What's new

IRIAF | News and Discussions

Tai Hai Chen

ELITE MEMBER
Oct 15, 2017
18,911
-15
8,802
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
I think people underestimate complexity of Jet engines.

You could give the best engineer group in Iran, a blueprint of AL-41 and $1B in r&d and they will fail to produce one AL-41.

It’s like asking someone to copy Coca-Cola. It’s just as much an art (timing of blades and construction of materials and its properties) as it is a science.

So for Iran to build a heavy engine it’s going to take time, luck, and a lot of development especially with its paltry military budget. People like to point to China, but China has a military budget that is 40x Iran and in 1990 it was 17B basically what Iran’s military budget is today. So let that sink in....30 years ago China had the same military budget as Iran today also add the fact that China had access to foreign parts and transfer of technology from fall of Soviet Union and you can see why comparing Iran to China in terms of military developments is like comparing a Honda to Ferrari.
In the 1980s US transferred military technology to China to fight Russia. Among them advanced Jaguar tank based on Type 59.


 

gambit

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 28, 2009
25,400
138
23,362
Country
United States
Location
United States
No. Manned airplanes are limited at ~9 g and thus have no future or chance against unmanned combat drones with up to possible 15 g. Today it is already the case that the pilot in an 5th gen fighter depends very much on computer aided tools or AI. So it is only a small step to fly all without pilots in the air assets. Manned combat aircrafts will be gone till the end of next decade.
Am going to put a little bit of reality here.

First, am USAF veteran. F-111 Cold War, then F-16 Desert Storm. I know what 9 g feel like. :enjoy:

Now...A fully loaded F-16 configured for strike, meaning bombs and a couple missiles for self defense, will be g-limited to less than what a trained pilot can handle, in other words, less than 9 g. If you want to maneuver in double digits g, your airframe will begin to look more and more like a missile: tubular and with less protrusions. Physics is an unforgiving b1tch.

If you design a multi-mission drone because you have limited funds, which is what most air forces in the world are, then your unmanned aircraft will have an airframe design similar to 'normal' aircrafts and your drone will have the usual flight control surfaces such as wings and fins. Like I said earlier that physics is a b1tch. Maneuvers over the battlefield to orient your weapons delivery, to track ground targets, to avoid air defense, etc...etc...centrifugal stresses on pylons that carries the ordnance, internal fuel movement (sloshes), wing flex, and other airframe related factors, will contribute to a g limit.

So ultimately, it all depends on what your unmanned drone is designed to do in the first place.
 

gambit

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 28, 2009
25,400
138
23,362
Country
United States
Location
United States
View attachment 718386


Sina-1 is correct about the comments that have been made, however, it's rather obvious that the low RCS outcome was more a byproduct and happy accident of the designers attempt to build a high glide, comparatively low drag aircraft with the goal of achieving higher cruise speeds to extend the range....
regardless it's German tech

And your forgetting all the design that came before both the F-117 & B-2.....
You suffer the same malady of those who have little or no related experience and found some general information in the public domain and then failed to read your own sources.

Your source...


"The Ho 229 leading edge has the same characteristics as the plywood [control sample] except that the frequency [do not exactly match] and have a shorter bandwidth. This indicates that the dielectric constant of the Ho 229 leading edge is higher than the plywood test sample. The similarity of the two tests indicates that the design using the carbon black type material produced a poor absorber."

See the highlighted? Basically, they replicated what the Horten Brothers wanted to do and actually put the aircraft under radar testing and found it failed the tests.

Leonardo da Vinci had a design for the helicopter but we do not credit him for the V-22 Osprey, do we?

The Horten Brothers were working with limited resources. They could not verify their hypotheses. They were familiar enough with basic radar principles to guess what materials could behave under radar bombardment, but without verification, there is no way they could produce what the US did. The flying wing have been known and experimented by all major aviation powers before WW II, so that bit of aviation technology is not unique to Germany.

Low radar observability aka 'stealth' credit rightfully belongs to US.
 

Sina-1

FULL MEMBER
Sep 15, 2016
945
1
3,236
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Sweden
Am going to put a little bit of reality here.

First, am USAF veteran. F-111 Cold War, then F-16 Desert Storm. I know what 9 g feel like. :enjoy:

Now...A fully loaded F-16 configured for strike, meaning bombs and a couple missiles for self defense, will be g-limited to less than what a trained pilot can handle, in other words, less than 9 g. If you want to maneuver in double digits g, your airframe will begin to look more and more like a missile: tubular and with less protrusions. Physics is an unforgiving b1tch.

If you design a multi-mission drone because you have limited funds, which is what most air forces in the world are, then your unmanned aircraft will have an airframe design similar to 'normal' aircrafts and your drone will have the usual flight control surfaces such as wings and fins. Like I said earlier that physics is a b1tch. Maneuvers over the battlefield to orient your weapons delivery, to track ground targets, to avoid air defense, etc...etc...centrifugal stresses on pylons that carries the ordnance, internal fuel movement (sloshes), wing flex, and other airframe related factors, will contribute to a g limit.

So ultimately, it all depends on what your unmanned drone is designed to do in the first place.
Your (supposed) piloting credentials mean as much to aircraft design as a person with a driver license has on car design. It's amateurish at best! The g-tolerances of airframes are IN FACT at 9g BECAUSE of the pilot being the sizing factor. If humans could withstand more g's then you can bet your *** that airframes would be designed to reach that limit.

Furthermore your assessment of drones being developed with jack of all trades is false and everything we can see in drone development today point to the exact opposite. Drones are being developed to have very specific mission statements. Just look at your own US drone program, instead of miserably trying to fit everything into one system (read: the catastrophic f35 project) many various types of drones are developed for many various types of missions.
 

Hack-Hook

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 11, 2012
12,279
3
12,609
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
You suffer the same malady of those who have little or no related experience and found some general information in the public domain and then failed to read your own sources.

Your source...


"The Ho 229 leading edge has the same characteristics as the plywood [control sample] except that the frequency [do not exactly match] and have a shorter bandwidth. This indicates that the dielectric constant of the Ho 229 leading edge is higher than the plywood test sample. The similarity of the two tests indicates that the design using the carbon black type material produced a poor absorber."

See the highlighted? Basically, they replicated what the Horten Brothers wanted to do and actually put the aircraft under radar testing and found it failed the tests.

Leonardo da Vinci had a design for the helicopter but we do not credit him for the V-22 Osprey, do we?

The Horten Brothers were working with limited resources. They could not verify their hypotheses. They were familiar enough with basic radar principles to guess what materials could behave under radar bombardment, but without verification, there is no way they could produce what the US did. The flying wing have been known and experimented by all major aviation powers before WW II, so that bit of aviation technology is not unique to Germany.

Low radar observability aka 'stealth' credit rightfully belongs to US.
The question is their design was tested under what sort of Radar a 90s radar or a 40s radar ?
Just look at F-117 how stealth it can be against a Radar made after 2010 and then compare it against how it performed against RADARS designed in 1970
 

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
3,640
-10
6,021
Country
United States
Location
United States
Nazi Germany had much more theorized advanced aircraft than the Horten design, tho I think that gets the most attention due to being a flying wing.

To me the more intresting project was the Nazi Bell project. And a similar type aircraft crashed in rural Pennsylvania in the 50’s I believe.

Furthermore, on an unrelated note the “balls of light” that would follow ally bomber formations during the war was an intresting phenomenon that allied fighters thought was advanced German war fighters.

Though I believe those UFOs are more sinister in their origin.
 

VEVAK

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 24, 2013
2,391
1
3,512
You suffer the same malady of those who have little or no related experience and found some general information in the public domain and then failed to read your own sources.

Your source...


"The Ho 229 leading edge has the same characteristics as the plywood [control sample] except that the frequency [do not exactly match] and have a shorter bandwidth. This indicates that the dielectric constant of the Ho 229 leading edge is higher than the plywood test sample. The similarity of the two tests indicates that the design using the carbon black type material produced a poor absorber."

See the highlighted? Basically, they replicated what the Horten Brothers wanted to do and actually put the aircraft under radar testing and found it failed the tests.

Leonardo da Vinci had a design for the helicopter but we do not credit him for the V-22 Osprey, do we?

The Horten Brothers were working with limited resources. They could not verify their hypotheses. They were familiar enough with basic radar principles to guess what materials could behave under radar bombardment, but without verification, there is no way they could produce what the US did. The flying wing have been known and experimented by all major aviation powers before WW II, so that bit of aviation technology is not unique to Germany.

Low radar observability aka 'stealth' credit rightfully belongs to US.
1.Yes RAM coating belongs to the US, Yes a true science based stealth design and stealth characteristics also belongs to the U.S.! What's your point?
2.No one said the Ho229 was absorbable... It's low RCS is due to it's inherit design & its low RCS give it stealth characteristics although the Aircraft was never designed with that in mind.... That's why i call it a happy accident
3.Horton brothers fascination with flying wing designs had nothing to do with stealth! Everyone can see that! But flying wing design which has proven to be the most successful subsonic stealth designs belongs to them!

Finally, it's one thing to sketch a drawing on paper and quite another to actually build a work prototype. So if DaVinci had actually built a flying prototype I sure as hell would have credited him for it.... But he didn't! Just as I wouldn't credit Gene Roddenberry for the development of Tablet computers, iPads & warped drives! What is wrong with you?
 

Ich

FULL MEMBER
Mar 14, 2018
683
0
915
Country
Germany
Location
Germany
Am going to put a little bit of reality here.

First, am USAF veteran. F-111 Cold War, then F-16 Desert Storm. I know what 9 g feel like. :enjoy:

Now...A fully loaded F-16 configured for strike, meaning bombs and a couple missiles for self defense, will be g-limited to less than what a trained pilot can handle, in other words, less than 9 g. If you want to maneuver in double digits g, your airframe will begin to look more and more like a missile: tubular and with less protrusions. Physics is an unforgiving b1tch.

If you design a multi-mission drone because you have limited funds, which is what most air forces in the world are, then your unmanned aircraft will have an airframe design similar to 'normal' aircrafts and your drone will have the usual flight control surfaces such as wings and fins. Like I said earlier that physics is a b1tch. Maneuvers over the battlefield to orient your weapons delivery, to track ground targets, to avoid air defense, etc...etc...centrifugal stresses on pylons that carries the ordnance, internal fuel movement (sloshes), wing flex, and other airframe related factors, will contribute to a g limit.

So ultimately, it all depends on what your unmanned drone is designed to do in the first place.
Yes. But if you want to set a drone vs. a manned fighter jet, then you dont need "multi mission". This drone only have one mission: Destroy manned fighter jets and other enemy airplanes.

So the design of the drone for this task is optimized in g-limit, manoeuvrebility. And thus much much better in this stats than any manned aircraft. Even could outmanoeuvre an AAM or SAM.
 

EvilWesteners

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Oct 17, 2020
77
0
270
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
United Kingdom
Am going to put a little bit of reality here.

First, am USAF veteran. F-111 Cold War, then F-16 Desert Storm. I know what 9 g feel like. :enjoy:

Now...A fully loaded F-16 configured for strike, meaning bombs and a couple missiles for self defense, will be g-limited to less than what a trained pilot can handle, in other words, less than 9 g. If you want to maneuver in double digits g, your airframe will begin to look more and more like a missile: tubular and with less protrusions. Physics is an unforgiving b1tch.

If you design a multi-mission drone because you have limited funds, which is what most air forces in the world are, then your unmanned aircraft will have an airframe design similar to 'normal' aircrafts and your drone will have the usual flight control surfaces such as wings and fins. Like I said earlier that physics is a b1tch. Maneuvers over the battlefield to orient your weapons delivery, to track ground targets, to avoid air defense, etc...etc...centrifugal stresses on pylons that carries the ordnance, internal fuel movement (sloshes), wing flex, and other airframe related factors, will contribute to a g limit.

So ultimately, it all depends on what your unmanned drone is designed to do in the first place.
Judging by the time line in your post, if you were based in UK as an F-111 bomber pilot, then it is very likely that you and I have met. Fair to say, I am not sure I agree with everything you have suggested in your post, based on my own work experiences and what I have learnt from other pilots. But respect everyone's opinion. Loved visiting Spangdahlem. Some very cute girls. Use to drive there back-and-forward from Weisbaden. Been to Nellis also. Not a fan though of the Lake Mead blvd, East, all the way up to E. Craig - very run down and poverty stricken, WOW - looks really bad. Right next to it though is (my opinion only) the cheapest auction house in the world. You can buy anything from Casino excess stocks for next to nothing. I bought amazing leather sofas for about $10, looked brand new. Sold them for so much more before PCS.
 

skyshadow

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 12, 2017
4,762
3
12,704
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
a test model for secret Iranian stealth fighter jet program crashed, you learn from these setbacks :tup: 🇮🇷

to me it seems the model is from air force's stealth fighter project


1618429721199.png
 
Last edited:

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
3,640
-10
6,021
Country
United States
Location
United States
25 year deal working wonders /sarcasm

To China apologists on this board, if this true I hope you rethink your thinking that China will do anything strategic on Iran.

If Iran wants to buy J-10C and they refuse then they are same old China.

a test model for secret Iranian stealth fighter jet program crashed, you learn from these setbacks :tup: 🇮🇷

to me it seems the model is from air force's stealth fighter project


View attachment 734114
Anymore photos of incident?

Looks like a 1:25 scale mock up. Or 1:10 if its a smaller fighter.

Could also be a future MALE drone.

But if it is a fighter jet then it is still 7+ years away from mass production if it’s at this stage.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 8, Members: 0, Guests: 8)


Top Bottom