Ghaher 313 fighter

[kollang]

- top intakes

whats the weakness point wih Top Intakes?even it help the fighter to be more stealth

- too small intakes

notice it uses one engine.plus the intakes are not that small at all.

- lack of diverters

plz give us more information regarding this.

- bizarre Klingon wings

nothing wrong with it.infact it increase being Maneuverable.however they should use an advanced controlling program for it

- to small cockpit

infact condsidering its small body it has a big cockpit.

- too small nose

yes it is.however they will use AESA radar for it as well.plus the radar is located near to pilot where the body is a bit wider

- front canards are no fully movable

prove it...

 

[Surenas]

Why you don't wait a few days or maybe months to see the truth. Don't destroy all the bridges behind you.
Personally I think the Iran's claim is true but I don't know in which stage they are. I have heard some news about other modules . I guess most of us are alive till next year .

You won't see any significant development this week, or this month, or even this year. Believe me.

 

[Ir.Tab.]

Wing area too small for what? it has sufficient area combined with canards.

Look at the fighters with canards:

Canards are to improve maneuverability. In this concept design, canards are fixed and almost as big as wings. Those small wings remind me the low maneuverable generation of jet engine powered fighters.

 

[kollang]

Moron, I actually explained why colors of UAV displayed by Iranians ARE real:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/irania...th-uav-rq-170-downed-iran-48.html#post2373726

I never denied loss of UAV by US. I never claimed its a fake. Quite on contrary. Here my very first message in that thread:



http://www.defence.pk/forums/irania...th-uav-rq-170-downed-iran-25.html#post2366441

I still think thats what happened in reality.

I also explained why UAV displayed by Iranians is NOT a model:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/irania...th-uav-rq-170-downed-iran-45.html#post2373460

So next time read properly before posting.

what about scaneagle?

You won't see any significant development this week, or this month, or even this year. Believe me.

my guess is the operational flight will begin by 2014 to 2016.however testing flight will begin in near future.

 

[Serpentine]

That is where the logic failed. Just because we asked for the return of the lost UAV, that does not mean we acknowledged the claim that Iran 'hacked' or brought it down any other way.

Still, I have no problems expressing my doubt that the thing Iran presented is THE one that we lost. That does not mean Iran cannot possess the actual UAV, but it may be in too many pieces due to a crash, or that it may have soft landed being reasonably intact but was fired upon by some Iranian soldiers, after all, it is not that difficult to mistake a UAV for a manned aircraft by someone untrained in aircraft recognition. Then Iran decided to mock up a model with sufficient outer details for propaganda purposes. It is not that difficult to present irrefutable proof: Let a few journalists take pictures of components that contains manufacturer's part numbers, serial numbers, and/or positions on the aircraft.

The fact that Iran presented this latest model as somehow indicative of the country's capability to build a complete 'stealth' fighter only to have it taken apart on the Internet is even more supportive of the perception that Iran will go to any length for propaganda purposes. And that includes our lost UAV.

But neither you can prove that Iran didn't hack it, right?
There is no need for journalists to take pictures of RQ-170.You are just in state of denial? Are you saying Iran made a fake model of RQ-170? Ok, then good for you, why whining about it? Doesn't U.S have exact number of its million dollar RQ-170s in Afghanistan? Or the U.S military is reporting lies to Obama? Why on earth should Obama ask for a 'fake' RQ-170 made by Iran for 'propaganda purposes' back?

Bunch of university students in U.S could hack the drone, so you shouldn't say Iran can't hack the drone.We are used to it, every single thing comes out of Iran, U.S is suspicious about it, and vice versa, every single thing comes out of U.S government, Iran is suspicious about it.

 

[500]

whats the weakness point wih Top Intakes?even it help the fighter to be more stealth

They are suffocated at high AoA. Not suitable for maneuverable planes.

notice it uses one engine.plus the intakes are not that small at all.

They are small even for a single RD-33.

plz give us more information regarding this.

Do u see a gap between the hull and intakes?

Its called divertor.

nothing wrong with it

Only plane with such wings was Boeing Bird of Prey. It was slow unmaneuverable test bed. And after testing Boeing ditched this type of wing for normal.

infact condsidering its small body it has a big cockpit.

Its too small for regular man.

yes it is.however they will use AESA radar for it as well.plus the radar is located near to pilot where the body is a bit wider

AESA radar also needs area.

prove it...

U can easily see it on pics:

And also note silly thick curved profile. Here how the REAL canards look like:

I'll add two more points:

1) Thick curved wing profile from pre-WW2 era.
2) Rectangular entrance near intakes which kills stealth.

 

[Manticore]

the CFTs are photoshoped on this jf-17 airshow picture, however notice the intakes position and size -- jf-17 uses a single rd93

diameter of the radar dome -rough estimate

F-20/T-50 => ~500mm (APG-67 family)
Gripen => ~500mm (PS/05 family)
M2000 => ~500mm (RDM, RDI, RDY families)
Rafale => ~600mm(RBE family)
MIG-29 => ~624 mm (N019, N010 families)
F-16 => ~660mm (APG-66, APG-68, APG-80 families)

JFT =>~ 670-740 mm

Typhoon => ~700mm (ECR-90/CAPTOR family)
F-18 => ~700mm (APG-65, APG-73, APG-79 families)
F-35 => ~700mm (APG-81)
F-22 => ~900mm (APG-77)
F-15 => ~950mm (APG-63, APG-70 families)
SU-27/30 => ~1000 mm (N001, N010 [924mm antenna ver], N011 faimilies)
MIG-31 => ~1400mm (N007 family)

http://www.defence.pk/forums/jf-17-thunder/95288-jf-17-radar-dome-size.html

 

[Arasteh]

You won't see any significant development this week, or this month, or even this year. Believe me.

Why do you care what Iran unveils/produces ?

 

[Surenas]

Why do you care what Iran unveils/produces ?

Why do you care?

 

[United]

Why do you care what Iran unveils/produces ?

Why do you care?

look at booth there avatars one is trolling the other.

 

[gambit]

But neither you can prove that Iran didn't hack it, right?

If Iran made the claim, then the burden of proof is ALWAYS upon the claimant, not the skeptics. That is how logical thinking works.

There is no need for journalists to take pictures of RQ-170.You are just in state of denial?

Sure there is IF the claimant want his claim to be taken seriously. Do you really think Iran is going to allow even car mechanics to examine this latest aviation claim?

Are you saying Iran made a fake model of RQ-170?

Yes, I am.

Ok, then good for you, why whining about it?

I am not 'whining' about this. The Iranians members are -- about skeptics expressing their doubts.

Doesn't U.S have exact number of its million dollar RQ-170s in Afghanistan? Or the U.S military is reporting lies to Obama? Why on earth should Obama ask for a 'fake' RQ-170 made by Iran for 'propaganda purposes' back?

That is a terrible line of 'logic'. How could you automatically assumed that we asked SPECIFICALLY for the one in that video?

Tell you what...Give US the starboard landing gear. Or the nose landing gear. Or just even one of the few electrical motors that actuate the flight controls surfaces. Not too much of a concession, right?

And let Tom and Ray Magliozzi, aka 'The Tappet Brothers' of NPR Car Talk fame, examine this latest Iranian aviation claim.

Bunch of university students in U.S could hack the drone, so you shouldn't say Iran can't hack the drone.We are used to it, every single thing comes out of Iran, U.S is suspicious about it, and vice versa, every single thing comes out of U.S government, Iran is suspicious about it.

No, they did not. They disrupted the GPS signals, which can be done, and they tapped into the video feeds, which are unencrypted. But they did not 'hacked' into the flight controls modules.

@gambit

Sir, aren't you a retired artillery commander by any chance?

No. That would be S2.

 

[Rostam]

in harumzade farsi balad nist ke.

age balad nist farsio ba horofe latin bekhone pas assan chera zendast?

 

[Gestapo]

As I said many times already, the plane they shown in the pictures is clearly a mock-up and the real thing is somewhere undergoing tests. They stated they are working on the cockpit, engine is defo being worked on, Iran needs to make it's own engines and not rely on those crap Russian junks. The Russian engines make more smokes than my dead neighbour did, whom died due to lung cancer due to smoking too much.

There is nothing wrong with intakes,the size of cockpit or anything which would suggest this is not real design. All we need is test flight and some info on the engines and radars and so on.



Remember the saying
" jealousy burns as much as fire"

 

[Quasar]

another interesting feature of the mockup is... strange enough...it has civil aviation avionics

with all other observations which were already stated... you are getting the impression that people who were constructing the mockup was in a hurry

 

[gambit]

As I said many times already, the plane they shown in the pictures is clearly a mock-up and the real thing is somewhere undergoing tests. They stated they are working on the cockpit, engine is defo being worked on, Iran needs to make it's own engines and not rely on those crap Russian junks. The Russian engines make more smokes than my dead neighbour did, whom died due to lung cancer due to smoking too much.

There is nothing wrong with intakes,the size of cockpit or anything which would suggest this is not real design. All we need is test flight and some info on the engines and radars and so on.

P.s, people who say the nose is "too small" for the radars are again bunch of morons. You can bring the radar closer to the cockpit where it is larger and there will be no problem with that.

Remember the saying
" jealousy burns as much as fire"

Aahhh...No...THAT is a moronic statement. Since you admitted that you have no aviation experience, refrain from making non-supportable claims.