Defense Official: Qaher 313 Home-Made Fighter Jet to Protect Persian Gulf

[Penguin]

Firstly,Thats not F-5.that is saeghe's nose.and secondly,the plane got unveiled before Qaher.

Also,they put the nose to test the laboratory plane not vise versa,smart one.

And how exactly is that different from the F-5 nose?

 

[Esc8781]

Oops! Sorry.

 

[Esc8781]

it's funny how you see every thing in dodge fight (and specially sharp angle ones), while in reality it's very rare. pilots kill the opponent before even see them, just a light disappears from the radar screen.
and those Lockheed crew, I bet still are busy wondering WTF happened to their most advanced stealth drone.
I wish your military crew and analyzers to be as arrogant as you.

http:// http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/13/us-usa-drone-iran-idUSTRE80C1MD20120113

The USAF says it is a rapidly produced platform.

 

[mohsen]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/13/us-usa-drone-iran-idUSTRE80C1MD20120113

The USAF says it is a rapidly produced platform.

it's another biased article, and tries to show it as no big deal, some sort of damage control on American's pride.
article says it crashed while it has been captured and landed by our pilots (believing it or not, drone is mostly intact),
it says we are concerned that china get access to it, while their number one concern is Iran, and it's Iran who has lunched the mass production line of your Scan Eagle (and soon your RQ-170), but they can't admit it for the reason I mentioned earlier, it says the data are heavily encrypted while Iran already decrypted it and published the extracted videos from it's memory in the "Tabas haunt" documentary. Hajizadeh the head of IRGC Aerospace division said: "the technologies in this UAV are very similar to F35, the more we analyzed it we got more sure what a big lost it was for Americans, there are some technologies in this UAV that we didn't even knew about their existence."

the fact is that U.S is using it's spy planes and drones all over the world, there is no doubt in it, but they don't dare to get close to Iranian border anymore, and that's the only thing that matters for us.

 

[Penguin]

perhaps here would be nice
http://www.defence.pk/forums/national-political-issues/269434-shameful-people-speaking-about-abdul-qadeer-khan-6.html#post4610348

Perhaps. Then again, I'm not really interested in debating Dr. Kahn. I only referred to how nuclear technology found it way to Iran from the Netherlands via Pakistan, in reaction to a remark about things the Netherlands doesn't do in the nuclear field (as if that would somehow means the aren't able to). Debating Dr. Kahn is sidetracking from the question I posed about why Iran hasn't produced any 'normal' (conventional, non stealth) aircraft if it has all these technologies. A question which The SC has dodged, in part by jumping on the Dr Khan remark. So, thanx but no thanx.

 

[Penguin]

it's another biased article, and tries to show it as no big deal, some sort of damage control on American's pride.
article says it crashed while it has been captured and landed by our pilots (believing it or not, drone is mostly intact),
it says we are concerned that china get access to it, while their number one concern is Iran, and it's Iran who has lunched the mass production line of your Scan Eagle (and soon your RQ-170), but they can't admit it for the reason I mentioned earlier, it says the data are heavily encrypted while Iran already decrypted it and published the extracted videos from it's memory in the "Tabas haunt" documentary. Hajizadeh the head of IRGC Aerospace division said: "the technologies in this UAV are very similar to F35, the more we analyzed it we got more sure what a big lost it was for Americans, there are some technologies in this UAV that we didn't even knew about their existence."

the fact is that U.S is using it's spy planes and drones all over the world, there is no doubt in it, but they don't dare to get close to Iranian border anymore, and that's the only thing that matters for us.

Scan Eagle's origins are in tuna fishing (for real!), so I don't see what the big deal is. RQ-170 is rather a different animal so it remains to be seen what Iran can actually extract from it. And
- How would you know US spy planes (which?) and/or drones (which?) don't get close to or cross the borders of Iran anymore?
- How would you know US spy planes and/or drones need to get close to the borders of Iran to get the information they seek (e.g. E-8 JSTARS can simultaneously track 600 ground targets from a distance of more than 250 km (152 miles) away with its AN/APY-7 radar)?
- Even if no US spyplanes or drones are used over Iran, that doesn't exactly leave the US blind (e.g. other intel and recon assets exist, including but not limited to space based systems)

 

[Tshering22]

The design is good.

But it seems a bit too small to be able to be used as a potent dog-fighter or even to do air-to-ship(ASM) missions. Marine fighters need to be able to be up in the air for longer time because of the lack of landing fields available even in case of emergency, which means they will need additional fuel tanks than the conventional variants of a jet, which makes it very expensive.

How can it be 2-3 million dollars only?

How low-cost can it be?

You're talking about a fighter jet and not a suicide sub being dropped.

The ultimate aim is to be able to swarm the skies of Persian Gulf and rain bombs on USN's carrier battle groups right?

Mind you, that is not going to happen if you are making a very rudimentary structure. The air defence system aboard USN CBGs are deadly. A single carrier has an entire armada of protecting warships that are armed with dozens of cruise and air defence missiles apart from the CIWS cannons. Add to that 90+ Super Hornets armed to teeth with deadly AAMs.

You will need to use about 200 of them at once to overpower air defences, CBG warships and the fighter jets all together. Do you know what risk you will be carrying? 200 pilots are not easy to train. Each trained pilot is a precious resource because his training is what makes him a force in an air combat. Kamikaze while might seem grand, but is a foolish thing because unlike those basic flying turboprop fighters of the old, today jets are modern, easier to operate, faster, stealthier and have much much more devastating weapons than what the Japanese did.

You Iranians should be the last one to talk about suicide attacks.

Tell me, how many men died during the Iran-Iraq war? Thousands of young, brave and patriotic men were sent to be blown up to bits to be used as mine-sweepers across the land. Do you know what kind of a resource drain is that? You are a considerably populated country but the value of human life is too high to be used for such a trivial project.

Iranian government would do much more justice in spending more money and making this jet at least equal to atleast block 52 F-16s.

If China can manufacture J-10 under sanctions, then even you can do it.

Even if this is a simply plastic model shown for public display, to make it out of real composite grade material would cost a lot taking the price tag to at least $25-30 million, which is pretty normal for a modern fighter jet.

 

[mohsen]

- How would you know US spy planes (which?) and/or drones (which?) don't get close to or cross the borders of Iran anymore?

this is a report from chief of our AD division, who are tracking U.S movements beyond our borders, for example after several detecting and repelling U2 recognition planes (before even get close to our borders) they have moved away their flying region, but seriously you think U.S dares to send another RQ-170 or other sophisticated drones over Iran again? if yes, then I hope you send a model that we don't have it. even RQ-170 was detected way before it passed our borders. in recent war game of our Army they hacked to your drones that were flying over neighborhood country and captured it's live videos, but for security reasons they didn't publish them.

- How would you know US spy planes and/or drones need to get close to the borders of Iran to get the information they seek (e.g. E-8 JSTARS can simultaneously track 600 ground targets from a distance of more than 250 km (152 miles) away with its AN/APY-7 radar)?

what kind of question is that? then RQ probably entered for a vacation, ha? what you are gonna track from 250km away? our cars?

 

[Penguin]

this is a report from chief of our AD division, who are tracking U.S movements beyond our borders,

1) The Chief of AD division clearly has a vested interest in reporting that. Without saying he's lying, 'we all know' it wouldn't be the first time a government or military functionary reports what is expected or desired to be reported. The claim would be much stronger if there were second or independent third party information to the same extent confirming it.

2) Assuming the statement to be true for now, it would be about those movement that Iran CAN track only. I would not automatically assume those to be ALL relevant US movements)

for example after several detecting and repelling U2 recognition planes (before even get close to our borders)

The U-2 is an old and non-stealthy plane that the Russians and Cubans could already track and 'touch' in the 1960 using the SA-2 Guideline (S-75 Dvina). That fact, however, has not stopped U-2 flights. The U-2 has remained in service since the end of the Cold War and is one of several aircraft types that have been operated by the USAF in excess of 50 years. While the role of the U-2 is increasingly performed by alternative platforms, such as surveillance satellites, unmanned reconnaissance drones such as the Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk, and conventional aircraft, it was nevertheless projected, in March 2011, that the U.S.'s fleet of 32 U-2s would be operated until 2015. In January 2012, it was reported that Air Force plans to end the Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 30 program and extend the U-2 fleet in service until c. 2023

Recently, U-2s have participated in conflicts such as Afghanistan and Iraq, and supported several multinational NATO operations. Assuming Iran detected U-2s outside its borders, how would they (and you) know they weren't 'at work' over the afore mentioned countries? And how exactly would Iran repel a U-2 flying well outside its borders? Short of sending its own fighters planes or shooting missiles across the Iranian border into neighboring countries, I mean...

they have moved away their flying region

- Is it possible the US has (temporarily or permanently) moved its scarce U-2 assets elsewhere, because they were needed elsewhere more urgently (Iraq, Afghanistan obviously, but also e.g. Korea)?
- Is it possible other assets are being or have been substituted for the U-2?

Global Hawk ATCD prototypes have been used in the War in Afghanistan and in the Iraq War. While their data-collection capabilities have been praised, the program lost three prototype aircraft to accidents. Initial operational capability was declared for the RQ-4 Block 30 in August 2011. The Air Force does not plan to keep the RQ-4B Block 30 Global Hawk in service past 2014, in favor of the U-2 and other platforms that can more cheaply take over the mission. The USAF has said that the U-2 pilot and altitude advantages allow it to better function in the stormy weather and airspace restrictions of the East Asia region and its altitude and sensor advantages allow it to see further into hostile territory.

, but seriously you think U.S dares to send another RQ-170 or other sophisticated drones over Iran again? if yes, then I hope you send a model that we don't have it.

Sure they would, if they saw a need and had no stand-off alternative. And, possibly, as drones get more mature (i.e. more reliable and less accident prone).

even RQ-170 was detected way before it passed our borders.

So? Hope you are not confusing 'low observable' with 'invisible'. Even if you got to detect it, doesn't mean you automatically have a chance to kill it.

in recent war game of our Army they hacked to your drones that were flying over neighborhood country and captured it's live videos, but for security reasons they didn't publish them.

1) I don't own any drones. The Netherlands does: they have 75 Raven UAVs. But not exactly comparable stuff to RQ-4 or RQ-170
Raven mini-UAV | Ministerie van Defensie

2) If for security reasons they didn't publish live video's, why did they brag about this ability to hack into drones? Out of security reasons too? If would be much smarter to hack and not say. Which is why I find this rather suspect.

what kind of question is that? then RQ probably entered for a vacation, ha? what you are gonna track from 250km away? our cars?

It is a perfectly legit question, which you haven't responded to. Uavs may give you visual images that a stand off radar plane may not give you. So, its complementary capabilities. But it doesn't mean the US would be blind if it has no assets over Iran. JSTARS planes were instrumental in wacking the Iraqi army as it retreated from Kuwait. It can see e.g. AD batteries being moved.

File:GMTI JSTARS.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

https://www.fas.org/irp/imint/jstars4.htm

MP-RTIP Progress Continues

 

[mohsen]

1) The Chief of AD division clearly has a vested interest in reporting that. Without saying he's lying, 'we all know' it wouldn't be the first time a government or military functionary reports what is expected or desired to be reported. The claim would be much stronger if there were second or independent third party information to the same extent confirming it.

2) Assuming the statement to be true for now, it would be about those movement that Iran CAN track only. I would not automatically assume those to be ALL relevant US movements)




The U-2 is an old and non-stealthy plane that the Russians and Cubans could already track and 'touch' in the 1960 using the SA-2 Guideline (S-75 Dvina). That fact, however, has not stopped U-2 flights. The U-2 has remained in service since the end of the Cold War and is one of several aircraft types that have been operated by the USAF in excess of 50 years. While the role of the U-2 is increasingly performed by alternative platforms, such as surveillance satellites, unmanned reconnaissance drones such as the Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk, and conventional aircraft, it was nevertheless projected, in March 2011, that the U.S.'s fleet of 32 U-2s would be operated until 2015. In January 2012, it was reported that Air Force plans to end the Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 30 program and extend the U-2 fleet in service until c. 2023

Recently, U-2s have participated in conflicts such as Afghanistan and Iraq, and supported several multinational NATO operations. Assuming Iran detected U-2s outside its borders, how would they (and you) know they weren't 'at work' over the afore mentioned countries? And how exactly would Iran repel a U-2 flying well outside its borders? Short of sending its own fighters planes or shooting missiles across the Iranian border into neighboring countries, I mean...


- Is it possible the US has (temporarily or permanently) moved its scarce U-2 assets elsewhere, because they were needed elsewhere more urgently (Iraq, Afghanistan obviously, but also e.g. Korea)?
- Is it possible other assets are being or have been substituted for the U-2?

Global Hawk ATCD prototypes have been used in the War in Afghanistan and in the Iraq War. While their data-collection capabilities have been praised, the program lost three prototype aircraft to accidents. Initial operational capability was declared for the RQ-4 Block 30 in August 2011. The Air Force does not plan to keep the RQ-4B Block 30 Global Hawk in service past 2014, in favor of the U-2 and other platforms that can more cheaply take over the mission. The USAF has said that the U-2 pilot and altitude advantages allow it to better function in the stormy weather and airspace restrictions of the East Asia region and its altitude and sensor advantages allow it to see further into hostile territory.



Sure they would, if they saw a need and had no stand-off alternative. And, possibly, as drones get more mature (i.e. more reliable and less accident prone).


So? Hope you are not confusing 'low observable' with 'invisible'. Even if you got to detect it, doesn't mean you automatically have a chance to kill it.


1) I don't own any drones. The Netherlands does: they have 75 Raven UAVs. But not exactly comparable stuff to RQ-4 or RQ-170
Raven mini-UAV | Ministerie van Defensie

2) If for security reasons they didn't publish live video's, why did they brag about this ability to hack into drones? Out of security reasons too? If would be much smarter to hack and not say. Which is why I find this rather suspect.


It is a perfectly legit question, which you haven't responded to. Uavs may give you visual images that a stand off radar plane may not give you. So, its complementary capabilities. But it doesn't mean the US would be blind if it has no assets over Iran. JSTARS planes were instrumental in wacking the Iraqi army as it retreated from Kuwait. It can see e.g. AD batteries being moved.

File:GMTI JSTARS.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

https://www.fas.org/irp/imint/jstars4.htm
MP-RTIP Progress Continues

I don't know about your armies but morality is essence of our army, in Iran only most religious people can join the military, in our religion goal doesn't justify the means, I challenge anyone to find a lie from our military.

like it or not U2 still has many stealth characteristics and many countries still can't detect them, in fact according to the words of our AD chief, I assume that just a few years ago we didn't have this ability too. you most probably have heard about our fighters shooting or escorting of American's predators over international waters in Persian gulf, I assume that when we can track a predator, we can track a global hawk too.

regarding the "your drones" I was referring to U.S, for a moment I confused your flag with some American members.

the fact or claim that Iran has hacked into U.S drones isn't a secret anymore that's why we announced it during the war game, but what kind of drone and from what distance is some info that obviously Americans can use it, and that's why we didn't publish those videos.

I never said U.S is blind over Iran, they have many radar stations and flying awakes around Iran alongside their sattelite, but you asked why U.S need to get close to our borders and I answered for the same reason RQ-170 had to enter and not just close. also RQ-170 was equipped with some sophisticated radio active detection sensors which need to get close to target (you can assume this one only as your answer).

 

[Penguin]

Initial U-2 planes were little more than jet-powered gliders built of plastic and plywood. The then newly-developed aircraft that could fly for up to nine hours at an unprecedented height: 70,000 feet. Here, this unusual machine would be invulnerable from interception by Soviet fighters. It was hoped it would also be undetectable by Soviet radars. The U-2 had gone undetected because it was made of non-metallic materials which absorbed radar waves rather than reflecting them back to the radar ground station, as normally happens.

The question of whether Soviet radar systems were yet capable of detecting and tracking the aircraft was unresolved at that time. Certainly, the aircraft had been periodically tracked by US and Canadian radar systems during the development and training phase. Moreover, US intelligence believed that new Soviet interceptors would be able to reach the U-2 within a couple of years.

At a meeting in mid-August 1956, after at least 4 undetected overflights of Russian territory, the possibility of adding radar-canceling devices to the U-2 was explored. Ed Purcell explained his theories of radar deception, and Frank Rodgers from MIT’s Radiation Laboratory was recruited to apply them to the U-2. Project RAINBOW was born - the first-ever attempt to make an operational aircraft ‘stealthy.’The RAINBOW project would be the U-2’s salvation. During flight tests in the first half of 1957, U-2s coated with radar-absorbing materials or fitted with radar-deflecting wires did fool some US radars. Thus, the U-2 became the first aircraft to use radarabsorbing paint. But in operational test flights along the Soviet border, the technical difficulty in defeating both the S-band Tokens and the lower, VHF-band Soviet radars nicknamed Dumbo and Knife Rest was apparent. Moreover, the ‘stealth’ modifications added weight to the U-2, which reduced its maximum altitude by up to 5,000 feet.

The CIA planned for a new overflight campaign in spring 1958, and one of the supposedly ‘stealthy’ aircraft took off from Japan to fly over the Soviet Far East on 1 March 1958. It was detected and intercepted by MiG fighters that came uncomfortably close. A new Soviet protest note caused President Eisenhower to suspend the U-2 flights again.

It was only the growing ‘missile gap’ controversy that finally persuaded Eisenhower to allow a few more Soviet overflights starting in July 1959. But time finally ran out for the U-2 on 1 May 1960. Flying at 70,000 feet, Gary Powers was shot down by an SA-2 near Sverdlovsk. The rest is history.

Although the U-2 never again flew over the Soviet Union, it was still a versatile reconnaissance platform. It played a decisive role in the Cuba Missile Crisis, and was deployed to southeast Asia throughout the Vietnam War. An improved, enlarged version combined with new sensors and real-time datalinks helped the aircraft survive the Cold War. It is still flying over the Middle East and Korea and other world troublespots today.

Adapted from: http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/early_u2.asp

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Initial U-2 planes were little more than jet-powered gliders built of plastic and plywood. The then newly-developed aircraft that could fly for up to nine hours at an unprecedented height: 70,000 feet. Here, this unusual machine would be invulnerable from interception by Soviet fighters. It was hoped it would also be undetectable by Soviet radars. The U-2 had gone undetected because it was made of non-metallic materials which absorbed radar waves rather than reflecting them back to the radar ground station, as normally happens.............

Adapted from: Cold War Museum

This sentence is incorrect for early U-2s.

Here it is in nice shiny aluminum:

 

[Esc8781]

it's another biased article, and tries to show it as no big deal, some sort of damage control on American's pride.
article says it crashed while it has been captured and landed by our pilots (believing it or not, drone is mostly intact),
it says we are concerned that china get access to it, while their number one concern is Iran, and it's Iran who has lunched the mass production line of your Scan Eagle (and soon your RQ-170), but they can't admit it for the reason I mentioned earlier, it says the data are heavily encrypted while Iran already decrypted it and published the extracted videos from it's memory in the "Tabas haunt" documentary. Hajizadeh the head of IRGC Aerospace division said: "the technologies in this UAV are very similar to F35, the more we analyzed it we got more sure what a big lost it was for Americans, there are some technologies in this UAV that we didn't even knew about their existence."

the fact is that U.S is using it's spy planes and drones all over the world, there is no doubt in it, but they don't dare to get close to Iranian border anymore, and that's the only thing that matters for us.

Uhh, you cant grasp the concept that the Rq-170 'platform' is an aircraft within a high-risk environment. The designers at Lockheed Martin recognize this problem, and design the aircraft with highly expendable and lightly risky design with LO features. For example as you see the Rq has poor edge alignment, a curved surface where it's supposed to have a chine. It also utilizes old technology to problems like its exhaust or the grills on its intakes. I can give you more information why this aircraft is not ground-breaking. Capturing the aircraft is enough to hinder its operations, but not stopping it. Similar to the F-35 where did you get that? How did they know about the technology on the F-35? Huge political loss? Hell yeah! Huge military loss? Not so much.

even RQ-170 was detected way before it passed our borders. in recent war game of our Army they hacked to your drones that were flying over neighborhood country and captured it's live videos, but for security reasons they didn't publish them.

Was that the reason why a subsonic aircraft crossed into your boarder without the IRIAF responding to the immediate threat leaving ground troops to engage the target? That's poor war-fighting abilities.

"Schwartz declined comment on the outcome of the investigation, but said the Air Force now understood what caused the crash and was continuing to use the rest of the service's RQ-170 spy planes to provide data.

"The key thing is that it's an ISR system that we use to provide capabilities to the combatant commanders and we'll continue to do so," Schwartz said in an interview."

 

[Esc8781]

This sentence is incorrect for early U-2s.

Here it is in nice shiny aluminum:

Those look like they were tested and fielded at Groom Lake.

See here.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Those look like they were tested and fielded at Groom Lake.

See here.

Yea, nice shiny unpainted aluminum.