Aviationintel's analysis on F-313 (Ghaher)

[raptor22]

you underestimate america. iraq and afganistan was invaded not only by sea but also through neighboring countries. iraq did exactly what you said, that is threaten with missiles, but history shows us that the US non-the-less convinced others to allow a route(the us is also very good at hunting down launchers). terrain might present a factor, but again is no show stopper, afganistan is pretty mountainous too, not to mention any attack will start with a massive tomahawk/stealth atk rain taking out vital ports, airfields, CnC nodes, while iran could do little to disrupt american command, sortie points or intelligence. this is followed by neutralization of now undefended units like tanks and ships caught out in the open, which allows the beginning of a multi-pronged invasion by land, air and sea, all under the cover of air superiority and long range strike capability along with unparalleled battlefield intelligence through satellites and drones. against this, a fighter is among the last thing you want to fight or deter america. keep in mind planes dont fight by them selves, they need bases that can be protected, they need parts that can be procured even in war. to deter america, iran needs more survivable assets or go nuclear. however where fighters do come in handy is against lessor opponents, for instance deterring a israeli air strike, which a half decent fighter along with good ground sensors would be ideal for. to stand a chance against america at all you need either nuclear capability or the full size and complete conventional war machine package which really only russia and china has.

ive already addressed that america is likely to be able to secured a land route. but lets suppose it cannot. there is no way they would send in the troop transports without clearing the coast where they are landing through airtrikes/naval strikes. speedboats work well if you force the enemy to come close without sinking all your assets from far away. the US has no reason to sent in transports or even ships until the coast is cleared by subs and air attacks. i do know about the millennium challenge, but in that case they threw two forces close together specifically having those capital ships in range of the coastal boats, in war those capital ship will not be in that kind of proximity to the coast until those boats have been sunk by air attacks. and while landing there will continuously be air cover for any survivors.

First of all be sure if it was as simple as you described they would attacked already.
On the other hand Iran has already made it clear that in any situation if it sees a possible incoming war it wouldn't hesitate for a second it'd strike first. the same happened in 2006, Hezbollah was well aware that war was about to happen that's why they fooled israel to start the war unprepared and sooner than what it'd been planed.

 

[Tomyris]

There was an immense amount of work/time required and crazy amount of funding needed for Iran to create a manned fighter jet on par with a modern jet. That is why Iran has invested alot of money into air defence projects and instead took its time slowly developing fighter jets. Let me tell you the name of these air defence system in work.

1- Bavar-373 which compromises of 3 missiles, for low-medium-long range.
2- Talash 3 system- a missile with a range of 200km
3- Alam al hoda- A system compromising with a very long range sadid missile with range of 200-300km
4 -R'a'ad airdefence with 200km,100km and 50 km missile.
5- Talash 2 system, missile with range of 60-100km.
5- Shalamnche missile with range of 50 km, a new AESA radar with range of 250km has been recently made for it.

Most of these system have already been partially showns and some are in development and some are already in service. Some of the systems belong to the IRGC and the other to the regular air defence force. Have a look these long range air defence system, they will soon all be running simultaneously and it means Iran will have more long range air defence in service than any other country. And all these system are different to each other, i.e different detection methods. Some have passive seeker in the missiles as well.

Therefore, now that Iran's air defence system and long range radars like ghadir (1100km range) and sepehr (3000km range) are advance enough to counter and deter potential airstrikes and it also means Iran can now invest more money in fighter jets.
Iran has no problem in designing a fighter jet's body and checking for its radar cross section and aerodynamic, Iran has already made considerable advances in composite materials as well but where Iran lacks is ability to design and manufacture fighter jet engines. Iran's MAPNA group is one of the top 10 turbine companies in the world and they have managed to produce single crystal turbine blades and we know Iran has the J-90 indigenous jet program but until an advance indigenous jet engine is produced then no real fighter jet project will take off (no pun intended).

Qaher 313 was designed for low altitude flying and probably designed with cheap composite material and made to attack ground target and ships. In my opinion, It does not have the tributes to make a potent fighter jet against the enemies modern air force. Having said, they themselves have stated qaher was just a mockup and a concept. It is even highly possible that it could end up tuning into a UCAV. UCAV is another area Iran is actively working in.

tout les système anti aérien que tu a prononcer on connais pas réelement leur capacité a tu des preuve? si l’Iran pouvez construire des arme aussi sophistiqué il aurai jamais demander l'achat de s-300 a la Russie...

le ghadir et le sepehr sont pas encore prêt..aurai tu des vidéo ou des photo? les occidentaux on eu du mal a en construire comment l’Iran pourrai faire sa aussi rapidement a partir de rien et avec un embargo?

il avais déclaré egalement que le qaher et une copie du f-22 bon marché et la vous dite que c'est un petit bombardier.....

si il était aussi facile de construire un chasseur puissant pourquoi les occidentaux et les americain mettrai des milliard??? l’Iran n'aura pas le temps de construire un chasseur moderne , le saeqeh et un F-5 modifier et il n’égale même pas le f-4 alors comment construire un chasseur qui va égaler les f-14/15? su-27/30/35? mig-29 f-16....il faut beaucoup d'argent et de compétence , l’Iran peut pas sauté des génération

le mieux a faire comme j'ai dit et d'acheté des su-30/35 a la Russie afin d 'avoir une aviation nouvelle high tech et puissante toute en continuant le developement de chasseur maison



while anti aircraft system you decide to not know it was you réelement ability of proof? if Iran can build as sophisticated weapon he'll ever ask the purchase of s-300 Russia ...
the Ghadir and sepehr you are not yet prêt..aurai video or photo? Western we struggled to build how Iran could make her so quickly from nothing and with an embargo?
He had also said the Qaher and a copy of f-22 cheap and you said that this is a small bomber .....
if it was as easy to build a mighty hunter why Western and American will put one billion ??? Iran will not have time to build a modern fighter, the HESA Saeqeh and F-5 and change it does not even equal the F-4 then how to build a fighter that will match the f-14/15? su-27/30/35? mig-29 f-16 .... it takes a lot of money and expertise, Iran can not skipped generation
best to do as I said and bought su-30/35 to Russia in order to have a new high tech aviation and continuing all the powerful house hunter developement

 

[applesauce]

First of all be sure if it was as simple as you described they would attacked already.
On the other hand Iran has already made it clear that in any situation if it sees a possible incoming war it wouldn't hesitate for a second it'd strike first. the same happened in 2006, Hezbollah was well aware that war was about to happen that's why they fooled israel to start the war unprepared and sooner than what it'd been planed.

just because something is easy or simple does not in any way mean it would be done already. the US could easily invade and take over cuba too, doesnt mean they're gonna do it. you can easily jump over a bridge too, doesnt mean you're gonna do it.

the US could win a war against iran fairly quickly but the aftermath is nothing to sneer at, conventional fighting in iraq was over in a couple months but the aftermath, the terrorists, the rebuilding is a problem still not solved. everything is about cost benefit(and sometimes they do the math wrong leading to a "bad" war), and thus far the results of a war are not worth it, not that the war couldnt be won or even be won with "acceptable" casualties.

 

[applesauce]

Well, first of all the situation today is much different from what it was back when US invaded Iraq. Right now, Iraq is almost under Iran's control so it can't be used as a rout towards Iran. Recently there was an agreement between the Caspian Sea countries not to allow Nato or foreign forces use their soil as a military base so that removes Iran's northern neighbors off the equation. Afghanistan is not a safe place for US as an operational base. Iran can easily use its proxies in Afghanistan to make life hell for any occupying force, the same way it did in Iraq. That leaves US with two options, Pakistan and Turkey. Pakistan has a pro-Iranian population and its people are already wary of US because of its drone attacks so I think any Pakistani government that allows its soil be used by US against Iran is in deep trouble. So the only possible option would be Turkey.

iran has influence in iraq for sure, but it is in no way "almost" under Iran's control, the US continues to enjoy unimpeded air access and will still have thousands of "advisors" in the country even after as the military mission supposedly "ends". same case in Afghanistan, in fact you so dismissed american ability to secured a route, but i will remind you that even russia provided a northern route for american supplies, there was even talk of a route through china to Afghanistan. fact is america has more influence than iran in many of the countries in the region.

2nd, missile power of Iran today is not comparable to that of Iraq. Iraq had limited inventory of Skuds that are famous for their inaccuracy. Iran possesses precision missiles with cluster warheads that can easily hit any air filed in the area that can be used for operation against Iran. Iran also has anti-radiation ballistic missiles that can luck on naval or land based radars and hit them with precision. It can use them to take out the missile defenses. Tom hawk has a max range of 2500km. Iran is 2500 km across from north west to south east and 1500 km across on the other diagonal direction. Naval units that want to fire those missiles need to get close to Iran to be able to cover Iran's soil. That puts them in the range of Iran's anti-ship ballistic missiles. The other option is to have B-52 and B-2 fire the missiles from distance. Again that will take them close to the range of Iran AD systems that have shown good capacity of detecting drones and reconnaissance aircrafts. And if they get away from all of that, Iran has indigenous anti-missile systems. And please note Iran doesn't need to have access to it's coastal area to be able to hit naval units. That's why it has developed its ballistic anti-ship missiles. Iran can fire its missiles from center of Iran and still hit ships in the Persian gulf. So US either needs to make sure it has taken out all Iranian lunch pads which are mobile and easy to hide or it can never make sure its naval units are safe in the nearby areas.

its called a sub, an ohio ssgn carries 154 tomahawks, could sit in the Mediterranean or indian ocean and hit half of iran including all western and southern shores, out of range of any Iranian asm let alone its asw capabilities. i also highly, highly doubt irans capabilities in taking out B-2's escorted by f-22s. and as for your supposed long range ballistic anti ship missiles, its not the launcher they have to take out, in china case its near impossible for the US to do that, american planning vs china has never been to take out the launchers, what they need to do is take out the sensors.

In case of any war with Iran, US needs to assure its allies and non-allies that it will keep the oil corridor passing through Strait of Hormoz open. Again how can they keep that route open without physical presence in the Persian gulf. Iran only needs to sink one or two tankers in the strait and then the oil corridor is closed. In that case, China will be the first country to jump into the conflict because now its national interest and industry is at stake. How can US open the route again using only its Air force? And you keep forgetting that it needs to support its bases in UAE and Bahrain. it needs to be able to carry arms to those bases. It can't do it through air. In case of the war, their navy needs to be involved and it is going to be nasty. Otherwise they wouldn't spend $250 million on a simulation to figure out what will happen. I'm sure there are smart enough people in the Pentagon that would say: "hey guys, why don't we bomb them into stone age and then move our fleet safely into the Persian Gulf? Forget about the simulation. We can have one more F-35 with that money!"

well first things first, if iran attacks the oil corridor indiscriminately, it loses all international friends of any significance. countries like china who would oppose america would now support its attempts to reopen the corridor. this wouldnt stop america once the fighting starts, it merely means the US would continues with the original plan, that is to clear the coast and open up a beachhead which is one of the many invasion routes. oil flow disruptions would probably last two months tops.

3rd, How good an air craft is doesn't really have anything to do with how good a missile it can carry. Nowadays modern missiles are independent of their lunching vessel. You can fire a Yakhont missile from almost any kind of flying vessel, even a commercial chopper. When it is fired, it is a deadly threat to what ever it is going after. Same can be said about the armament that F-313 carries. It can carry fire and forget air to air or air to sea missiles. and as the above author says, who is to say it is not a viable threat to have sea or land skimming fighters that are hard to detect around that pop up here and there and fire missiles towards their targets?

are you serious, how shallow is your knowledge of this area? you dont just launch yakhonts blindly, otherwise everyone in the world would be flying bi-planes loaded with missiles, why dont they do that, why do the russians, american, chinese, Japanese, indians anyone one who is anyone building stealthy platforms with large and powerful sensors? why would the russia want pak-fa when they can put missiles on a far cheaper mig-21? those launch platforms are simply not survivable, they will never make it to their target. those f-18, f-35 flying cap 24/7 arnt just for show you know.

4th, Iran is not relying on its air force to counter the air attacks. As I mentioned, Iran knows its weaknesses and knows it is a futile attempt. Iran is relying on its AD systems to counter air attacks and again with deterrence principal in mind. That's why top priorities in Iran defense strategy are Missiles, AD and radar systems, Naval units and then if there was anything left, it will go to Air force. Any air attacks on Iran will follow by Iran leveling the air base that the aircrafts lunched from so there is a good possibility that those aircrafts won't even be able to land on the same spot that they came from. And then, the aircraft needs to get through multilevel of early warning and passive and active radars to maintain the surprise factor and if it could get through all those, then it needs to deal with a multilevel integrated AD system and in case this project continues, maybe F-313s. I'm sure it is not something that USA can eventually overcome but the question is at what cost? How many $300 milion f-35 will it loose before gaining superiority over Iran's air space? This is called deterrence.

going after AD and radar systems is what america does, you're still assuming iran is somehow going to do manytimes better than every simular opponent the US has fought since ww2 (not including korea and vietnam where they had serious operation limits, such as being unable to target airbases with soviet advisers, air bases in china, or in case of korea, actualy chinese intervention), 1991 iraq vs 1991 US is no less weak than 2015 iran vs 2015 US, yet how many losses did they US suffer there, all the american deaths in the iraqi war so far is only comparable to single battles fought during the korean war. Baghdad had among the worlds densest air defense at the time, second only to moscow. there is no evidence what so ever that iran could counter american stealth capabilities to any significant degree, no single american capability will win them the war, its the combination, multiple routes, stealth platforms, unrivaled intelligence, long range precision weaponry, hardware superiority, decades of experience among others

 

[Arminkh]

iran has influence in iraq for sure, but it is in no way "almost" under Iran's control, the US continues to enjoy unimpeded air access and will still have thousands of "advisors" in the country even after as the military mission supposedly "ends". same case in Afghanistan, in fact you so dismissed american ability to secured a route, but i will remind you that even russia provided a northern route for american supplies, there was even talk of a route through china to Afghanistan. fact is america has more influence than iran in many of the countries in the region.



its called a sub, an ohio ssgn carries 154 tomahawks, could sit in the Mediterranean or indian ocean and hit half of iran including all western and southern shores, out of range of any Iranian asm let alone its asw capabilities. i also highly, highly doubt irans capabilities in taking out B-2's escorted by f-22s. and as for your supposed long range ballistic anti ship missiles, its not the launcher they have to take out, in china case its near impossible for the US to do that, american planning vs china has never been to take out the launchers, what they need to do is take out the sensors.



well first things first, if iran attacks the oil corridor indiscriminately, it loses all international friends of any significance. countries like china who would oppose america would now support its attempts to reopen the corridor. this wouldnt stop america once the fighting starts, it merely means the US would continues with the original plan, that is to clear the coast and open up a beachhead which is one of the many invasion routes. oil flow disruptions would probably last two months tops.



are you serious, how shallow is your knowledge of this area? you dont just launch yakhonts blindly, otherwise everyone in the world would be flying bi-planes loaded with missiles, why dont they do that, why do the russians, american, chinese, Japanese, indians anyone one who is anyone building stealthy platforms with large and powerful sensors? why would the russia want pak-fa when they can put missiles on a far cheaper mig-21? those launch platforms are simply not survivable, they will never make it to their target. those f-18, f-35 flying cap 24/7 arnt just for show you know.



going after AD and radar systems is what america does, you're still assuming iran is somehow going to do manytimes better than every simular opponent the US has fought since ww2 (not including korea and vietnam where they had serious operation limits, such as being unable to target airbases with soviet advisers, air bases in china, or in case of korea, actualy chinese intervention), 1991 iraq vs 1991 US is no less weak than 2015 iran vs 2015 US, yet how many losses did they US suffer there, all the american deaths in the iraqi war so far is only comparable to single battles fought during the korean war. Baghdad had among the worlds densest air defense at the time, second only to moscow. there is no evidence what so ever that iran could counter american stealth capabilities to any significant degree, no single american capability will win them the war, its the combination, multiple routes, stealth platforms, unrivaled intelligence, long range precision weaponry, hardware superiority, decades of experience among others

Not sure what you are trying to prove here? That USA can win a war with Iran? Well I already told you it can. Is it going to be easier than Iraq, Vietnam or any recent wars that USA has fought? No way.

Are you trying to say all of Iran's military achievements are useless and has not provided the deterrence intended? Well, you are entitled to your own opinion but Pentagon doesn't think that way. If you read the article in New York Times that I posted earlier, you will see the biggest opponents of a military action against Iran is Pentagon itself. Same is true about Israel. People who should fight the war say it is not a good idea.

USA, Russia and China use top fighter planes because they think about offensive operations not defensive ones. In 2006 war between Lebanon and Israel, Hezbollah fired an Iranian version of those missiles towards an advanced Israeli frigate and crippled it. The luncher didn't have any guidance system i.e. it couldn't lock on anything and its crew definitely didn't have the knowledge of operating sophisticated weapons. They just fired the missile towards the frigate that they could visually see as it had got close enough and the missile did the rest of the job itself. Iran can lunch the same version and more advanced ones from back of trucks, its speed boats, incredibly simple choppers and of course F-4s. If you don't believe it, you can google it. And regarding your quote about bi-wing aircraft carrying missiles, you can take a look at Russian Bear bomber that is still functional and let me know what you think? Maybe NORAAD is wrong scrambling F-22 and F-18s each time one of them shows up. And probably Americans made a huge mistake using P-51 Mustang (a WWII era fighter) in Vietnam war. Application justifies the tools that you will be using. If you want to take out an enemy's radars, you need 5th generation fighters to give you a higher chance of success. If you want to shoot a missile towards an enemy ship 200km away, you use whatever you can use even a commercial chopper.

Finally, you really shouldn't compare Iraq to Iran. It was not able to defeat Iran with all the support it got against Iranian soldiers that were fighting bare-hands. Its AD system was not that good. It was penetrated over and over by Iranian airforce and it was installed by the same countries that attacked it later meaning USA knew everything about Iraq's AD systems. The fact is, since WWII, USA has not really attacked a country that can put up a real fight. There was one, Vietnam, that had the stomach to fight and got supported by Soviet with not so advanced weapons and we know who won. You are correct, I'm guessing about how good Iran's equipment will perform in a real war but so are you about US ones. For one, the stealthy RQ-170 proved not to be as stealthy as everyone thought in the eye of Iran's sensors.

Edit:

Read below thread and my post at the end. It shows two things: In Iraq, Iran is running the show not US. And this is what happens when you only use air force and don't put boots on the ground.

Iran, top general saved Baghdad from falling to IS: Iraq MP

 

[The Last of us]

while anti aircraft system you decide to not know it was you réelement ability of proof? if Iran can build as sophisticated weapon he'll ever ask the purchase of s-300 Russia ...
the Ghadir and sepehr you are not yet prêt..aurai video or photo? Western we struggled to build how Iran could make her so quickly from nothing and with an embargo?
He had also said the Qaher and a copy of f-22 cheap and you said that this is a small bomber .....
if it was as easy to build a mighty hunter why Western and American will put one billion ??? Iran will not have time to build a modern fighter, the HESA Saeqeh and F-5 and change it does not even equal the F-4 then how to build a fighter that will match the f-14/15? su-27/30/35? mig-29 f-16 .... it takes a lot of money and expertise, Iran can not skipped generation
best to do as I said and bought su-30/35 to Russia in order to have a new high tech aviation and continuing all the powerful house hunter developement

I do not understand some of your post so I will answer the parts I understand.
Iran signed the contract with Russia for s-300 in 2007 and when the Russian started dragging their feet Iran started the bavar-373 project in 2009-2010. Nobody is claiming Iran had long range air defence capability back in 2007 but today bavar-373 is almost ready and has already been tested successfully. Iran sued russia for compensation, it does not need nor asks for s-300, however the Russians may still deliver it to avoid paying the 4 billion fine.

Also, Ghadir has already been unveiled and janes international posted some satellite pictures of seperh.
Here is a video of ghadir:

By the way, welcome to the forum

 

[applesauce]

Not sure what you are trying to prove here? That USA can win a war with Iran? Well I already told you it can. Is it going to be easier than Iraq, Vietnam or any recent wars that USA has fought? No way.

no, im saying the supposedly f-313 is no deterrent against the US which is what was previously claimed, i believe the f-313 is not a viable project(everything about its design is wrong), others claim its a simplistic jet mean for minimum deterrence, im claiming even if real, as a simplistic jet it offers no deterrence effects. as i have previously said, deterrence against america means either nuclear arms, a complete MIC, having a another great power willing to directly intervene on your behalf, or america having its own problems that dont directly have anything to do with you. of course iran couldnt win war with america that is not in doubt, only the silliest of fan-boys believe otherwise. currently what does serve as deterrent is the messy aftermath at a time when the US has multiple other problems in the middle east as well as major problems with russia and continued competition with china meaning any conflict with iran is simply not worth it atm.

Are you trying to say all of Iran's military achievements are useless and has not provided the deterrence intended? Well, you are entitled to your own opinion but Pentagon doesn't think that way. If you read the article in New York Times that I posted earlier, you will see the biggest opponents of a military action against Iran is Pentagon itself. Same is true about Israel. People who should fight the war say it is not a good idea.

no, all its current achievement do count towards deterrence but does not serve as a show stopper and the magical f-313(which i believe is a fake project) does not change that picture it would hardly serve as a road bump when sh1t hits the fan.

USA, Russia and China use top fighter planes because they think about offensive operations not defensive ones. In 2006 war between Lebanon and Israel, Hezbollah fired an Iranian version of those missiles towards an advanced Israeli frigate and crippled it. The luncher didn't have any guidance system i.e. it couldn't lock on anything and its crew definitely didn't have the knowledge of operating sophisticated weapons. They just fired the missile towards the frigate that they could visually see as it had got close enough and the missile did the rest of the job itself. Iran can lunch the same version and more advanced ones from back of trucks, its speed boats, incredibly simple choppers and of course F-4s. If you don't believe it, you can google it. And regarding your quote about bi-wing aircraft carrying missiles, you can take a look at Russian Bear bomber that is still functional and let me know what you think? Maybe NORAAD is wrong scrambling F-22 and F-18s each time one of them shows up. And probably Americans made a huge mistake using P-51 Mustang (a WWII era fighter) in Vietnam war. Application justifies the tools that you will be using. If you want to take out an enemy's radars, you need 5th generation fighters to give you a higher chance of success. If you want to shoot a missile towards an enemy ship 200km away, you use whatever you can use even a commercial chopper.

not true, with regards to china vs US, china know it cannot take the fight to america( not yet and non-nuclear anyhow) its military is geared toward fighting the US only in or near china itself aka defensively. China's MIC is designed to deny american access to Chinese lands and near seas, not to invade japan or attack California. and fyi, for the missile attack on israel, it was short ranged and caused insignificant damage even with the ships defences and sensors offline(it was probably an older c-802 that didnt score a direct hit, a direct hit by a c-802 would have sunk it outright), how long ranged is irans longest ranged missiles? dont bring up ASBM those definitely do require external targeting, only china atm is likely to have the sensor chains to use those at max ranges effectively. then you have to face the defenses, the russians have tried to fire mutiple long ranged missiles which have one missile pop-up and guide the rest in, it works but you still need the numbers, the range and the initial guidance, you would still face american CAP, ship defences and all those land base fighters they have before you can launch. as for the bear bombers, they were always meant to take on a carrier en-mass to break through the CAP and launch massive numbers of ASM at a american CBG, the Russians can do it because they have the fighters, the bomber, sensor capability and shear numbers to make such an attack viable. not so for iran, as you all know, iran is not russia/soviet union, could iran even find an american CBG in times of war? the oceans quite big ya know?. and it is standard practice to send up a fighter anytime and unresponsive jet appears in you air defense zone, it doesnt have to be tu-95, they could be ww1 bombers for all that matters, and in peace those bombers are allowed to get quite close, not so in war. and for your information, shooting a american/nato warship from 200km away using a commercial chopper will have a success rate of about ZERO. hence zero deterrence value.

Finally, you really shouldn't compare Iraq to Iran. It was not able to defeat Iran with all the support it got against Iranian soldiers that were fighting bare-hands. Its AD system was not that good. It was penetrated over and over by Iranian airforce and it was installed by the same countries that attacked it later meaning USA knew everything about Iraq's AD systems. The fact is, since WWII, USA has not really attacked a country that can put up a real fight. There was one, Vietnam, that had the stomach to fight and got supported by Soviet with not so advanced weapons and we know who won. You are correct, I'm guessing about how good Iran's equipment will perform in a real war but so are you about US ones. For one, the stealthy RQ-170 proved not to be as stealthy as everyone thought in the eye of Iran's sensors.

vietnam lost just about every battle they had with the US, the US could have steam rolled through north vietnam in months but like i said, the US pulled out eventually because of the lost of domestic support due to extremely difficult rules of engagement, specifically being unable to bomb bases/camps where soviet advisers are at, and being unable to target supply line from china, they won not because they could fight the US, they won becuase the US didnt want to start a wider war and possible war with SU/China. of course even if they had won the aftermath would have still be difficult given the hostile northern population. as for the RQ-170, yes one was taken down, but how many times did they fly one around iran? how many drones are in iran right now? heck we dont even know for sure that the drone was brought down by Iranians, it is equally likely to have malfunctioned. the US lost a F-117 during Kosovo too, but we all know the f-117 did its job damn well, as the gulf war in 1991 proved.

Read below thread and my post at the end. It shows two things: In Iraq, Iran is running the show not US. And this is what happens when you only use air force and don't put boots on the ground.

Iran, top general saved Baghdad from falling to IS: Iraq MP

again i did not deny iran has influence there, but the FACT remains, tens of thousands of us "advisers" will remain in iraq/afganistan, the US continues to enjoy total air access. hardly the puppet of iran you claimed them to be. if push came to shove there is simply no way iran could order those countries to deny the americans access.

 

[SOHEIL]

everything about its design is wrong

The real stuff is different ... you know?

 

[Arminkh]

no, im saying the supposedly f-313 is no deterrent against the US which is what was previously claimed, i believe the f-313 is not a viable project(everything about its design is wrong), others claim its a simplistic jet mean for minimum deterrence, im claiming even if real, as a simplistic jet it offers no deterrence effects. as i have previously said, deterrence against america means either nuclear arms, a complete MIC, having a another great power willing to directly intervene on your behalf, or america having its own problems that dont directly have anything to do with you. of course iran couldnt win war with america that is not in doubt, only the silliest of fan-boys believe otherwise. currently what does serve as deterrent is the messy aftermath at a time when the US has multiple other problems in the middle east as well as major problems with russia and continued competition with china meaning any conflict with iran is simply not worth it atm.



no, all its current achievement do count towards deterrence but does not serve as a show stopper and the magical f-313(which i believe is a fake project) does not change that picture it would hardly serve as a road bump when sh1t hits the fan.



not true, with regards to china vs US, china know it cannot take the fight to america( not yet and non-nuclear anyhow) its military is geared toward fighting the US only in or near china itself aka defensively. China's MIC is designed to deny american access to Chinese lands and near seas, not to invade japan or attack California. and fyi, for the missile attack on israel, it was short ranged and caused insignificant damage even with the ships defences and sensors offline(it was probably an older c-802 that didnt score a direct hit, a direct hit by a c-802 would have sunk it outright), how long ranged is irans longest ranged missiles? dont bring up ASBM those definitely do require external targeting, only china atm is likely to have the sensor chains to use those at max ranges effectively. then you have to face the defenses, the russians have tried to fire mutiple long ranged missiles which have one missile pop-up and guide the rest in, it works but you still need the numbers, the range and the initial guidance, you would still face american CAP, ship defences and all those land base fighters they have before you can launch. as for the bear bombers, they were always meant to take on a carrier en-mass to break through the CAP and launch massive numbers of ASM at a american CBG, the Russians can do it because they have the fighters, the bomber, sensor capability and shear numbers to make such an attack viable. not so for iran, as you all know, iran is not russia/soviet union, could iran even find an american CBG in times of war? the oceans quite big ya know?. and it is standard practice to send up a fighter anytime and unresponsive jet appears in you air defense zone, it doesnt have to be tu-95, they could be ww1 bombers for all that matters, and in peace those bombers are allowed to get quite close, not so in war. and for your information, shooting a american/nato warship from 200km away using a commercial chopper will have a success rate of about ZERO. hence zero deterrence value.



vietnam lost just about every battle they had with the US, the US could have steam rolled through north vietnam in months but like i said, the US pulled out eventually because of the lost of domestic support due to extremely difficult rules of engagement, specifically being unable to bomb bases/camps where soviet advisers are at, and being unable to target supply line from china, they won not because they could fight the US, they won becuase the US didnt want to start a wider war and possible war with SU/China. of course even if they had won the aftermath would have still be difficult given the hostile northern population. as for the RQ-170, yes one was taken down, but how many times did they fly one around iran? how many drones are in iran right now? heck we dont even know for sure that the drone was brought down by Iranians, it is equally likely to have malfunctioned. the US lost a F-117 during Kosovo too, but we all know the f-117 did its job damn well, as the gulf war in 1991 proved.



again i did not deny iran has influence there, but the FACT remains, tens of thousands of us "advisers" will remain in iraq/afganistan, the US continues to enjoy total air access. hardly the puppet of iran you claimed them to be. if push came to shove there is simply no way iran could order those countries to deny the americans access.

Ok, then we are saying the same thing.

For the missiles, Iran fires them from its drones. I'm sure you agree a drone doesn't carry any sophisticated sensors. The missiles have their own seeker and act independently. It may not hit the target intended but it will hit something in its way. Hezbollah fired two missiles and both scored. One hit the Israeli frigate and the other hit an Egyptian commercial ship. The frigate was put out of service which is enough. I can't believe that a frigate in war zone and in real war time at a distance blow 15km from enemy coast would turn off its sensors. Iran has declared cruise missiles with range of 350km and undeclared ones with range of above 1000km.

The fact that RQ-170 was being intercepted and watched is a fact and has nothing to do with how it ended up in Iran's hands. Documentary video shows Iran was watching it with IR sensors before it was brought down. This shows Iran has the means to detect low RCS objects. You can find the clip in YouTube or here. Why should I assume there are any drones above Iran right now? Just because they are operated by US? I'm not a fan of believing in unlimited power of a country just because it is a superpower. If they are not detected and shut down is because there isn't any not because it can't be detected.

But lets forget about all of the above. I'm sure the military experts know these things better than me and have thought them through. Let me know why do you think F-313 is not real and can't fly? I want technical reasons not statements like because it is Iranian designed.

 

[applesauce]

The real stuff is different ... you know?

i hope so. i have nothing against iran or its capabilities, in fact i believe iran to be quite capable for what it has access to, but that mockup is a joke

Ok, then we are saying the same thing.

For the missiles, Iran fires them from its drones. I'm sure you agree a drone doesn't carry any sophisticated sensors. The missiles have their own seeker and act independently. It may not hit the target intended but it will hit something in its way. Hezbollah fired two missiles and both scored. One hit the Israeli frigate and the other hit an Egyptian commercial ship. The frigate was put out of service which is enough. I can't believe that a frigate in war zone and in real war time at a distance blow 15km from enemy coast would turn off its sensors. Iran has declared cruise missiles with range of 350km and undeclared ones with range of above 1000km.

well let us assume that the launching platform is a survivable one, the problem isnt that a missile cant find on to a target on its own, the problem is locating a target in the first place, at long distance you cant simple fire blindly, you have to know which direction to fire, the ocean is quite large, heck even the gulf is quite large, this is where american and by extension israeli and co. intelligence capabilities really shine, also a reason the any strategist seeks to blind the enemy as quickly as possible. this is especially true when you seek to use weapon with 1000km range, the american have already consider this, given the even greater chinese capabilities, their solution thus far is to blind the eyes and not destroying the missile itself.

The fact that RQ-170 was being intercepted and watched is a fact and has nothing to do with how it ended up in Iran's hands. Documentary video shows Iran was watching it with IR sensors before it was brought down. This shows Iran has the means to detect low RCS objects. You can find the clip in YouTube or here. Why should I assume there are any drones above Iran right now? Just because they are operated by US? I'm not a fan of believing in unlimited power of a country just because it is a superpower. If they are not detected and shut down is because there isn't any not because it can't be detected.

i simply find it hard to believe that the US only sent one drone that one time on a day without any particular or special events happening in iran. it is simply more likely to me that they have done this multiple times and continue to do so. i also think this because of the US behavior back in the cold war with spying on China and the soviet union. if you disagree, that is fine.

But lets forget about all of the above. I'm sure the military experts know these things better than me and have thought them through. Let me know why do you think F-313 is not real and can't fly? I want technical reasons not statements like because it is Iranian designed.

yes, we are only normal civilians after all, as for why i dont think the f-313 mockup is a real fighter, there are many articles out there on this exact topic. but briefly.

the mockup is ridiculously badly made, way too small to be a full size fighter yet they had a real guy sit in it, the gauges and displays are as fake as they come, not even the type one would use in a fighter jet(looks like commercial gps display with a civilian plane speedometer(subsonic speed limit).

above the wing intake, means the design will never work as a fighter given the engines will choke during high AoA maneuvers

intake also far too small compounding the problem above if it even worked at all

no engines, not even a mock up nozzle, so is the already bad mockup unfinished? did did they just not think this one though?

as is, there is no space for it to carry weapons

various fake P.S'ed pics release by official media make the entire project laughable, oh and that one RC plane video which many claimed to be the test flight until it got picked apart as a RC plane

if iran has a stealth project it would be considerable(as in completely) different from what we were shown in the f-313

 

[Arminkh]

i hope so. i have nothing against iran or its capabilities, in fact i believe iran to be quite capable for what it has access to, but that mockup is a joke



well let us assume that the launching platform is a survivable one, the problem isnt that a missile cant find on to a target on its own, the problem is locating a target in the first place, at long distance you cant simple fire blindly, you have to know which direction to fire, the ocean is quite large, heck even the gulf is quite large, this is where american and by extension israeli and co. intelligence capabilities really shine, also a reason the any strategist seeks to blind the enemy as quickly as possible. this is especially true when you seek to use weapon with 1000km range, the american have already consider this, given the even greater chinese capabilities, their solution thus far is to blind the eyes and not destroying the missile itself.



i simply find it hard to believe that the US only sent one drone that one time on a day without any particular or special events happening in iran. it is simply more likely to me that they have done this multiple times and continue to do so. i also think this because of the US behavior back in the cold war with spying on China and the soviet union. if you disagree, that is fine.

Iran has OTH and other type of radars that cover quite a large area beyond its borders. According to Jane's the range of the latest OTH built is 3000 km which can cover well into Mediterranean sea. There are other type of radars with ranges below 3000 but better precision. They are enough for the purpose of aiming the missiles. Iranian anti-ship ballistic missiles use imaging sensors. They seek the image that has been preloaded in their memory as soon as they start to dive. At that altitude, their camera covers a vey large area. They scan the area, find the suspected targets. Compare them to the preloaded image. Make a decision and pick up the target and then god help the vessel that has been chosen. So all Iran needs to do is to know approximately where the enemy ship is and then the missile will take care of the rest. Please remember that Iran knows what it is up against and knows its limits.

Regarding the drones, the RQ-170 was not the only case. That was a big media boom as it was a great achievement. We hear about Iran shooting down foreign drones almost monthly. Iran doesn't try to capture every drone that enters Iran if it is of no technical value, they just shoot it down like the drone that recently infiltrated Iran air space and was said to be Israeli operated and took off from Azerbaijan.

Here is a new thread that I started to cover Iranian defence and deterrence strategy. There is an article that I posted at the first page. It is a long read but I think the author has done a great job putting together all of the pieces of news that we have heard about Iran and US struggle and shows the great picture. Let me know what you think?

Iran Military and Deterrence strategy

We can take the rest of the conversation about this subject there.

yes, we are only normal civilians after all, as for why i dont think the f-313 mockup is a real fighter, there are many articles out there on this exact topic. but briefly.
the mockup is ridiculously badly made, way too small to be a full size fighter yet they had a real guy sit in it, the gauges and displays are as fake as they come, not even the type one would use in a fighter jet(looks like commercial gps display with a civilian plane speedometer(subsonic speed limit).
above the wing intake, means the design will never work as a fighter given the engines will choke during high AoA maneuvers
intake also far too small compounding the problem above if it even worked at all
no engines, not even a mock up nozzle, so is the already bad mockup unfinished? did did they just not think this one though?
as is, there is no space for it to carry weapons
various fake P.S'ed pics release by official media make the entire project laughable, oh and that one RC plane video which many claimed to be the test flight until it got picked apart as a RC plane
if iran has a stealth project it would be considerable(as in completely) different from what we were shown in the f-313

The article at the beginning of this thread responded to most of these items:

1- First of all it is a mockup. According to the author, it has intentionally been built small. It has been made for a small pilot. The intention is to make it as light as possible to be able to perform simple tests with a small engine (probably a J-85) to see how it performs in take offs, landing and very low altitude flights at low speed.

2- This mockup is not intended for cruise speed above 200 Km/h. Please note that it has a tandem wing design. Tandem wing design is one of the three design classes when you want to utilize ground effect. A ground effect plane can fly at an altitude almost equal to it's wing span effortlessly and in much lower speed comparing to ordinary planes. So F-313 mock up should be able to take off at much lower speed comparing to other heavy fighters.

3- As I mentioned, F-313 is designed to attack naval units while flying only a few meters above sea level. That's why the intakes are positioned above the wing. To avoid water or dust get into the engine. It is a common design to put the engine or its intake above the wing for ground effect planes. Please see Russian Lun Ekranoplan pic below:

This is the altitude that F-313 is supposed to fly at when it is attacking naval units. It is impossible for naval units to hit a fighter as small as F-313 at this altitude with an AA missile as they can't lock on it beyond the horizon. And F-313 is not supposed to get that close to the naval units as Iran's small anti-ship cruise missiles have a range of 120 km so the targeted ship can never use its AA system against such a fighter. That's why it is a great addition to Iran's asymmetric war arsenal.

4- If the authorities decide to use F-313 for air superiority missions, the issue with attack angle can be solved by adding additional air intakes under the wing that open at high AOA situation and close after that. This concept has been used in other fighter during taxi or take off. For example Sukhoi 25 has air intakes above its main intake that open during take off. This way it decreases the pressure above aircraft body and reduces the distance and speed required for take off.

5- This mockup doesn't have any weapon chambers because it is not supposed to carry any. After all the tests are complete with this 90% (or whatever proportion) scale mockup, that actual flying prototype will be built which will definitely be bigger.

 

[applesauce]

The article at the beginning of this thread responded to most of these items:

1- First of all it is a mockup. According to the author, it has intentionally been built small. It has been made for a small pilot. The intention is to make it as light as possible to be able to perform simple tests with a small engine (probably a J-85) to see how it performs in take offs, landing and very low altitude flights at low speed.

i understand that its a mock up but just several things about it.

its extraordinary bad even for a mock up. the fact that it uses a speedometer with a subsonic (small civilian plane) speed limit, shows just how shoddy it is(not to mention the bad finish with the rough edges etc)

if its a small(say 2/3) model, then why does the mockup have a full size pilot seat? if its specifically for a midget pilot(which would be a world first), why was a normal size person asked to sit in the thing making it look completely ridiculous?

oh any its still missing engines, as in the mockup simply doesnt have any engines at all. so is it an unfinished mockup?

2- This mockup is not intended for cruise speed above 200 Km/h. Please note that it has a tandem wing design. Tandem wing design is one of the three design classes when you want to utilize ground effect. A ground effect plane can fly at an altitude almost equal to it's wing span effortlessly and in much lower speed comparing to ordinary planes. So F-313 mock up should be able to take off at much lower speed comparing to other heavy fighters.

tandem wing is again not used for fighters, while its true that a aircraft using the ground effect can "hover" til it reached take off speed thereby reducing the runway needed, its design is inherently bad for fighter because it simply is not as maneuverable as other design we see being used.

3- As I mentioned, F-313 is designed to attack naval units while flying only a few meters above sea level. That's why the intakes are positioned above the wing. To avoid water or dust get into the engine. It is a common design to put the engine or its intake above the wing for ground effect planes. Please see Russian Lun Ekranoplan pic below:

This is the altitude that F-313 is supposed to fly at when it is attacking naval units. It is impossible for naval units to hit a fighter as small as F-313 at this altitude with an AA missile as they can't lock on it beyond the horizon. And F-313 is not supposed to get that close to the naval units as Iran's small anti-ship cruise missiles have a range of 120 km so the targeted ship can never use its AA system against such a fighter. That's why it is a great addition to Iran's asymmetric war arsenal.

so this wont be a fighter at all then, you mean it will be a strike craft built only for one purpose which is against naval units. unfortunately, major naval units is not going to be in range of the jet, given its size there is no way it can fly out to the sea to meet a ship, let alone a CBG in battle(a f-18 for ex. has over 700km combat radius and thats considered a bit short legged). and whether or not a system can detect the jet and at what range really depends on just what the signatures of the jet is. please note that when it comes to stealth shaping and design, bigger or small doesn't necessarily decide which has the bigger signature. and its is going to be maintenance, supply heavy if you want it to take sealth shaping and design seriously(for example panels cannot simply be opened, they need tools to preserve the stealthiness-further reason the mockup was bad btw since no stealth fighter will have such a rough finish) so the support infrastructure (which americans are experts at taking down) will still be the major weakness. for naval stealth strike against the americans, you need something with long range, this is one of the reasons why people though the chinese j-20 was a specialized naval strike craft, because it appeared to be huge with a large internal fuel capacity, we have since learned its not as big as we thought. also if this plane was meant to deter the israelis, it also doesn't make sense as its improbable that israel will be striking iran from a ship. asymmetric capabilities against the americans usually means survivability and striking where they are weak(such as long range mobile missile launchers), having a major weakness like needing a large base and other logistic needs is pretty much playing right into their hands.

4- If the authorities decide to use F-313 for air superiority missions, the issue with attack angle can be solved by adding additional air intakes under the wing that open at high AOA situation and close after that. This concept has been used in other fighter during taxi or take off. For example Sukhoi 25 has air intakes above its main intake that open during take off. This way it decreases the pressure above aircraft body and reduces the distance and speed required for take off.

you dont simply decide to move intakes one way or the other. changing the position of the intakes require a complete reprogramming of the FCS and flight testing. nothing suggests the f-313 has selectable multi intake design. and the problem with the size of the intakes still aren't solved.

5- This mockup doesn't have any weapon chambers because it is not supposed to carry any. After all the tests are complete with this 90% (or whatever proportion) scale mockup, that actual flying prototype will be built which will definitely be bigger.

again, if its bigger, then the mockup is very bad and wrongly made. if the instruments and seat size in the mock up dont mean anything, then what part of the mock up does and who decided this? maybe its actually the size of a 787? then it can carry tons of missiles/bombs as well as be long ranged.

 

[Arminkh]

i understand that its a mock up but just several things about it.

its extraordinary bad even for a mock up. the fact that it uses a speedometer with a subsonic (small civilian plane) speed limit, shows just how shoddy it is(not to mention the bad finish with the rough edges etc)

Do you even read my comments? I said it was built for low speed tests, didn't I? I'm not making it up, this is my recollection from several articles that I have red about F-313. For this purpose, the speedometer that was installed is enough. I mean think a little, If it was only built for propaganda and publicity, how hard was it to put two LCD screens instead of all the commercial avionics in the cockpit and claim it has the state of the art avionics that F-35 has? Would it look more credible to you then? There were a lot of things that Iran could do if its aim was to win public opinion and believe me all of them are within its capacity.

Here is the YF-16 (that turned into F-16) mockup. The picture is blurry because it was taken before the digital imaging days but does it look any better than the F-313 mock up to you? At least F-313 mock up was standing on its landing gears and didn't need jacks to keep it in place. And by the way please note that there is no nuzzle and even the material on the body doesn't have a consistent color.

if its a small(say 2/3) model, then why does the mockup have a full size pilot seat? if its specifically for a midget pilot(which would be a world first), why was a normal size person asked to sit in the thing making it look completely ridiculous?
oh any its still missing engines, as in the mockup simply doesnt have any engines at all. so is it an unfinished mockup?

No it doesn't have a full size pilot seat and it is clearly mentioned in both the article at the beginning of this thread and my comments. Actually it was the first thing that all of the so called experts were laughing at.

My take is that they tried to build the smallest mockup possible that a mature pilot (or midget as you call it) could fit inside it. Reason? Reducing the cost (cost is related to the size, right?) and making it possible to fly with a small engine.

How do you know there was no engine? Both the nuzzle and the air intakes were covered. Have you seen a picture that I haven't? Is it because there is no nuzzle visible? Maybe the nuzzle is inside the hull to reduce the IR signature.

tandem wing is again not used for fighters, while its true that a aircraft using the ground effect can "hover" til it reached take off speed thereby reducing the runway needed, its design is inherently bad for fighter because it simply is not as maneuverable as other design we see being used.

Correction: Tandem wing has not been used for fighters yet. Doesn't mean it won't be in the future. The ballistic missiles had not been used to hit naval units either until China and Iran decided to do so and it turned into a nightmare for US naval units.

People laughed at Write brothers since they were trying to make a machine that was heavier than air fly. Nobody had done that before. Come on, give Iranians a little credit. Do you think its only Americans and Russians that can come up with revolutionary ideas?

Again, I need to remind you that F-313 is the first of its kind. We don't know what Iran is going to use it for. As long as you don't have anything else similar enough to compare it to, you can't comment on its performance and maneuverability. Unless you are a aerodynamics expert that can figure out everything just by looking at an aircraft which I'm not.

so this wont be a fighter at all then, you mean it will be a strike craft built only for one purpose which is against naval units. unfortunately, major naval units is not going to be in range of the jet, given its size there is no way it can fly out to the sea to meet a ship, let alone a CBG in battle(a f-18 for ex. has over 700km combat radius and thats considered a bit short legged). and whether or not a system can detect the jet and at what range really depends on just what the signatures of the jet is. please note that when it comes to stealth shaping and design, bigger or small doesn't necessarily decide which has the bigger signature. and its is going to be maintenance, supply heavy if you want it to take sealth shaping and design seriously(for example panels cannot simply be opened, they need tools to preserve the stealthiness-further reason the mockup was bad btw since no stealth fighter will have such a rough finish) so the support infrastructure (which americans are experts at taking down) will still be the major weakness. for naval stealth strike against the americans, you need something with long range, this is one of the reasons why people though the chinese j-20 was a specialized naval strike craft, because it appeared to be huge with a large internal fuel capacity, we have since learned its not as big as we thought. also if this plane was meant to deter the israelis, it also doesn't make sense as its improbable that israel will be striking iran from a ship. asymmetric capabilities against the americans usually means survivability and striking where they are weak(such as long range mobile missile launchers), having a major weakness like needing a large base and other logistic needs is pretty much playing right into their hands.

I think it is going to be something between the fighter and a strike aircraft.

But you need to remember that a ground effect vehicle is much more efficient than an ordinary aircraft. So chances are it can have far larger range compared to other aircrafts with the same size.

I can't comment on its range and its effectiveness against naval units. All I know is that Iranian are very creative in using things in areas that were not used before. We need to wait and see.

You are mixing two things here. It is a mock up not the actual one that is supposed to carry out the strike. The actual one will have a better finish.

Iran uses its missiles as a deterrence against Israel. It doesn't need fighters.

you dont simply decide to move intakes one way or the other. changing the position of the intakes require a complete reprogramming of the FCS and flight testing. nothing suggests the f-313 has selectable multi intake design. and the problem with the size of the intakes still aren't solved.

I didn't say relocate. An intake that only opens at high AOA won't affect its general flight aerodynamics which is what this mock up is going to be used for. And I only mentioned it as a solution to AOA issues if it really matter at all. For now, I'm not even sure F-313 does need that feature.

again, if its bigger, then the mockup is very bad and wrongly made. if the instruments and seat size in the mock up dont mean anything, then what part of the mock up does and who decided this? maybe its actually the size of a 787? then it can carry tons of missiles/bombs as well as be long ranged.

Mock up of YF-16 above is not the same size as the real one either.

If you know anything bout fluid dynamics, then you should know that all of the tensions and fluid dynamics parameters on a smaller scale muckup can be used to correctly estimate those of a real scale one. That's what a wind tunnel is used for. The larger the mockup, the more accurate your estimates would be. A mockup this size is the closest thing to a real prototype and can give you invaluable insight into the issues that the actual model will have at a far smaller cost.

That's what this mockup is built for.

 

[The SC]

As of today , Iran and Russia have reached a deal on the delivery of the S-300 system...

Qaher-313 has small air ducts on its back too...

 

[applesauce]

Do you even read my comments? I said it was built for low speed tests, didn't I? I'm not making it up, this is my recollection from several articles that I have red about F-313. For this purpose, the speedometer that was installed is enough. I mean think a little, If it was only built for propaganda and publicity, how hard was it to put two LCD screens instead of all the commercial avionics in the cockpit and claim it has the state of the art avionics that F-35 has? Would it look more credible to you then? There were a lot of things that Iran could do if its aim was to win public opinion and believe me all of them are within its capacity.

except the mockup doesn't fly(doesnt even have engine). hence your claim that the mockup(hence the label:mockup) was built for low speed tests falls completely apart. in addition since there are zero evidence that a working version is in testing or being built, you cant claim things like "built for low speed test". you are simply making excuses for it now without anything backing you up.

Here is the YF-16 (that turned into F-16) mockup. The picture is blurry because it was taken before the digital imaging days but does it look any better than the F-313 mock up to you? At least F-313 mock up was standing on its landing gears and didn't need jacks to keep it in place. And by the way please note that there is no nuzzle and even the material on the body doesn't have a consistent color.

did you go online and try to find the tiniest picture or what? lol, funny you choose this one, because that is an actually f-16 lwf, as in it actually flies, in the pic it is still incomplete, notice not just that the engine isnt installed yet but the vertical flap(rudder) and horizontal stabilizers are also not yet installed, this is also the reason for those so called "jacks" they were still working on the plane, but needed some PR shots so they simply rolled away the stairs/tools and took the pic.

so long story short, yes it looks millions of times better because its a real plane that really flys(or rather it did fly)

No it doesn't have a full size pilot seat and it is clearly mentioned in both the article at the beginning of this thread and my comments. Actually it was the first thing that all of the so called experts were laughing at.

My take is that they tried to build the smallest mockup possible that a mature pilot (or midget as you call it) could fit inside it. Reason? Reducing the cost (cost is related to the size, right?) and making it possible to fly with a small engine.

How do you know there was no engine? Both the nuzzle and the air intakes were covered. Have you seen a picture that I haven't? Is it because there is no nuzzle visible? Maybe the nuzzle is inside the hull to reduce the IR signature.

yet the pilot fits perfectly in the seat(but not in the plane) so was the guy at the show also a small person?
and have you seen the build quality of that mockup? as you say we have high quality digital photos of it, there is simply no way that mockup can fly, if it did have an engines, well first there is no afterburner thats for sure, second if a engine without afterburner was put on and turned on, it would melt everything in that mockup, given its fiber glass construction. and dont claim a real version will have this and that, where is the real flyable mini version? right, no evidence it exists.

Correction: Tandem wing has not been used for fighters yet. Doesn't mean it won't be in the future. The ballistic missiles had not been used to hit naval units either until China and Iran decided to do so and it turned into a nightmare for US naval units.

People laughed at Write brothers since they were trying to make a machine that was heavier than air fly. Nobody had done that before. Come on, give Iranians a little credit. Do you think its only Americans and Russians that can come up with revolutionary ideas?

sure iranians can come up with revolutionary ideas, ill believe if it made any sense or if its proven, an untampered with video of this plane going at high speeds will put to rest any doubts that its a real project, yet all we have is a very bad mockup and video of a RC flying. hence even some basic paper(nothing secret) outlining the planes hopes and designs can clear things up (like the doctor song papers for the j-20) yet we have exactly nothing.

Again, I need to remind you that F-313 is the first of its kind. We don't know what Iran is going to use it for. As long as you don't have anything else similar enough to compare it to, you can't comment on its performance and maneuverability. Unless you are a aerodynamics expert that can figure out everything just by looking at an aircraft which I'm not.

iran isnt going to use it for anything, because right now, it a bad mockup that cant fly, and considering its design even if it did fly, it cant maneuver very well. and no evidence there is anything else.

I think it is going to be something between the fighter and a strike aircraft.

But you need to remember that a ground effect vehicle is much more efficient than an ordinary aircraft. So chances are it can have far larger range compared to other aircrafts with the same size.

I can't comment on its range and its effectiveness against naval units. All I know is that Iranian are very creative in using things in areas that were not used before. We need to wait and see.

wait and see, very well then.

You are mixing two things here. It is a mock up not the actual one that is supposed to carry out the strike. The actual one will have a better finish.


Iran uses its missiles as a deterrence against Israel. It doesn't need fighters.

ballistic missile can deter but cant stop a airstrike, where as a viable(as in competitive) fighter(or anti-air system) can do both, deter and if that fails, actively stop airstrikes(assuming you detect an incoming).

I didn't say relocate. An intake that only opens at high AOA won't affect its general flight aerodynamics which is what this mock up is going to be used for. And I only mentioned it as a solution to AOA issues if it really matter at all. For now, I'm not even sure F-313 does need that feature.

very well then.

Mock up of YF-16 above is not the same size as the real one either.

except it is because the above actually real.

If you know anything bout fluid dynamics, then you should know that all of the tensions and fluid dynamics parameters on a smaller scale muckup can be used to correctly estimate those of a real scale one. That's what a wind tunnel is used for. The larger the mockup, the more accurate your estimates would be. A mockup this size is the closest thing to a real prototype and can give you invaluable insight into the issues that the actual model will have at a far smaller cost.

That's what this mockup is built for.

yes estimate.
but not when the mockup is badly build and doesnt fly.
some will claim that there is a 3/4(or whatever) version that does fly for tests, but again, no evidence it exists, we might as well say iran has a death star in testing too.