What's new

IRIAF | News and Discussions

siegecrossbow

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Aug 19, 2010
4,801
5
6,590
Country
China
Location
United States
The main bottleneck, turbofan, is resolving gradually. When we started we were back compared to Tejas and Kaveri. Now we are ahead. We used to look at Kaveri and Tejas and wish we were there just 10 years ago.

China has spent 100 billion in turbofan industry and does not use a single domestic turbofan yet.

I am happy with these results. Turbofan technology does not come overnight.
Sorry but this is bogus information. WS-10 has been used on J-11B and J-16s exclusively since the 2010s and they are confident enough to use them on the J-10C, a single engines fighter.

 

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
3,113
-10
5,164
Country
United States
Location
United States
I also have my doubts about relaying too much on any drone linked to a ground control being used in an air to air combat..US has some of the most sophisticated jamming systems next to Russia.
Drones are great when your enemy is not sophisticated...any combat with US in the air will not end well for iran..recognize your weak points and hit the enemy where they hurt the most...US weak point with Iran is their staging grounds and supply lines...hit them hard and destroy as much as you can in sea and ground before they get airborne....
Ground control is simply awful, one should look at no further than the amount of Iranian drones that have crashed in its own country.

Sattelite is better but as we saw with RQ-170 it’s vulnerable. Against an Adversary like US that likely already has space based weapons (project Aurora) it is a death sentence for Iran.

I support supersonic high altitude UAV bombers that can fly pre determined bombing routes on fixed targets in abscene of operator. But that is to complement the manned Air Force and missile force. I don’t support this obsession with all unmanned Air Force. People are seriously underestimating the technology required for that to be feasible.
 

Sina-1

FULL MEMBER
Sep 15, 2016
829
1
2,786
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Sweden
Because unmanned systems are simply not at the level to significantly replace manned systems when it comes to air to air roles. Not today and not for a while. Have a read of the below article regarding this topic:

No, Elon Musk: The Era Of The Manned Fighter Jet Won’t Be Over Anytime Soon
It's interesting you chose Elon as an example here. He leapfrogged the auto industry with Tesla and the entire rocket industry with SpaceX. He proved everybody wrong on both occasions. I trust his instincts as engineer, AI-practitioner and proven disruptive force over a legacy bound has-been pilot.


This is why this is being taken at the steps of first integrating these UCAVs with the manned systems and then improve on from there.
That is of course one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that legacy based organisations are slow to adapt to new solutions. We are not bound to a legacy and we should exploit that fact and not become followers of the current status quo.

Both in terms of object identification and strategic multilevel AI we are much more ahead than you would think. The following links are open source applications. The level of AI implemented in big cooperations are in fact 5 years ahead.

Object identification with Mask R-CNN;

Multiagent AI
The above is only to demonstrate the capabilities of the algorithm. For mor information se below site and paper
Here is the AI company Deepmind which has produced an algorithm that defeated Go world champion. Go has 10 to the power of 170 possible configurations and requires multilevel strategic thinking.

With current algorithms it is not only possible to identify eveything! The AI can strategise THOUSANDS of scenarios per SECOND! And that is today! That number is multiplies each year. How many scenarios can a pilot strategise each second? NONE! Combine that with the restricted g-force a pilot can sustain (-2 to 9 g) and the outcome should be quite clear.

For me there is no doubt whatsoever that IRGC is working on unmanned AI vehicles today. The benefits are quite obvious! Everything else is a waste of resource.
 

sha ah

FULL MEMBER
Mar 2, 2018
694
0
920
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
Drones should be considered as a part of a countries airforce, rather than a separate asset altogether

it wasn't so much Azerbaijan vs Armenia as it was Azerbaijan vs Artsakh (Nagorno_Karabakh)

Most of the Armenian military stayed in their barracks. That's the truth. Artsakh has never been recognized as part of Armenia by Armenia itself.

It's like what eastern Ukraine is to Russia, except Armenia has a population of 3 million and not nearly as much resources at its disposal.

In any case, if you take Azerbaijans airforce into consideration, then you have to consider those Israeli drones, loitering munitions, helicopters, etc along with the priceless help that Azerbaijan received from Turkish drones, not to mention the satellite intelligence Turkey provided as well.

So if you consider all that then Azerbaijan definitely had the edge over the Armenians of Artsakh (Nagorno_Karabakh) when it came to air power.

Even if you compare Azerbaijans airforce to Armenia directly then you have to take the Israeli and Turkish drones and assets into consideration. In that case, even compared to Armenia proper, you could argue that Azerbaijan has a better airforce.

If you just want to consider conventional fighter jets then it's a different story, but that's my point. UAVs should be considered as being a part of an airforce, rather than a separate entity.

Realistically though, in the big picture Azerbaijan and Armenia, Both nations have minuscule and relatively insignificant airforces and Azerbaijan did not significantly deploy their fighter jets simply because of the risk involved.

The Armenians had decent air defenses. Decent enough to shoot down atleast 100+ Azeri drones, helicopters, loitering munitions and other aircraft. Armenians claim they shot down 200, but let's say we give them the Azeri side the benefit of the doubt.

Anyways, If the Azeris would have deployed their jets, then Armenians would have probably done the same, perhaps deploying their jets and most likely deploying the S-300 against Azeri jets. Azeris claim to have destroyed an S-300 SAM but they never showed any solid evidence.

In any case, for a small country like Azerbaijan or Armenia to lose a fighter jet is a huge loss, humiliating and a massive morale boost for the other side. Look at how Syrians celebrated on the streets when that one Israeli F-16 was shot down a few years ago.

Look at what happened a few years ago when Turkey shot down that Russian jet near the Syrian border. If that had been a Russian drone, it wouldn't have mattered nearly as much as it did.

When Iran shot down the RQ-4, Trump decided not to retaliate. If it had been a fighter jet with an American pilot or a plane with several officers, then Trump would have had no choice but to retaliate.

Anyways drones are definitely integral to any modern day conflict. Mainly because they're cheaper and if they're shot down there is no life lost, no pilot that you had to train for years, no tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars lost.

Yet at the same time, in a total war scenario, countries WILL deploy fighter jets and fighter jets have a significant advantage over drones.

Most drones cannot launch BVR missiles and even if they can, jets can do the same but in a BVR contest, jets can deploy counter measures like flares and are highly maneuverable. Drones don't have those options.

Perhaps in the future drones will become more maneuverable and they will be able to deploy flares and other counter measures to avoid BVR missiles, BUT, the thing about a drone is that it can be jammed, hacked, as we saw with the RQ-170.

A drone can be hacked and then used by the enemy to destroy their own targets. However a fighter pilot is never going to follow orders to hit his own base or kill his own forces. That's the thing, having both, a hybrid airforce, is the best option.


Lets not forget the AZ-AR was again. The country with far inferior Airforce won the war. AZ won with UCAV.

Myth busted again:
“No country has won a war without superior airforce” Another wrong example.


Air Force is not air power. UCAV will give you air power.

We absolutely need a better Air Force and we will gradually advance when our turbofan matures.

Yet, we already have a good air power.
 

VEVAK

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 24, 2013
2,313
1
3,336
We have that today! Bavar 373 acquisition radar and Iranian OTH radars together with our current UCAVs are proof of very advanced AI object identification capability.



You are thinking in conventional terms. Future UCAVs will not approach manned aircraft like other manned aircraft would. There will be a much intricate strategy where both air based and ground based assets will completely overrun the manned aircraft. Just think of this. One JSF cost 500 million $. How many advanced and mission dedicated and different unmanned systems would you be able to build with that money. Even if one unmanned asset would cost 1 M$, which I think is too high, that would still make 500 assets versus 1.




Agree that we need to build our own passenger jets but that's it IMO.



I'm glad we didn't. A much more simple canard fighter would have solved the same requirements. Hopefully there will be no manned aircraft whatsoever.




Nothing easy about it. In worse case they need to put counter weights all over the aircraft and that is a maintenance nightmare since then they have individual schematics for each and every aircraft in the inventory.



I would say I know basics when it comes to aircraft. Both in terms of design and in terms actually flying them. So in no way I would call myself an expert. However I have basic understanding. As an engineer however, there is nothing in the current configuration of the Q-313 that points to it being such a trash design that you are suggesting. It is absolutely an unconventional design. And those are inherently much more high risk. That is why they are called unconventional.
On the other hand, Iran can in no way play catch up with is advisories. We will lose in every scenario where we try to play catch up. We do not have the manpower or the resources. The only way is to go unconventional.

When the world laughed at us and said no way BM can be used to pinpoint accuracy. We went for the unconventional and totally proved everyone wrong.
Now we have forced the rest of the world to start investing in this sector as well, now that it is proven and obvious. Accurate BM is not unconventional anymore.

I am not saying that Q-313 will be our next disruptive weapon. But I am sure that Iran will make an air superiority aircraft and I am 100% sure that it will be very unconventional.
Iran's Bavar-373 along side 3rd of Khordad is most definitely one of Iran's greatest military achievements no doubt about it however Air Defense systems alone without fighters to back them up can and will most definitely get overwhelmed or overcome. And at the end of the day you can easily attack SAM system using various types of platforms at great distances. Where as attacking a supersonic Aircraft in the air at great distances is nearly impossible.
And clearly what we have seen happen in Syria is all the proof you need to understand the limitations of Air Defense SAM of all kinds shapes and sizes. Degheh cheghadr bayad sarremoon be sang bokhoreh to ean o befahmeem???

I fully understand the cost benefit analysis of Missiles and UCAV's over fighters jets especially ridicules imported ones that end up costing countries like Saudi Arabia upwards of $250 Million US to purchase, fly and maintain for 2 years (not including fuel costs) which would basically be equivalent to 500 Iranian Missiles... However every smart military leader and strategist knows that you can't put all your eggs in one basket and become a unidimensional military that knows nothing else but firing missiles.


As for your comment about the F-14 I would simply say it's because you don't know any better! If 2 decades ago Iran had chosen to move passed the F-5 and towards reverse engineering the F-14 with it they would have had to invest in various types of infrastructure and tools that are simply not required in the F-5 and that would have helped Iran develop any type of fighter it wanted canards or not!


As for the Q-313... you can easily slap on 4 RPG-7 on the karrar UCAV's and call it unconventional all you want but that doesn't mean it's useful or worth the cost

Q-313 design due to the shape, size and design of it's wings and canards will lack both speed and high speed maneuverability
Which means it's ability to run away or intercept anything is extremely limited
Which means it's ability to turn to counter incoming missiles extremely limited
Q-313 light composite Airframe also makes it an easy target for AAA and CIWS which reduces your ability to use cheaper ordinances
As for it's stealth characteristics even if they correct many of the imperfections on the frame the Q-313 canopy makes it's stealth design rather useless
Also you have to realize that they have designed a twin engine fighter that only has the capability to carry 2 ordinances
And it may be early to say but I'm betting repair and maintenance will likely be far greater than what it should be compared to what it brings in terms of capability

You also have to take into account Iran's production capacity! Fact is Iran's current production capacity on the simple F-5 after years and years of development is only about 3 aircrafts a year and even if they had reverse engineered the F-14 that production capacity would have likely remained about the same
however in terms of capability adding 2-3 F-14's to your fleet a year would have had far greater effect and would have been far more valuable than adding twice as many F-5's or Kosar's or Q-313's

In fact I would take 1 F-14's over 4 Kosars or Q-313's any day!
 

Sina-1

FULL MEMBER
Sep 15, 2016
829
1
2,786
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Sweden
Iran's Bavar-373 along side 3rd of Khordad is most definitely one of Iran's greatest military achievements no doubt about it however Air Defense systems alone without fighters to back them up can and will most definitely get overwhelmed or overcome. And at the end of the day you can easily attack SAM system using various types of platforms at great distances. Where as attacking a supersonic Aircraft in the air at great distances is nearly impossible.
And clearly what we have seen happen in Syria is all the proof you need to understand the limitations of Air Defense SAM of all kinds shapes and sizes. Degheh cheghadr bayad sarremoon be sang bokhoreh to ean o befahmeem???
I only took the radars as example to prove the AI capabities we already have. I didn't say it is enough with AD.

As for your comment about the F-14 I would simply say it's because you don't know any better! If 2 decades ago Iran had chosen to move passed the F-5 and towards reverse engineering the F-14 with it they would have had to invest in various types of infrastructure and tools that are simply not required in the F-5 and that would have helped Iran develop any type of fighter it wanted canards or not!
Fact of the matter is that a f5 sized craft (for example gripen) can do more er less the same things today that f14 could do 40-50 years ago. So if you think that f14 in its current configuration is the way to go, then we have to agree to disagree. I do not see what a swept-wing aircraft has anything to do in a modern airforce.

Q-313 design due to the shape, size and design of it's wings and canards will lack both speed and high speed maneuverability
Which means it's ability to run away or intercept anything is extremely limited
Which means it's ability to turn to counter incoming missiles extremely limited
Q-313 light composite Airframe also makes it an easy target for AAA and CIWS which reduces your ability to use cheaper ordinances
As for it's stealth characteristics even if they correct many of the imperfections on the frame the Q-313 canopy makes it's stealth design rather useless
Also you have to realize that they have designed a twin engine fighter that only has the capability to carry 2 ordinances
And it may be early to say but I'm betting repair and maintenance will likely be far greater than what it should be compared to what it brings in terms of capability
Could you please provide an engineering analysis on the claims you make above? I do not have the capability to make these conclusion just by looking at something.

You also have to take into account Iran's production capacity! Fact is Iran's current production capacity on the simple F-5 after years and years of development is only about 3 aircrafts a year and even if they had reverse engineered the F-14 that production capacity would have likely remained about the same
however in terms of capability adding 2-3 F-14's to your fleet a year would have had far greater effect and would have been far more valuable than adding twice as many F-5's or Kosar's or Q-313's

In fact I would take 1 F-14's over 4 Kosars or Q-313's any day!
And I am glad that those in charge in Iran have had the foresight not to throw away resources on dead-end projects. So again, we have to agree to disagree.
 

Shawnee

FULL MEMBER
Jan 22, 2020
1,167
0
2,017
Country
United States
Location
United Kingdom
Sorry but this is bogus information. WS-10 has been used on J-11B and J-16s exclusively since the 2010s and they are confident enough to use them on the J-10C, a single engines fighter.

That was a test at low g. Ws-10 was under testing as far as I remember likely from 1990s.

Yet, China is almost there. They have made a three digits engines and they are incorporating them into the platforms but so far only for tests.

Earlier Chinese engines suffered “quality” issues related to insufficient materials and early direct use of control systems from an AL-31F. Some components of the engines are Russian and Chinese components are integrated in between them, gradually increasing the Chinese part.

Testing manoeuvres greater than 8g likely never occurred before 2013.
 
Last edited:

siegecrossbow

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Aug 19, 2010
4,801
5
6,590
Country
China
Location
United States
That was a test at low g. Ws-10 was under testing as far as I remember likely from 1990s.

Yet, China is almost there. They have made a three digits engines and they are incorporating them into the platforms but so far only for tests.

Earlier Chinese engines suffered “quality” issues related to insufficient materials and early direct use of control systems from an AL-31F. Some components of the engines are Russian and Chinese components are integrated in between them, gradually increasing the Chinese part.

Testing manoeuvres greater than 8g likely never occurred before 2013.
I'm afraid this is inaccurate news. WS-10 equipped J-11B have been conducting intercepts since 2014. If they are just "testing" the engines then they wouldn't have equipped frontline units.


Ditto for J-16. No J-16 has ever been seen with Russian engines and they have equipped frontline units and participated in actions along the Taiwan strait.

 

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
3,113
-10
5,164
Country
United States
Location
United States
It's interesting you chose Elon as an example here. He leapfrogged the auto industry with Tesla and the entire rocket industry with SpaceX. He proved everybody wrong on both occasions. I trust his instincts as engineer, AI-practitioner and proven disruptive force over a legacy bound has-been pilot.




That is of course one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that legacy based organisations are slow to adapt to new solutions. We are not bound to a legacy and we should exploit that fact and not become followers of the current status quo.

Both in terms of object identification and strategic multilevel AI we are much more ahead than you would think. The following links are open source applications. The level of AI implemented in big cooperations are in fact 5 years ahead.

Object identification with Mask R-CNN;

Multiagent AI
The above is only to demonstrate the capabilities of the algorithm. For mor information se below site and paper
Here is the AI company Deepmind which has produced an algorithm that defeated Go world champion. Go has 10 to the power of 170 possible configurations and requires multilevel strategic thinking.

With current algorithms it is not only possible to identify eveything! The AI can strategise THOUSANDS of scenarios per SECOND! And that is today! That number is multiplies each year. How many scenarios can a pilot strategise each second? NONE! Combine that with the restricted g-force a pilot can sustain (-2 to 9 g) and the outcome should be quite clear.

For me there is no doubt whatsoever that IRGC is working on unmanned AI vehicles today. The benefits are quite obvious! Everything else is a waste of resource.
Are you seriously comparing an algo that can tell a person from a car (simple identification) to an AI system that is needed to differentiate a civilian on the ground from a military soldier at 40,000 altitude?

Like I said you are over estimating the technology. What you what is 15-20 years away. And Iran lacks the satellite network to make the data sharing even feesible. Huge risks remain relying on a satellite network during war when the enemy will seek to destroy all your satellites. Then what? Now all your fancy AI toys are useless.
 

Philosopher

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 5, 2020
3,336
16
8,668
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
United Kingdom
It's interesting you chose Elon as an example here. He leapfrogged the auto industry with Tesla and the entire rocket industry with SpaceX. He proved everybody wrong on both occasions. I trust his instincts as engineer, AI-practitioner and proven disruptive force over a legacy bound has-been pilot.
You were given that article because it explains to you the reason why this notions that UAVs will replace manned platforms anytime soon, is not correct. Regarding Elon, he has indeed made some decent products, but that does not mean he knows what he is talking about when it comes to UAVs. He has also made some questionable pursuits, such as his hyperloop. But this conversation is not about him, but the technicalities behind using UAVs in an air to air roles (as one example).


That is of course one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that legacy based organisations are slow to adapt to new solutions. We are not bound to a legacy and we should exploit that fact and not become followers of the current status quo.

Both in terms of object identification and strategic multilevel AI we are much more ahead than you would think. The following links are open source applications. The level of AI implemented in big cooperations are in fact 5 years ahead.

With current algorithms it is not only possible to identify eveything! The AI can strategise THOUSANDS of scenarios per SECOND! And that is today! That number is multiplies each year. How many scenarios can a pilot strategise each second? NONE! Combine that with the restricted g-force a pilot can sustain (-2 to 9 g) and the outcome should be quite clear.

For me there is no doubt whatsoever that IRGC is working on unmanned AI vehicles today. The benefits are quite obvious! Everything else is a waste of resource.
These technologies are simply not comparable nor at the level to create a competent UAV platforms that could challenge a manned platforms in a military context. The issue is not whether it will happen to a significant level at some point in the future, I already said it will, but this is about short-mid term. You're greatly underestimating the level of AI needed to adequately replace a human being in a military context. The technology will come, but not anytime soon. In the meantime, like I explained, the next step will be to integrate UAVs with manned platforms. This will also greatly increase the learning process for these AI systems.
 

Sina-1

FULL MEMBER
Sep 15, 2016
829
1
2,786
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Sweden
You were given that article because it explains to you the reason why this notions that UAVs will replace manned platforms anytime soon, is not correct. Regarding Elon, he has indeed made some decent products, but that does not mean he knows what he is talking about when it comes to UAVs. He has also made some questionable pursuits, such as his hyperloop. But this conversation is not about him, but the technicalities behind using UAVs in an air to air roles (as one example).
Lets make something clear here. There is no definitive fact here. The article is not a proof of anything. It's a matter of opinion. There are different views at play. You want to believe in the author of that article. Fine. You are free to do so. I go with Elon any day of the week. You and me can also agree to disagree.

These technologies are simply not comparable nor at the level to create a competent UAV platforms that could challenge a manned platforms in a military context. The issue is not whether it will happen to a significant level at some point in the future, I already said it will, but this is about short-mid term. You're greatly underestimating the level of AI needed to adequately replace a human being in a military context. The technology will come, but not anytime soon. In the meantime, like I explained, the next step will be to integrate UAVs with manned platforms. This will also greatly increase the learning process for these AI systems.
Again we have to agree to disagree. Future will surely tell.
Furthermore you stance on producing both a manned and an unmanned is a matter of opinion, not a fact. It just happens to be the current outlined strategy in west and east. My take is that Iran needs to risk it and leapfrog. Could I be wrong? Absolutely! I completely agree that my way is the more risky one. However, my opinion is that it is the best alternative for Iran. That is my opinion and I stick to it.
 

Philosopher

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 5, 2020
3,336
16
8,668
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
United Kingdom
Lets make something clear here. There is no definitive fact here. The article is not a proof of anything. It's a matter of opinion. There are different views at play. You want to believe in the author of that article. Fine. You are free to do so. I go with Elon any day of the week. You and me can also agree to disagree.


Again we have to agree to disagree. Future will surely tell.
Furthermore you stance on producing both a manned and an unmanned is a matter of opinion, not a fact. It just happens to be the current outlined strategy in west and east. My take is that Iran needs to risk it and leapfrog. Could I be wrong? Absolutely! I completely agree that my way is the more risky one. However, my opinion is that it is the best alternative for Iran. That is my opinion and I stick to it.
This is not just a western strategy, as I mentioned previously, the head of IRIAF has already stated they are moving to start integrating UAVs with their manned planes. If breakthroughs are made in AI that allows for the sort of leapfrogs you're referring to in the short term, then we will see them, however what I described will be the natural progression in terms of conventional airpower. Now having said that, we already know the IRGC follows their own unique path, hence I could certainly see them focusing solely on UAVs. Matter of fact, I expect to see this. A swarm of cheap, semi-autonomous or even autonomous UAV with "good enough" algorithms to overwhelm enemy fighter jets via sheer numbers is something I could see from the IRGC.

One thing is for sure, Iran needs to hurry up and start showing its next generation UAVs. It's been almost 10 years since Shahed-129 and we have seen nothing major since. Sejill, Ghadir will be shown soon but once again, Iran needs to show itself to be a pioneering nation in UAVs and their uses, in this case in the Air to air domain. Hopefully with the arrival of our jet engines, stealthy UCAVs will start being designed and produced by Iran in a similar way we have seen the piston ones.
 

Sina-1

FULL MEMBER
Sep 15, 2016
829
1
2,786
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Sweden
This is not just a western strategy, as I mentioned previously, the head of IRIAF has already stated they are moving to start integrating UAVs with their manned planes. If breakthroughs are made in AI that allows for the sort of leapfrogs you're referring to in the short term, then we will see them, however what I described will be the natural progression in terms of conventional airpower. Now having said that, we already know the IRGC follows their own unique path, hence I could certainly see them focusing solely on UAVs. Matter of fact, I expect to see this. A swarm of cheap, semi-autonomous or even autonomous UAV with "good enough" algorithms to overwhelm enemy fighter jets via sheer numbers is something I could see from the IRGC.

One thing is for sure, Iran needs to hurry up and start showing its next generation UAVs. It's been almost 10 years since Shahed-129 and we have seen nothing major since. Sejill, Ghadir will be shown soon but once again, Iran needs to show itself to be a pioneering nation in UAVs and their uses, in this case in the Air to air domain. Hopefully with the arrival of our jet engines, stealthy UCAVs will start being designed and produced by Iran in a similar way we have seen the piston ones.
We’re in agreement!
 

Shawnee

FULL MEMBER
Jan 22, 2020
1,167
0
2,017
Country
United States
Location
United Kingdom
this is why Iran didn't tried to copy f-14

It's pure titanium
This is a question that will be asked many many times. Why not F14? Why F5? Why not both?

This is my take on it. It is multifactorial. Main reason was availability. There are other reasons as well such as feasibility, cost and expertise.

When you want to reverse engineer an engine you want to have a good inventory of the engine to support the design process. I will make China as an example who leads us in Turbofan reverse engineering. They imported literally more than a thousand of Russian engines for different purposes. They had ample support for reverse engineering. They initially made predominantly Russian engines with only limited Chinese parts and gradually advanced the Chinese portion. Dismantling the Russian engines helped them to achieve that. They had several failures leading to losing multiple engines.
A single failure leads to losing an engine and it means losing a few million dollars.

When Iran started this process they had a good support for F5. We were always short of F14 support.

There are other engines going through the process such as RD33 or civilian engines.
 
Last edited:

VEVAK

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 24, 2013
2,313
1
3,336
I only took the radars as example to prove the AI capabities we already have. I didn't say it is enough with AD.



Fact of the matter is that a f5 sized craft (for example gripen) can do more er less the same things today that f14 could do 40-50 years ago. So if you think that f14 in its current configuration is the way to go, then we have to agree to disagree. I do not see what a swept-wing aircraft has anything to do in a modern airforce.



Could you please provide an engineering analysis on the claims you make above? I do not have the capability to make these conclusion just by looking at something.



And I am glad that those in charge in Iran have had the foresight not to throw away resources on dead-end projects. So again, we have to agree to disagree.

You wanna know why the Q-313 will have trouble turning at high speeds? fine!

1606478607167.png


That area in red is the canards main elevator it is the main component that allows the aircraft to turn on it's Pitch and Roll axis

now i'm hoping I don't have to go into great detail as to why this Airframe has a comparatively limited ability to turn at high speeds because it's rather obvious
The size of your control surfaces, it's design and the degree of how they elevate and move up and down
put up against what they have to counter (Air frame's fuselage + two main wing + 2 fixed sections of the canards + 2 stabilizers + wind and airflow resistances + Gravitational resistance)

As for the speed of the Q-313, the angle of the wings, the fixed section of the canard, the thickness of wings and lack of slats,.... all put limitations on your cruise and max speed output

And the idea that today's upgraded F-5 kosar is even comparable to the F-14 in terms of capability is beyond absurd! F-5's shortcomings in combat range & payload capacity is NOT something you can makeup for with a bunch of new electronics

And I don't care about the F-14 wings for all I care they could have replaced them with fixed wings
And the whole point in reverse engineering the F-14 would be to develop the tools needed to produce a viable domestic fighter and NOT get stuck on an outdated American design

And investing in the Q-313 and fixating on the F-5 is literally throwing away money at dead end projects! So clearly you have got that backwards!
If they had chosen the F-14 we would of had many of the infrastructure needed to build our own Fighters, bomber, transport & passenger aircrafts!
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom