deny and claim they shot down this many considering in the past how much Russian equipment has been destroyed in Libya and Syria either by Israel and Turkey and so on. If there was a conflict with someone like Iran or China with that many targets, you will see something like 1000 or more being launched. All this with the SSGNs, and LRASMs that can be launched on smaller aircraft, etc. Yeah the first casualty would be the truth. Use the Iranian civilian plane being shot down and Iran saying they had nothing to do with it and admitted later they did as an example. I believe they try to sugar coat it by saying American EW was involved. Think its true?
 

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
367
2
681
Country
Belgium
Location
Pakistan
Wasn’t this in 2011 when J-11 participated in Anatolian Eagles?
What led you to this suspicion? Had you seen that same picture before?

I basically wrote down what the automated translation of the caption was saying.

Wouldn't have posted it if:

1) Reverse-image search on "Google" yielded results proving it is an older picture and that the description is faulty. In fact, the "Google" search gave no results at all, meaning that it was quite probably uploaded for the first time by the "Facebook" account where I found it.

2) The source was obviously an untrustworthy one. A rapid look at the page's other content however, did not strike me as containing disinformation.

Also, please pay attention to the circular patch on the pilot's suit: it clearly features the horizontal green-white-red colored stripes of the Iranian flag. Unless, of course, it was photoshopped, which I can't say.

Now I will admit I'm a bit unsure as to whether the picture was taken in Iran or perhaps in China in fact: the tree species outside the base, the soldier behind the aircraft and the type of camouflage on his uniform, the general layout of that section of the base and the concrete pavement, as well as the color of the barriers (green-blueish) visible in the background may look unfamiliar for an Iranian airbase... Then again it could indeed be Iran, who knows.

I'd say it's either Iran or China, due to the pilot really appearing to be Iranian. And Iran definitely never sent a pilot to participate in the Anatolian Eagles exercice.

If there's a particular reason why you mentioned the 2011 Anatolian Eagles event, I'd be interested to know.
 
Last edited:

siegecrossbow

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Aug 19, 2010
4,398
5
5,456
Country
China
Location
United States
What led you to this suspicion? Had you seen that same picture before?

I basically wrote down what the automated translation of the caption was saying.

Wouldn't have posted it if:

1) Reverse-image search on "Google" yielded results proving it is an older picture and that the description is faulty. In fact, the "Google" search gave no results at all, meaning that it was quite probably uploaded for the first time by the "Facebook" account where I found it.

2) The source was obviously an untrustworthy one. A rapid look at the page's other content however, did not strike me as containing disinformation.

Also, please pay attention to the circular patch on the pilot's suit: it clearly features the horizontal green-white-red colored stripes of the Iranian flag. Unless, of course, it was photoshopped, which I can't say.

Now I will admit I'm a bit unsure as to whether the picture was taken in Iran or perhaps in China in fact: the tree species outside the base, the soldier behind the aircraft and the type of camouflage on his uniform, the general layout of that section of the base and the concrete pavement, as well as the color of the barriers (green-blueish) visible in the background may look unfamiliar for an Iranian airbase... Then again it could indeed be Iran, who knows.

I'd say it's either Iran or China, due to the pilot really appearing to be Iranian. And Iran definitely never sent a pilot to participate in the Anatolian Eagles exercice.

If there's a particular reason why you mentioned the 2011 Anatolian Eagles event, I'd be interested to know.
I think PLAAF flankers Made a stop in Iran entourage to the Anatolian Eagles in 2011. I haven’t heard anything from Chinese channels since.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 7, Members: 1, Guests: 6)


Top Bottom