What's new

IRIAF | News and Discussions

VEVAK

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 24, 2013
2,309
1
3,325
No that is not how it works. The control surface (the red part) changes the overall lift of the entire surface. Therefore it is not only the control surface, but the entire canard that generates the lift.

Fixed canard with moving control surface on viggen
View attachment 692041
Moving canard on gripen
View attachment 692042

Obviously, gripens moving canard is a much more efficient design and the lifting surface can be made smaller because the entire surface is moving.



No its not really!



I am not sure what you are trying to say here. The force needed to create pitch is dependent on the distance between the neutral point and centre of gravity. Hence it does not really matter how the aircraft looks like when it comes this, rather what matters really is how the aircraft is trimmed (design trimmed not pilot trimmed), meaning that dependent on where the overall lift and overall weight of the aircraft is located. The smaller the distance is between CoG and NP, the less dF is needed to rotate the aircraft around the pitch axis.

View attachment 692046



still not convinced. we do not even know what the requirements of this aircraft is. So how can we even judge it when we do not know the full mission spec?



I would appreciate if you would stop miss-quoting me. I did not say F-5 or Kowsar is comparable to F-14. I said, and rightly so, that the 1970s design of F14 is completely outdated and today a small Gripen can do pretty much the same mission. If you want to argue against than then be my guest, but don't make up my arguments please.



What tools are you referring to?




No it is not. F-5 is mainly chosen to prepare for a future industrialisation of an Iranian aircraft. In contrast to F14 it is a simple and rational design and we have an abundance of them. The managers that had the foresight to begin simple and learn the basics first are heroes, just as Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam started with simple solid rockets before moving on to more advanced designs.



If you do not have an industrial base (as Iran did not have), this is not a viable plan. It is better to chose the most simple design to actually learn, not only reverse engineer, and then build your own products based on your own requirements. It's the only viable way.

Wrong! Sub Viggan uses high angled delta wings so it's flight dynamics are completely different

1606821496854.png


Also the Saab 37 had a jet engine with a diameter greater 1 meter and +28,000lbf max thrust and that allowed many of the design flaws to be overcome by pure thrust the F-4 is the same way many of the design flaws get overcome by pure thrust! Q-313 does not have that!


Q-313 due to the angle of the wings and canards + the end section of the wings (Wing tips) + 2 stabilizers will have trouble turning at high speeds and high altitudes (Comparatively)

Q-313 lack of thrust and absurd design flaws will have limited speeds and limited cruise speeds.
Q-313 is built to achieve most of its lift using it's wings while modern fighter jets mostly use their engines to do the heavy lifting for them!

I very much doubt the Q-313 could even approach Mach 1 but if it did the aircraft will likely start to shake which is the last thing you want on a composite frame with likely limited flexibility and stress capability

As for pitch and roll just listen to what your saying! You can't just take a single factor and totally disregard everything else! If that was the ONLY factor in maneuverability then Aircraft designers would have to be idi0ts to design and build control surfaces any larger than your hand and the fact that the aircraft can turn is not in question!
And again let me emphasize that the limitations of it's turn radius will mainly show itself at high speeds and or high altitudes!


As for Iran's F-5 projects it's one thing to start off with a simple design and quite another to fixate on one! Tehrani Moghadam NEVER fixated and get stuck on one thing because if he had he would have still been alive and working on artillery systems and in terms of missiles in a 20 year time span he went from the Frog-7 to the Fatteh-110 then to the Sejil and then the Qaem
And everything they worked on was better than the last and if he was to go based on your mentality he would have still been stuck on improving the Zelzal and Fateh series
And instead of looking at a 70's era Saab you should instead look at the improvements Saab made to that design and ask yourself why?

1606828021448.png
 
Last edited:

Sina-1

FULL MEMBER
Sep 15, 2016
827
1
2,773
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Sweden
Wrong! Sub Viggan uses high angled delta wings so it's flight dynamics are completely different
The double delta wing of viggen is due to lift issues much more than flight dynamics. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my points regarding basic and fundamental flight control which you simply disregarded with a rebuttal that is not on point.


Also the Saab 37 had a jet engine with a diameter greater 1 meter and +28,000lbf max thrust and that allowed many of the design flaws to be overcome by pure thrust the F-4 is the same way many of the design flaws get overcome by pure thrust! Q-313 does not have that!
Its not about thrust. Its about thrust over weight. Viggen had higher thrust than Gripen but the overall spec was worse because of a lower t/w.

Q-313 due to the angle of the wings and canards + the end section of the wings (Wing tips) + 2 stabilizers will have trouble turning at high speeds and high altitudes (Comparatively)
You are not understanding the basics still. The force needed depends on the distance between Np and CoG. If you introduce thrust vectoring to the equation then the aircraft can do much more with much less thrust.


Q-313 lack of thrust and absurd design flaws will have limited speeds and limited cruise speeds.
First of all we have not seen the final production model of Q313. So we really do not know the power plants it will have. Secondly as I outlined before, it is not important how much thrust it produces. The main spec is the t/w.

Q-313 is built to achieve most of its lift using it's wings while modern fighter jets mostly use their engines to do the heavy lifting for them!
lol NO! Seriously what are you on about? Sure many high end fighters have a t/w over 1 which in theary it means they can still generate lift even if the full airflow separation (turbulent flow - no lift), but that is only meant for small and isolated time frames. It would drain the fuel tanks if they would "mostly use their engines to do the heavy lifting for them".

I very much doubt the Q-313 could even approach Mach 1 but if it did the aircraft will likely start to shake which is the last thing you want on a composite frame with likely limited flexibility and stress capability
Dude, are you serious right now? How do you even come up with this stuff? There is no way anyone can come to that conclusion without proper simulations. You are making things up just to prove your point!

As for pitch and roll just listen to what your saying! You can't just take a single factor and totally disregard everything else! If that was the ONLY factor in maneuverability then Aircraft designers would have to be idi0ts to design and build control surfaces any larger than your hand and the fact that the aircraft can turn is not in question!
I did not say that the size of the control surface does not matter. I said it is not only the control surface of the canard, but the entire canard you need to take into consideration. It was a response to your "it's only the red part" comment.

And again let me emphasize that the limitations of it's turn radius will mainly show itself at high speeds and or high altitudes!
High speed turn is easy in terms of flight mechanics because you have high rate of flow over your control surface which gives you a lot of force. However, it is challenging to the integrity of the aircraft and the electro/hydro actuators.

As for Iran's F-5 projects it's one thing to start off with a simple design and quite another to fixate on one! Tehrani Moghadam NEVER fixated and get stuck on one thing because if he had he would have still been alive and working on artillery systems and in terms of missiles in a 20 year time span he went from the Frog-7 to the Fatteh-110 then to the Sejil and then the Qaem
And everything they worked on was better than the last and if he was to go based on your mentality he would have still been stuck on improving the Zelzal and Fateh series
And instead of looking at a 70's era Saab you should instead look at the improvements Saab made to that design and ask yourself why?
I don't know what to tell you. The difference of complexity between solid rocket compared to f5 is maybe 1000 folds. If that is even enough. You may not like it, but it is the pinnacle of engineering and in dire need of empiric data in order to become self sufficient. Second only to jet engines. Iran will make the same journey here as with missiles, but it will take time.
SAAB has been making aircraft since the 50s. And still they made a miserable job with Viggen. Thats why they killed it so early and made the Gripen, which is basically a Viggen 2.0 where everything is tuned just perfect.
 

VEVAK

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 24, 2013
2,309
1
3,325
The double delta wing of viggen is due to lift issues much more than flight dynamics. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my points regarding basic and fundamental flight control which you simply disregarded with a rebuttal that is not on point.




Its not about thrust. Its about thrust over weight. Viggen had higher thrust than Gripen but the overall spec was worse because of a lower t/w.



You are not understanding the basics still. The force needed depends on the distance between Np and CoG. If you introduce thrust vectoring to the equation then the aircraft can do much more with much less thrust.




First of all we have not seen the final production model of Q313. So we really do not know the power plants it will have. Secondly as I outlined before, it is not important how much thrust it produces. The main spec is the t/w.



lol NO! Seriously what are you on about? Sure many high end fighters have a t/w over 1 which in theary it means they can still generate lift even if the full airflow separation (turbulent flow - no lift), but that is only meant for small and isolated time frames. It would drain the fuel tanks if they would "mostly use their engines to do the heavy lifting for them".



Dude, are you serious right now? How do you even come up with this stuff? There is no way anyone can come to that conclusion without proper simulations. You are making things up just to prove your point!



I did not say that the size of the control surface does not matter. I said it is not only the control surface of the canard, but the entire canard you need to take into consideration. It was a response to your "it's only the red part" comment.



High speed turn is easy in terms of flight mechanics because you have high rate of flow over your control surface which gives you a lot of force. However, it is challenging to the integrity of the aircraft and the electro/hydro actuators.


I don't know what to tell you. The difference of complexity between solid rocket compared to f5 is maybe 1000 folds. If that is even enough. You may not like it, but it is the pinnacle of engineering and in dire need of empiric data in order to become self sufficient. Second only to jet engines. Iran will make the same journey here as with missiles, but it will take time.
SAAB has been making aircraft since the 50s. And still they made a miserable job with Viggen. Thats why they killed it so early and made the Gripen, which is basically a Viggen 2.0 where everything is tuned just perfect.
Wrong again! What your talking about is the reason why they raised and placed the front wings (Fixed canards) above the main wings to achieve SHORT takeoff capability with a delta winged aircraft!

1606990760702.png


(3) Saab AJS-37 Viggen thrust reverser landing and short take off. Swedish Air Force 90 years at Malmen - YouTube



Where as what i'm talking about is in regards to the flight dynamics of a delta wing aircraft vs Q-313
meaning the speed restrictions the thickness of the wings (lack slats) bring
Designing wings fully focused on achieving short takeoff (without slats) with absolute disregard to what effects that would have on flight is a mistake
Designing large wingtips to try to counter the lack of an aerodynamic fuselage to take away the requirement of a fly by wire system is a mistake. Fixed canards with elevators, mistake! Design of the intakes, mistake!
Q-313 will most definitely have cruise speed issues as well!

As for thrust to weight ratio again your taking a single factor and disregarding everything else! Plus if the Q-313 was capable of achieving near to 1:1 Thrust/Weight ratio they wouldn't of designed such thick wings for it!


Of course if you add thrust vectoring all the maneuvering issues would be solved even if it had a single directional tvc it would of had no maneuvering issues but the Q-313 has no TVC! And they wouldn't of designed such thick wings and fixed canards with elevators if they had any plans to put tvc on it!


Again modern Aircrafts mostly use their engines for lift during flight (Not take off! flight!) during takeoff they even use slats to achieve greater lift and overcome ground effect...

And high speed turn is NOT easy because what's in question is NOT the aircrafts ability to turn but how fast it turns! during high speed roll the problems may not be so evident however when you bank to the right and pull the rudder back it will most definitely cause problems(comparatively) for the Q-313 during high speed & or high altitude turns and it's true that we don't know what the production model will look like but so far what they have shown looks to be designed by a bunch of adolescent teenagers. And again the dynamics of turning and it's ability to turn is NOT in question!

As for the Viggen for a country like Sweden and a fighter designed and developed in the late 60's when there where no computers! producing a fighter like the Viggen was a masterpiece yet one with a lot of issues! And yes the Gripen is the evolution of that design and today is one of the best 4.5Gen fighters in the world and can even take on an F-35 within 30km....

Now if we wanna design and produce a fighter of our own then we need to study and learn from the mistake of others and NOT purposely try to make the same mistakes they did!
 
Last edited:

Ich

FULL MEMBER
Mar 14, 2018
608
0
803
Country
Germany
Location
Germany
Yes, but these are not related. Here is a thread on another forum from 2005 with the same image.


This image has been around for even longer than that, around 20 years. Be careful with information you find online, there is alot of mis/disinformation out there, especially when it comes to Iran.

With regards to the Iranian VTOL project, do not expect a manned system. What they will probably be working on is something like this:


View attachment 692133

These VTOL systems will play an important role in future for taxis etc. In terms of military, we can use VTOL systems on our MALE UAVs. Iran does not have the funding to spend on a manned VTOL project.
Yes, this kind of VTOL is rising fast all over the world. Me prefer this one cause of hydrogen powered

 
Last edited:

Stryker1982

FULL MEMBER
Oct 5, 2016
1,201
0
1,624
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
Iranian are wasting time.
They have to induct atleast 2 squardon of SU-30 and 2 Sq of J-10C, before UN impose more sanctions.
Who cant trust any of those countries to provide spare parts, and maintenance support when required without being blackmailed or extorted for it. We know our history well with Russia.
 

karamany98

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Oct 17, 2020
40
0
50
Country
Egypt
Location
United Kingdom
Who cant trust any of those countries to provide spare parts, and maintenance support when required without being blackmailed or extorted for it. We know our history well with Russia.
If you do not trust Russia, then why doesn't Iran get J-10C from China??
You just signed a 400 billion dollar deal, so your future lies with China.
 

WudangMaster

FULL MEMBER
Apr 17, 2014
429
0
775
Country
United States
Location
United States
If you do not trust Russia, then why doesn't Iran get J-10C from China??
You just signed a 400 billion dollar deal, so your future lies with China.
Too light and IRIAF can make do with Kowsar for the costs of importing J-10; Iran needs something in the range of J-31 and China does not have anything to offer in that category yet until J-31 is ready and proven and I don't how far along that program is and if China plans on importing SU-57 themselves. SU-30,35 is good for kind of boosts to the national air defense grid, should areas come under heavy concentration of fire.
 

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
3,112
-10
5,162
Country
United States
Location
United States
Iranian are wasting time.
They have to induct atleast 2 squardon of SU-30 and 2 Sq of J-10C, before UN impose more sanctions.
Lol 2 squadron of SU-30 and J-10 is like attacking a lion with a sandal.

Iran’s airforce needs a complete overhaul.
 

skyshadow

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 12, 2017
4,621
3
12,256
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
breaking news : Amir Hadian:
The purchase of aircraft is definitely on the agenda of Iran, but it is not clear what type and from which country, in addition to manufacturing and domestic production, we also need more advanced fighters to bring new technologies into the country, in line with the country's defense strategies.



The Deputy Coordinator of the Air Force of the Iranian Army says that with a wide range of medium-range weapons, our aircraft are able to destroy their targets from a distance of hundreds of kilometers .



The keyword "hundreds of kilometers" means the range of long-range weapons of the Air Force will not be announced, and this means that the equation of range of long-range weapons of Nahaja is a nightmare for the enemies.




Thanks to the efforts of Nahaja specialists, our drones are able to stay in the sky for more than 30 hours in monitoring enemy movements, and our drones play an important role in improving combat capability. As I said, in the discussion of monitoring enemy movements and targets with the ability to stay in the sky for more than 30 hours and in electronic warfare as a rising point in the army air force and the use of smart ammunition play an important role in increasing combat capability.



 
Last edited:

VEVAK

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 24, 2013
2,309
1
3,325
Iranian are wasting time.
They have to induct atleast 2 squardon of SU-30 and 2 Sq of J-10C, before UN impose more sanctions.
Iran needs at least 80 but preferably 160 Air superiority fighters just to cover Iranian Airspace and another 40-60 Air superiority fighters for beyond border escort and incursion missions.
However if these fighters aren't equipped with a highly capable AESA radar or something equivalent the cost of such an imported purchase won't even be worth the price tag. So Iran would be far better off using that money at home to build it's own fighters and weapon systems.

As for multi roll fighters and attack Aircraft.... if Iran was to simply spend the same money on production than they would on import we wouldn't have an issue. Iran's problem in developing it's own fighter is that they want a domestic fighter with the same capabilities to be produced at 1/10 the cost! And for a country who still lacks many of the infrastructural requirements that's just not possible.

And in the long run it's far better for Iran if they invest 10 Billion on alloy and composite infrastructure and production
Invest 10 Billion on infrastructure and production of various types of required electronics from sensors to processors to radars...
Invest 5 Billon on modern and advanced facilities and tools for Airframe production and assembly using modern tools and equipment
Invest 5 Billion on engine production
Invest 6 Billon on various other required parts from Hydraulics to Canopy to Tires

That's a total of $36 Billion USD which is what it would cost if Iran was to import 240 fighters at an average of $150 Million per Aircraft

The difference is one option elevates your countries technological and infrastructural capabilities and a large portion of that money get's recirculated into your economy and is a long term fix for your aircraft requirements and various other requirements where as the other option may get you more capable fighters at a much faster pace and you may even get more of them during your initial investment and on paper your country may look stronger but in real life it's not a long term fix and your country becomes more dependent then before the purchase and your enemies will have access to all the weaknesses of your fleet and without constant supply of parts during a conflict most of your Air Force would be grounded well within 6 months and your Air force will only be as strong as what others allow.
 

karamany98

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Oct 17, 2020
40
0
50
Country
Egypt
Location
United Kingdom
Iran needs at least 80 but preferably 160 Air superiority fighters just to cover Iranian Airspace and another 40-60 Air superiority fighters for beyond border escort and incursion missions.
However if these fighters aren't equipped with a highly capable AESA radar or something equivalent the cost of such an imported purchase won't even be worth the price tag. So Iran would be far better off using that money at home to build it's own fighters and weapon systems.

As for multi roll fighters and attack Aircraft.... if Iran was to simply spend the same money on production than they would on import we wouldn't have an issue. Iran's problem in developing it's own fighter is that they want a domestic fighter with the same capabilities to be produced at 1/10 the cost! And for a country who still lacks many of the infrastructural requirements that's just not possible.

And in the long run it's far better for Iran if they invest 10 Billion on alloy and composite infrastructure and production
Invest 10 Billion on infrastructure and production of various types of required electronics from sensors to processors to radars...
Invest 5 Billon on modern and advanced facilities and tools for Airframe production and assembly using modern tools and equipment
Invest 5 Billion on engine production
Invest 6 Billon on various other required parts from Hydraulics to Canopy to Tires

That's a total of $36 Billion USD which is what it would cost if Iran was to import 240 fighters at an average of $150 Million per Aircraft

The difference is one option elevates your countries technological and infrastructural capabilities and a large portion of that money get's recirculated into your economy and is a long term fix for your aircraft requirements and various other requirements where as the other option may get you more capable fighters at a much faster pace and you may even get more of them during your initial investment and on paper your country may look stronger but in real life it's not a long term fix and your country becomes more dependent then before the purchase and your enemies will have access to all the weaknesses of your fleet and without constant supply of parts during a conflict most of your Air Force would be grounded well within 6 months and your Air force will only be as strong as what others allow.
And how long would it take Iran to field a good jet fighter(Like SU-30), with engines, RADARs..etc?
I think more than 20 years and when you have Israel and the US assassinating your generals and scientists and planning to attack your country, you don't have time.
 

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
3,112
-10
5,162
Country
United States
Location
United States
breaking news : Amir Hadian:
, we also need more advanced fighters to bring new technologies into the country, in line with the country's defense strategies.

I have been saying this for years. Iran cannot jump from F-5 or SU-22 to F-35. But idiots on this board refused to listen.

Without new technologies, Iran cannot reverse Engineer and make the jump.

Iran’s drone industry was able to go from Karrar to RQ-170 through capture of RQ-170, Predator, and other Israeli/US drones. Or else Iran would still be stuck with Ababil and Moahjer drones.
 

VEVAK

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 24, 2013
2,309
1
3,325
And how long would it take Iran to field a good jet fighter(Like SU-30), with engines, RADARs..etc?
I think more than 20 years and when you have Israel and the US assassinating your generals and scientists and planning to attack your country, you don't have time.
LOL! Who say's Iran doesn't have time?
Fact is if Iran was running out of time the Americans & Israeli wouldn't of had to resort to assassinations! And the reason they resort to these actions is because they really don't see any other options...

Plus Iran is a country of 80 Million people this is not some Hollywood movie where you kill some mad scientist and the whole thing comes crumbling down! The infrastructure Fakhri Zadeh left behind will no doubt carry on his work and probably at a much faster pace because now they will no doubt receive more funding then ever before...

And Fighter jets are only one aspect of Iran's military capabilities and today Iran's main deterrence and retaliatory capability against a direct attack from the west is not even Air Force related. Fact is in real life 20 Iranian midget subs have far more of a deterrence factor against the West than 100 Su-30's ever could!

Probably the most important difference in developing your own fighter is the multi use nature of the tech gained so you can use the same infrastructure and technology to develop and produces various types of military and civilization parts & equipment,... where as the purchase of Su-30 would purely be about Su-30's and nothing else!

As for how long, it would really depends on requirements and how much Iran invests.
Between 1950-1980 (30 Years) the French produced more than a dozen different types of supersonic fighters with overall 1000's of fighters produced so how many fighters Iran can produce and how fast really depends on how much they invest and how wide spread it is and how well the program is being managed.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Top Bottom