What's new

IRIAF | News and Discussions

Hack-Hook

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 11, 2012
15,189
3
14,566
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
I stand corrected, then. What should be our recourse, then? Perhaps purchase Su-27s and do the same as I outlined for the MiG-25s?
it should be invested in producing domestic airplane, su-27 is outdated , come with a leash , like all our other Russians aircraft won't get upgraded , when we ask them. and they won't offer us any sort of tot even for a bolt
 

gambit

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 28, 2009
26,771
146
24,906
Country
United States
Location
United States
it should be invested in producing domestic airplane, su-27 is outdated , come with a leash , like all our other Russians aircraft won't get upgraded , when we ask them. and they won't offer us any sort of tot even for a bolt
Here is the deal...

You have the Science and Design Engineering groups. This is where the Aerodynamicists, Propulsion, Materials, the wind tunnel, clay modeling, and the CAD computers resides. These two groups create the 'proof of concept' for the new airplane.

Next is the Manufacturing Engineering group. Working inside are subordinate groups like Process Engineering, Finance, and Logistics. Overall, the ME group or level is responsible for the economic production of the new airplane.

All Transfer of Technology (ToT) stop at the ME level. It make sense because why would you want to re-design something? Why would you want to re-design an existing airplane to remove flaws and improve performance when in doing so, you just effectively design a new airplane? Just go ahead and start your own design from conception.

Emerging economies stop at the ME level meaning they learn just enough to remanufacture things under license or IP theft or joint ventures, whatever. Then over time, assuming the country got wealthier and smarter, the country design its native products. This is applicable whether it is the airplane, the car, or the washing machine. Look at the Saeqeh and the Tomcat for examples. So far, all Iran managed to do is maintain those designs. The most Iran can do is create production lines for them, which is ME level. If Iran demonstrate conceptual capabilities, ToT at the Science and DE level is possible and would accelerate any native design, but that would require an ally like the US-UK relationship. Otherwise, if all Iran can do is purchase and prove capable of maintenance, ToT will remain at the ME level. Again, the ME level is responsible for the ECONOMIC half of the product. Without wealth, all the smarts in the country will be for naught.

The harsh reality is that if all Iran can do is (re)manufacture and the national wealth do not improve to beyond the ME level, 3rd gen defense will be the only thing available for you.
 

SalarHaqq

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,588
2
4,904
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
they let outdated products, and even for those they didn't allow production of the engine as we could use that in other products and they don't want us strong , they want us only as a nuisance for USA in middle-east

The T-72 kits Iran received from Russia weren't outdated but of advanced level. Every country will put a cap on weaponry it sells to partners (the only exception being US exports to the zionist entity, considering the unparalleled influence of zionists over the American establishment).

and they won't offer us any sort of tot even for a bolt

Russia has transferred plenty of military technology to Iran. From numerous light weapons to technology used in OTH radars (a game changing asset) and so on.

Iran all by herself has designed and developed a massive amount of high-tech armaments and components from scratch. However, the claim that Russia never offered Iran anything is not correct.

they want us only as a nuisance for USA in middle-east
the Russians only want to make sure Iran will be powerful enough to prevent the USA from succeeding in its aim of destroying and balkanizing Iran.

Fixed.

_____

- Its not about Russians conforming to American pressure, it's what Russian themselves want. They do not allow their friendly states to create local upgradation programs on Russian weaponry the way Iran has played around with American systems. Even to this day not a single MIG-29 variant exists with an upgradation program without Russian company involvement. Let alone SU-27 family or MIG-29, the MIG-21 has some 30 variants thick majority of which are of Russian upgradation programs.

- Karrar came into being after T-90SM talks failed (surprise surprise), even then Russian military experts were calling it an Iranian attempt to copy T90.

What consequences did China face for copying and mass producing the Su-27? Nothing much, for all I know. Same goes for Iran's Karrar MBT, or for the Dehlavieh ATGM which Iran is said to have reverse engineered from Kornets obtained through Syria and/or Hezbollah rather than directly from Russia (whilst of course many other infantry weapons or production licenses for such weapons were indeed supplied to Iran by Moscow, from AK variants to multiple types of rocket-propelled grenade launchers and more).
 
Last edited:

drmeson

FULL MEMBER
Sep 2, 2016
1,521
0
3,068
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Russian Federation
that will have one problem, we won't have any other bomber then.
and airforce still don't have drone that can carry heavy bombs , the heaviest is mk-82 carried by karrar.
right now we must keep F-4 and Su-24 fleet operational, but must retire the circus airplanes airforce operate , and i believe after kowsar-2 we can retire mig-29s and after we build our own AWACS and introduction of kowsar 2 , F-14 must be retired.

Attack aircraft are a separate thing altogether. For some stupid reason they have invested heavily in the F-4E/D platforms.

Pros
- We have its infrastructure inside Iran. J-79 can be fully overhauled with domestic parts being made by OWJ. The airframe is renewed with domestic parts as well.
- The fleet is ~70 airframes strong.
- It can carry heavy strikes. A single sortie of 4 x F-4E (with two external tanks) can deliver as much what 20-24 x Dezful would do at same range.
- After delivering payload, they can run away using their fast climb and dash speed.

Cons
- Plane has an Elephant sized RCS esp when armed with munitions so it is a walking target for modern fighters.
- Even if we unleash them in the AShCM role, their only choice will be to deliver Ghader/Noor from within the safety of AD or IRIAF A2A fighters otherwise over the Persian Gulf, they will have to face BVR-armed F-15D, EF-2000, Rafale, F/A-18, F-16, Mirage-2000-9.
- What they are offering can also be achieved by firing AShCM from Mobile launchers within Iran. Zolafagahr AShBM has a range of 700 KM A-Mehdi AShCM has a range of ~1000 km, Ghader is 330 km, While the entire surface and submarine fleet fires AShCM so what is the F-4E utility here? We can fire some 100 x AShCM x 100 x AShBM at Saudi+UAE+Kuwait surface fleet simultaneously while Shahed-136 swarms and Shahed-171 can mess up their naval bases, without losing a single man. There you go, the entire enemy navy is gone. F-4E/D fleet cant do that.

SU-24 has a different story altogether. They have no AShCM role, for upgradation they are politically reliant upon Russian companies. The fleet is barely 32 airframes strong. I see them as a burden more than I see F-4E/D as financial stress. Besides some F-4E/D are proven to be upgraded with Bayenat-I (by antenna T/R count an equivalent to JL-10A of JH-7), IEI INS/Tacan, ECM suite so they can be a force multiplier in aerial combats but SU-24 cant do that. I was happy when we heard of SU-25 and SU-22 being transferred to Iraq and Syria.
 

BlessedKingOfLonging

FULL MEMBER
May 22, 2022
423
-2
255
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
India
Here is the deal...

You have the Science and Design Engineering groups. This is where the Aerodynamicists, Propulsion, Materials, the wind tunnel, clay modeling, and the CAD computers resides. These two groups create the 'proof of concept' for the new airplane.

Next is the Manufacturing Engineering group. Working inside are subordinate groups like Process Engineering, Finance, and Logistics. Overall, the ME group or level is responsible for the economic production of the new airplane.

All Transfer of Technology (ToT) stop at the ME level. It make sense because why would you want to re-design something? Why would you want to re-design an existing airplane to remove flaws and improve performance when in doing so, you just effectively design a new airplane? Just go ahead and start your own design from conception.

Emerging economies stop at the ME level meaning they learn just enough to remanufacture things under license or IP theft or joint ventures, whatever. Then over time, assuming the country got wealthier and smarter, the country design its native products. This is applicable whether it is the airplane, the car, or the washing machine. Look at the Saeqeh and the Tomcat for examples. So far, all Iran managed to do is maintain those designs. The most Iran can do is create production lines for them, which is ME level. If Iran demonstrate conceptual capabilities, ToT at the Science and DE level is possible and would accelerate any native design, but that would require an ally like the US-UK relationship. Otherwise, if all Iran can do is purchase and prove capable of maintenance, ToT will remain at the ME level. Again, the ME level is responsible for the ECONOMIC half of the product. Without wealth, all the smarts in the country will be for naught.

The harsh reality is that if all Iran can do is (re)manufacture and the national wealth do not improve to beyond the ME level, 3rd gen defense will be the only thing available for you.
I had a bit of difficulty following you in the second half of this post but effectively you're saying that HESA's aircraft are basically an F-5 which has been reverse engineered, isn't it?

Someone had posted earlier about them in detail and it seems that the airframe itself underwent some redesign overall (cannon was removed, for example; avionics are a different discussion).

From my crude observations, it seems they're trying to master the light aircraft category first as part of a learning curve and then moving on to heavy duty platforms. Plus you know fully well the defence budget is always under $10 billion and air defence gets priority so it's likely it'll likely be another decade and a half before the final results come in.
 

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
5,543
-12
9,364
Country
United States
Location
United States
The T-72 kits Iran received from Russia weren't outdated but of advanced quality. Every country will put a cap on weaponry it sells to partners (the only exception being US exports to the zionist entity, considering the unparalleled influence of zionists over the American establishment).

_____

Israel never received top assets such as F-22 or B-2 or any Black Project asset created by DARPA/Skunkworks/black project company.

Even it’s OTH radar is actually US operated personnel on Israeli soil.

In fact, Iran is one (maybe the only) country in the world to get a very high tech US asset of its time (F-14) granted for export.

So Russia not giving ToT of SU-35 makes sense as it would be the equivalent of US giving ToT of F-14 back then.

I think the real negative is Russian unreliability in arms deals dating back to 1990’s. Outside of the desperate fire sale of arms to anyone with cash after fall of Soviet Union, Russia fell into Western trance of trying to be a pseudo Western country until they realized the West would never treat them as such.

Most of Iran’s reverse engineer is due to Iranian ingenuity not Russian assistance. That is not to say there has been NO Russian assistance. There certainly has, but if it was any other banana country they would have gotten a lot more Russian assistance.

Case in point, Baboon Arabia....China has helped them with build missiles. Build solid fuel production plants. The list goes on. Meanwhile, our last major China project was C-802 which we all know how much “help” China was in that regard. Since then we have used them mostly for raw materials and certain parts for radars and Missile program.

You can decide for yourself who is more friendlier to Iran...China or Russia. But both of them seem to treat Iran’s adversaries a whole lot better than they treat Iran.
 

Abid123

FULL MEMBER
Jan 1, 2021
1,601
-4
2,207
Country
Pakistan
Location
Norway
You can decide for yourself who is more friendlier to Iran...China or Russia. But both of them seem to treat Iran’s adversaries a whole lot better than they treat Iran.
They seem to help North Korea a lot. It was even rumored Russia transfered hypersonic tech to North Korea.
 

SalarHaqq

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,588
2
4,904
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
Israel never received top assets such as F-22 or B-2 or any Black Project asset created by DARPA/Skunkworks/black project company.

To my knowledge the zionist regime didn't make a request for those assets and in terms of military hardware hadn't had any request turned down by Washington so far.

So Russia not giving ToT of SU-35 makes sense as it would be the equivalent of US giving ToT of F-14 back then.

I was simply responding to the claim that Russia will "not offer Iran any sort of ToT, even for a bolt" (and similar statements suggestive of a western-apologetic / pro-western mindset). That is simply counterfactual. I wasn't commenting on the Su-35, ToT for which is less likely.

I think the real negative is Russian unreliability in arms deals dating back to 1990’s. Outside of the desperate fire sale of arms to anyone with cash after fall of Soviet Union, Russia fell into Western trance of trying to be a pseudo Western country until they realized the West would never treat them as such.

Most of Iran’s reverse engineer is due to Iranian ingenuity not Russian assistance. That is not to say there has been NO Russian assistance. There certainly has, but if it was any other banana country they would have gotten a lot more Russian assistance.

Case in point, Baboon Arabia....China has helped them with build missiles. Build solid fuel production plants. The list goes on. Meanwhile, our last major China project was C-802 which we all know how much “help” China was in that regard. Since then we have used them mostly for raw materials and certain parts for radars and Missile program.

You can decide for yourself who is more friendlier to Iran...China or Russia. But both of them seem to treat Iran’s adversaries a whole lot better than they treat Iran.

At the end of the day, all one needs to keep in mind is that the US and zionist regimes are existential enemies not just to the Islamic Republic but to Iran as a nation and civilization, while Russia and China are partners no matter their record in this regard. This alone should suffice to neutralize the russophobic / sinophobic propaganda spread by the exiled opposition as well as by reformists and moderates inside Iran, whose actual goal is to challenge the Islamic Republic's principled anti-imperialist stance, to trade the policy of Resistance initiated in 1979 for renewed vassalage to the zionists and Americans.

Russian military cooperation with Iran has been notable and includes a considerable list of items. In fact a thread dedicated to the subject would surely be eye-opening, as it would probably lead to a revision of certain misconceptions long held by many. Apart from the UAE's expected purchase of the Su-75, I can't think of a particularly noteworthy defence contract between Russia and the PGCC regimes. All in all, one can't say Moscow treated them a lot better than Iran when it comes to arms deals.

As for China, technological cooperation benefiting Iran's domestic arms industries is more than likely. It was recalled here with regards to the Kowsar's highly advanced radar, and it wouldn't surprise me if Iranian engineers learnt a thing or two from Chinese colleagues that came in handy for the development of the advanced domestic air defence solutions unveiled by Iran. This is just as valuable as anything China supplied to Saudi Arabia. The thing is though, that none of it has been officially acknowledged by either side, for obvious reasons.

Beijing is highly concerned about the prospect of a war in the Persian Gulf jeopardizing its energy supplies, and more generally about any instability or armed conflict along the Eurasian landmass and adjacent sea routes because China's prosperity and development model are still founded to a considerable degree on trade. Moreover, impartiality and doing business with as many parties as possible irregardless of antagonisms between them, tends to be a Chinese principle of foreign policy.

Keeping intact the balance of power in a given region might imply extending additional support to the comparatively weaker side. In the Persian Gulf, this translates into China signing a greater number of overt arms deals with PGCC states because the latter are lacking Iran's indigenous technological and industrial capabilities. This does not mean Beijing wants to help them overpower Iran, but that they need more support for the balance of power to be maintained which, so China believes, will contribute to averting the outbreak of a major armed conflict between the Iran and the PGCC.

Russians and Chinese are dealing with an Iran that has reached impressive levels of self-sufficiency in the defence industry and other sectors. Prior to the Islamic Revolution however, the US regime was arming at highly overpriced rates an Iran incapable of producing anything beyond rifles and ammunition - and making sure to perpetuate Iran's state of structural dependency. Case in point, how Iranian personnel were barred from participating in the maintenance of some of the equipment purchased from the USA, even though they were proficient enough to do so. It's logical for major powers to put limits on what they're ready to offer to fiercely independent nations with a strong and advanced defence industry.

At any rate, I was responding to the claim that Russia won't offer no ToT at all to Iran, which is contradicted by documented facts. I wasn't suggesting that Russian or Chinese assistance has played a greater role than domestic efforts in advancing Iran's defence industry.
 
Last edited:

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
5,543
-12
9,364
Country
United States
Location
United States
I've seen no evidence that the zionist regime requested any for those assets, and that its request was turned down by Washington.

Congress passed the prohibition of F-22 because they feared it would be sold to allies and eventually “leak” to adversaries. And the only ally that is close enough to US is Israel. They have one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington.

All I need to know, is that the US regime and the zionists are existential enemies not just to the Islamic Republic but to Iran as a unified nation, while Russia and China are partners to Iran no matter their record a. This alone is enough to instantly put an end to the Russop

If your measuring stick is that anyone who doesn’t treat us like US/Israel and is remotely beneficial to us is a “partner” then yes you are correct. Although both Russia and China are very friendly with Israel.

Ironically enough it has been US foreign policy mistakes (that Iran has capitalized on) namely Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen. That has allowed to grow so powerful. Something that a “partnership” with Russia (or China) could never bring to fruition as both seek to limit the extent of Iranian influence in our region as they are also VERY friendly with Zionist entity and wealthy Sheikdoms.

But I digress, as we both know each other’s viewpoints on the Eastern world powers well enough at this point. No need to rehash the same conversation.
 

drmeson

FULL MEMBER
Sep 2, 2016
1,521
0
3,068
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Russian Federation
I had a bit of difficulty following you in the second half of this post but effectively you're saying that HESA's aircraft are basically an F-5 which has been reverse engineered, isn't it?

Someone had posted earlier about them in detail and it seems that the airframe itself underwent some redesign overall (cannon was removed, for example; avionics are a different discussion).

From my crude observations, it seems they're trying to master the light aircraft category first as part of a learning curve and then moving on to heavy duty platforms. Plus you know fully well the defence budget is always under $10 billion and air defence gets priority so it's likely it'll likely be another decade and a half before the final results come in.

BS claims from him. I will dissect the post

..............................

IRIAF needs to get rid of this mentality of having any attack aircraft when practically IRGC can now take that role at MRBM/IRBM ranges. F-4E/D, SU-24M, SU-22 all need to be retired. They are burden with large RCS, no A2A role. Maintaince heavy machines from 1970s and 80s.

IRGC missile forces and UCAV's can take the role of attack. They are already doing that so whats the point in keeping this army of bomb trucks.

You dont need an F-4E/D when you can do this some 2000 km away.

1656475096009.png
1656475272869.png
 
Last edited:

gambit

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 28, 2009
26,771
146
24,906
Country
United States
Location
United States
I had a bit of difficulty following you in the second half of this post but effectively you're saying that HESA's aircraft are basically an F-5 which has been reverse engineered, isn't it?

Someone had posted earlier about them in detail and it seems that the airframe itself underwent some redesign overall (cannon was removed, for example; avionics are a different discussion).

From my crude observations, it seems they're trying to master the light aircraft category first as part of a learning curve and then moving on to heavy duty platforms. Plus you know fully well the defence budget is always under $10 billion and air defence gets priority so it's likely it'll likely be another decade and a half before the final results come in.
Yes. Reverse engineering falls under Manufacturing Engineering. Basically, you have the technical sophistication to take apart a complex machine such as a car or an airplane, copy its components, and assemble your own version of that machine. Repeat the process until your version have the same performance as the original. That was how post WW II JPN and SKR started. Then over time, their increasing wealth enabled each country to design their own products, anything from household appliances to a space program. Sure, in that learning process, you can modify your version of that machine to suit your needs, but essentially, you still need a functional original to serve as foundation for your reverse engineering.
 

SalarHaqq

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,588
2
4,904
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
If your measuring stick is that anyone who doesn’t treat us like US/Israel and is remotely beneficial to us is a “partner” then yes you are correct. Although both Russia and China are very friendly with Israel.

It's not simply that they don't treat Iran like the USA / Isra"el", but firstly that they are not enemies to Iran and secondly that they are involved in a number of long term cooperation projects with Iran in multiple areas (diplomatic, military, economic).

Russia fits the criteria to be termed a strategic partner. It conducted a major joint military operation alongside Iran in Syria. It shares with Iran the fact that the US regime and NATO are bent on destabilizing it. So does China, which furthermore is Iran's biggest trade and investment partner. Iran, Russia and China all three aim for transition towards geopolitical multipolarity. As far as China's concerned, Iran is also a key element on one of the three routes constitutive of Beijing's paramount OBOR project.

Partnership (= one level beneath alliance) is thus the correct technical term to describe Iran-Russia and Iran-China relations.

Ironically enough it has been US foreign policy mistakes (that Iran has capitalized on) namely Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen. That has allowed to grow so powerful. Something that a “partnership” with Russia (or China) could never bring to fruition as both seek to limit the extent of Iranian influence in our region as they are also VERY friendly with Zionist entity and wealthy Sheikdoms.

They are interested in maintenance of the balance of power in the region. So the extent of zionist and PGCC influence is just as much of a concern to them.

In Syria, Russia and Iran are interdependent as neither could have successfully protected its interests without the other. So for both Iran and Russia the mutual strategic partnership is instrumental in ensuring the survival of their Syrian ally.

Also the partnership with Russia and China, even if it is not the main factor, contributed to Iran acquiring the military tools required to project power outside her borders when necessary.
 
Last edited:

Hack-Hook

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 11, 2012
15,189
3
14,566
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Russia has transferred plenty of military technology to Iran. From numerous light weapons to technology used in OTH radars (a game changing asset) and so on.

Iran all by herself has designed and developed a massive amount of high-tech armaments and components from scratch. However, the claim that Russia never offered Iran anything is not correct.
or oth , radars look like Russians but they are not the same , and have you wondered why what Russians gave us have the range restricted inside our country and what or technician managed to product have a range well beyond Europe border ?
they don't care if Iran get balkanized unless it clash with their interest , their nearest ally in middle-east was Syria and look did they were concerned about its balkanization or the country being bombed day and night by a rouge state ?
The harsh reality is that if all Iran can do is (re)manufacture and the national wealth do not improve to beyond the ME level, 3rd gen defense will be the only thing available for you.
what we invested it , we managed to design the product, for example look at our missiles or our air defense and please not with 3rd of khordad is copy of buk and bavar is copy of S-300 and 15th of khordad is a copy of PAC and missiles like sejjil is copy of Scud and Fateh and its family copy of Iskander .
our airforce is behind because we didn't invest in it enough and that hopefully changed two years ago when supreme leader Scolded armed force for neglecting the branch
 

Hack-Hook

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 11, 2012
15,189
3
14,566
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
What they are offering can also be achieved by firing AShCM from Mobile launchers within Iran. Zolafagahr AShBM has a range of 700 KM A-Mehdi AShCM has a range of ~1000 km, Ghader is 330 km
as you said , 4 of them can do the work of 24 fateh like missile , look the difference in price tag
e can fire some 100 x AShCM x 100 x AShBM at Saudi+UAE+Kuwait surface fleet simultaneously while Shahed-136 swarms and Shahed-171 can mess up their naval bases, without losing a single man. There you go, the entire enemy navy is gone. F-4E/D fleet cant do that.
if we can fire them in that number and don't deplete our inventory dangerously by the way Su-24 and F-4 can each fire two noor or Qader
so they can be used against enemy asset outside Persian gulf and sea of Oman or inside enemy land just think you practically can made the range of cruise missile like ya-ali twice and each at least can carry 4 of it
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 4, Members: 0, Guests: 4)


Top Bottom