Iran Air Force

[EvilWesteners]

Thanks Ich, for your comments.

You remind me of a friend of mine, he is a German friend of mine from Bodensee and works in Toulouse for Airbus. We went to university together and had classes in Aeronautical Mechanical Engineering, and still friends after all these years.

" ... So you like the R-35-300 cause of its very good output while it is still a "simple" turbojet. But as i read this engine needs up to 8 tons fuel per hour in normal modus (dry) and up to 25 tons fuel per hour in afterburner modus (wet). So me wonder how far/long a mig23 with that engine would fly. And low fuel consumption and long range due to that, while having the same or better output is recomended for the next new iranian planes in my opinion. And it looks like that a turbofan would be the solution for that. "

As I explained to Peed, in another post, I am not a fan of a turbojet necessarily. I just see the advantages for Iran. Mapna works quite a bit with Siemens, and they have the art of the turbines blades with coating down to perfection now.

That technology can be transferred to R-35-300 (which Germans have experimented with quite a bit and have it now in their museum).

R-35-300 can be modified with current technology with a single piece welded (or machined even) fan in the front. It would dramatically reduce noise (associated to most turbines although worse for turbojets), and improve on efficiency and thrust.

This engine can also be implemented with PCC (pre-compression cooling) with distilled water and oxidizers.

It will be easy (for Iran) to standardize and use while they are perfecting a turbofan.

Turbofans are inherently more complex, especially twin spools. Single spooks are much easier and much more reliable. Yes they use more fuel. But Iran needs reliability more than fuel efficiency, it they had to choose between them.

For instance, one of the simplest and most effective engines: GE J97 (pictured). It is an amazing engine, and yes from 1970s. Probably the best turbojet engine (considering technology and thrust to weight ratio and cost).

"... Iran also needs transport aircrafts (plane and choppers), air tankers, medium AWACs and so on. But yes, 2 standard: A fighter/interceptor and a bomber/multirole. "

Yes, once standardized on an engine, an improved R-35-300 with single piece welded/machined front fan, slightly reduced weight, better fuel efficiency, Iran could easily use this for IL-76 that it has. Both for AWACS and transport.

For choppers, Iran would be crazy not to mass produce 2,900hp Lycoming LTC4B-8D they know so well, this is a perfect engine for HOT/HIGH - but yes, it is heavier and use more fuel, but then again it is the same as the engine they use for CH53D helicopters. Iran can build single engine and twin engine from this platform and be done with it. It can even use a single for attack helicopter like Cheyenne AH-56. Lots of scalability for the next 30 years.

"... Yes, i also talked here about simulating the complete air plane building process in virtual reality, sometimes. With the new supercomputers Iran now can do the same you do and maybe a bit better. "

They do indeed have supercomputers, even the ones they don't talk about, like the PERSEPOLIS - it's a beauty. Although it is not finished (i.e. not all the nodes originally planned are in the datacenter). The last shipment of blades (2U servers) were confiscated, I can't mention where.

Iran problems comes down to (like everyone else almost), funding. The engineers are quite talented and MOTIVATED. Oh god, they are MOTIVATED and hate U.S., and European indifference and impotence, but what can they do.

"... Me think Iran developed and tested its "building and refining the infrastructure and tooling, to parts manufacturing" over the last 30 years. This went hand in hand with the development of all the F5 variants. The long learning process. Also the organization of an air plane production line and how to connect different air plane parts industries to this production line to let the production flow. Hmm, my englisch isnt efficient But there are Vids one can see it with the production line of one of the F5 variants. "

ahhh, don't believe everything you see. Iran has quite a lot, but also has some fundamental things missing as well. Iran needs the funding and the political support to build a fighter jet. The political WILL is not there at the moment.

As an example, look at Iran's auto industry. It is some 20 years (even best estimates, 10 years) behind the current standards, not even considering the main leader (Japan).

Funding a project is the most crucial aspect. Then comes smart planning and national/nationwide support.

If Iran has that, I think in about 10 years they can build a single engine YF23 equivalent fighter jet that will meet Iran's strategic goals for the next 20+ years.

I wish Iran all the luck.

 

[WudangMaster]

Good read, I would recommend merging this into the IRIAF thread.

 

[Ich]

Thanks Ich, for your comments.

You remind me of a friend of mine, he is a German friend of mine from Bodensee and works in Toulouse for Airbus. We went to university together and had classes in Aeronautical Mechanical Engineering, and still friends after all these years.

" ... So you like the R-35-300 cause of its very good output while it is still a "simple" turbojet. But as i read this engine needs up to 8 tons fuel per hour in normal modus (dry) and up to 25 tons fuel per hour in afterburner modus (wet). So me wonder how far/long a mig23 with that engine would fly. And low fuel consumption and long range due to that, while having the same or better output is recomended for the next new iranian planes in my opinion. And it looks like that a turbofan would be the solution for that. "

As I explained to Peed, in another post, I am not a fan of a turbojet necessarily. I just see the advantages for Iran. Mapna works quite a bit with Siemens, and they have the art of the turbines blades with coating down to perfection now.

That technology can be transferred to R-35-300 (which Germans have experimented with quite a bit and have it now in their museum).

R-35-300 can be modified with current technology with a single piece welded (or machined even) fan in the front. It would dramatically reduce noise (associated to most turbines although worse for turbojets), and improve on efficiency and thrust.

This engine can also be implemented with PCC (pre-compression cooling) with distilled water and oxidizers.

It will be easy (for Iran) to standardize and use while they are perfecting a turbofan.

Bringing up the possible temperatures inside the engine through coatings and modern material blades - and then having a better burning of the fuel and also a lower fuel consumption at the same thrust - is sure possible for Iran. Me think Iran did this "upgrading" already with the F5 J85 into the OWJ engine. So Iran is experienced in this kind of upgrading.

But as i understood there is a limitation of the temperature depending on the engine geometry itself. Well, my knowledge (hahaha) is very limited. I read some about air plane engines for example here (and other pdfs)

https://www.sto.nato.int/publications/STO%20Educational%20Notes/RTO-EN-AVT-185/EN-AVT-185-02.pdf

So for me it looks like that the Turbofan exists cause of the temperature limitations of the turbojet. When it comes to pre-cooling as you suggested, me think it changes nothing of the limitation.

Turbofans are inherently more complex, especially twin spools. Single spooks are much easier and much more reliable. Yes they use more fuel. But Iran needs reliability more than fuel efficiency, it they had to choose between them.

For instance, one of the simplest and most effective engines: GE J97 (pictured). It is an amazing engine, and yes from 1970s. Probably the best turbojet engine (considering technology and thrust to weight ratio and cost).

Why should Iran limiting itself? If you upgrade a turbojet as you suggested, it is not only the blades. It is also all parts in the engine what have to be upgraded cause of higher temperature. This is very intensive and if one do such an great afford, one better put this energy into a turbofan to also gain more range and/or less fuel consumption.

"... Iran also needs transport aircrafts (plane and choppers), air tankers, medium AWACs and so on. But yes, 2 standard: A fighter/interceptor and a bomber/multirole. "

Yes, once standardized on an engine, an improved R-35-300 with single piece welded/machined front fan, slightly reduced weight, better fuel efficiency, Iran could easily use this for IL-76 that it has. Both for AWACS and transport.

For choppers, Iran would be crazy not to mass produce 2,900hp Lycoming LTC4B-8D they know so well, this is a perfect engine for HOT/HIGH - but yes, it is heavier and use more fuel, but then again it is the same as the engine they use for CH53D helicopters. Iran can build single engine and twin engine from this platform and be done with it. It can even use a single for attack helicopter like Cheyenne AH-56. Lots of scalability for the next 30 years.

Could be a way for these sections. But Iran hasnt much of these IL76.

"... Yes, i also talked here about simulating the complete air plane building process in virtual reality, sometimes. With the new supercomputers Iran now can do the same you do and maybe a bit better. "

They do indeed have supercomputers, even the ones they don't talk about, like the PERSEPOLIS - it's a beauty. Although it is not finished (i.e. not all the nodes originally planned are in the datacenter). The last shipment of blades (2U servers) were confiscated, I can't mention where.

Iran problems comes down to (like everyone else almost), funding. The engineers are quite talented and MOTIVATED. Oh god, they are MOTIVATED and hate U.S., and European indifference and impotence, but what can they do.

"... Me think Iran developed and tested its "building and refining the infrastructure and tooling, to parts manufacturing" over the last 30 years. This went hand in hand with the development of all the F5 variants. The long learning process. Also the organization of an air plane production line and how to connect different air plane parts industries to this production line to let the production flow. Hmm, my englisch isnt efficient But there are Vids one can see it with the production line of one of the F5 variants. "

ahhh, don't believe everything you see. Iran has quite a lot, but also has some fundamental things missing as well. Iran needs the funding and the political support to build a fighter jet. The political WILL is not there at the moment.

As an example, look at Iran's auto industry. It is some 20 years (even best estimates, 10 years) behind the current standards, not even considering the main leader (Japan).

Funding a project is the most crucial aspect. Then comes smart planning and national/nationwide support.

If Iran has that, I think in about 10 years they can build a single engine YF23 equivalent fighter jet that will meet Iran's strategic goals for the next 20+ years.

I wish Iran all the luck.

True. I only can view the vids and the pics and only can read the news. So it could be possible that there are some points only "on paper". But there are flying f5-variants and even Flying Yasin. So ther MUST be the knowlegde for the production lines.

 

[EvilWesteners]

Bringing up the possible temperatures inside the engine through coatings and modern material blades - and then having a better burning of the fuel and also a lower fuel consumption at the same thrust - is sure possible for Iran. Me think Iran did this "upgrading" already with the F5 J85 into the OWJ engine. So Iran is experienced in this kind of upgrading.

But as i understood there is a limitation of the temperature depending on the engine geometry itself. Well, my knowledge (hahaha) is very limited. I read some about air plane engines for example here (and other pdfs)

https://www.sto.nato.int/publications/STO%20Educational%20Notes/RTO-EN-AVT-185/EN-AVT-185-02.pdf

So for me it looks like that the Turbofan exists cause of the temperature limitations of the turbojet. When it comes to pre-cooling as you suggested, me think it changes nothing of the limitation.




Why should Iran limiting itself? If you upgrade a turbojet as you suggested, it is not only the blades. It is also all parts in the engine what have to be upgraded cause of higher temperature. This is very intensive and if one do such an great afford, one better put this energy into a turbofan to also gain more range and/or less fuel consumption.



Could be a way for these sections. But Iran hasnt much of these IL76.



True. I only can view the vids and the pics and only can read the news. So it could be possible that there are some points only "on paper". But there are flying f5-variants and even Flying Yasin. So ther MUST be the knowlegde for the production lines.

Cost and speed, is very important.

Iran can indeed upgrade just about everything and even into a Turbofan. But does it achieve cost/speed that Iran needs right NOW.

R-35-300 can be made to deliver a good enough engine while Iran cannot export jet fuel, later is a different matter. This engine can be made in Iran (in large quantities) for about $1M each.

Turbofans are inherently more complex, to build and to maintain, although more fuel efficient. In U.K. many RR engineers dream of building an ideal TJ engine, but the MOD in Bath, keeps reminding them that turbofan make a lot money for U.K. since Arabs, mostly, cannot maintain and overhaul the Eurofighters.

What I think Iran needs is a GREAT compromise engine.

-- cheap to build, easy to build, easy to maintain and overhaul, good thrust performance, high altitude flight capability, and indigenously produced (100%). Fuel consumption is a compromise Iran can afford to make, for NOW. And at the same time start developing something like a AL41F for 10 years from now.

 

[Hack-Hook]

-- cheap to build, easy to build, easy to maintain and overhaul, good thrust performance, high altitude flight capability, and indigenously produced (100%). Fuel consumption is a compromise Iran can afford to make, for NOW. And at the same time start developing something like a AL41F for 10 years from now.

fuel compromise is not about you have jet fuel and you can't export it so let burn it who care , its about how long the airplane can stay in air , haw far it can go , what operation you can do with it , so no you can't compromise with it

 

[EvilWesteners]

fuel compromise is not about you have jet fuel and you can't export it so let burn it who care , its about how long the airplane can stay in air , haw far it can go , what operation you can do with it , so no you can't compromise with it

You are right, about range. That is why I suggest R-35-300 in the first place, rather than a J79.

But, the cost of fuel purchase and storage is even more significant than aircraft fuel use and range, especially from Iran's perspective. They have some limited aerial refueling, they also can do Su24 buddy refueling, and they prefer to use more weapons load than fuel load.

Iran is a large country so its perspective of defence and offense (air force only of course) is different than an invading air force seeking air dominance or air superiority or air supremacy even.

A heavy engine (e.g. R-35-300) facilitates a more thrust for a larger aircraft that can have a borderline 10ton fuel/weapon load (excluding empty weight and pilot).

With a 3tons weapons load, 7 tons of fuel (internal and external tanks) offers a great range, relatively, allowed by such a high thrust engine, taking off with 10ton useful load. Chinese J-10 (28,000-17,000 afterburner-non afterburner - somewhat similar to R-35-300) is roughly about a 10 ton useful load (fuel and weapons combined). The Chinese also under specify their aircrafts performance.

What is special about this engine is its NON AFTERBURNER thrust class. It is close to 20,000 pounds of thrust. Non afterburner. The American supplied TF30-414A engine for Iran's F-14 has a 20,000 pound thrust WITH - yes WITH afterburner, that is 2.4 times more fuel consumption for fast runs.

Another way of saying it, is like this :

I rather have an engine that has a little more fuel consumption at 20,000 pounds of thrust, than have a more efficient supposedly turbofan (TF30-414A which really wasn't efficient and has many problems, e.g. stalling) operating at a max of 20,000 pounds of thrust using afterburner consuming 2.4 times fuel.

Afterburner is "usually" used for take off and combat. The rest of the time, the aircraft is at military power (non afterburner). I rather go up to 20,000 pounds of power use rather than have a (TF30-414A) at 11,000 pounds of thrust and then having to go to afterburner after 11,000 pounds of thrust, and consuming a lot more fuel.

That's about 90% more thrust before having to go to afterburner (about on average 2.4 times fuel use with afterburner).

90% more thrust without afterburner - faster and more range not resorting to use of afterburner.

Hope that makes sense.

Thank you for your comment.

 

[Ich]

Cost and speed, is very important.

Iran can indeed upgrade just about everything and even into a Turbofan. But does it achieve cost/speed that Iran needs right NOW.

R-35-300 can be made to deliver a good enough engine while Iran cannot export jet fuel, later is a different matter. This engine can be made in Iran (in large quantities) for about $1M each.

Turbofans are inherently more complex, to build and to maintain, although more fuel efficient. In U.K. many RR engineers dream of building an ideal TJ engine, but the MOD in Bath, keeps reminding them that turbofan make a lot money for U.K. since Arabs, mostly, cannot maintain and overhaul the Eurofighters.

What I think Iran needs is a GREAT compromise engine.

-- cheap to build, easy to build, easy to maintain and overhaul, good thrust performance, high altitude flight capability, and indigenously produced (100%). Fuel consumption is a compromise Iran can afford to make, for NOW. And at the same time start developing something like a AL41F for 10 years from now.

Cost is important. Speed is important. Range is important. Yes.

Me think that a standard iranian fighter/interceptor or bomber/multirole without additional tanks should have a combat range of ~3000 Km (fly 1500 Km, fire/drop, fly back 1500 Km). Something in the class of SU-35 or SU-57. Cause as you wrote: Iran is a large country.

As i wrote in a post before, the fuel consumption of the R-35-300 is that high (8 tons fuel at max dry within an hour), that the Mig23 with R-35-300 has a combat range of only ~1200 Km (fly 600 Km, fire/drop, fly back 600 Km). Even if the engine would be upgraded like the J85->OWJ, me think the gains would be less than 10% fuel saving after that upgrade. So the combat range would still be insufficient for the needs of Iran.

Also the development of an greater fighter turbofan engine by Iran itself would also help to develop/build turbofan for own developed passanger planes and own developed transport planes and own developed air tanker and so on. And this reduce the costs for Iran massive in the long run cause it do not need to buy expensive from other countries.

So building an iranian turbofan includes much more than only a good fighter engine. It includes the ability and the mastering to build any other needed turbofan engines for iran, civilian or army.

 

[EvilWesteners]

Cost is important. Speed is important. Range is important. Yes.

Me think that a standard iranian fighter/interceptor or bomber/multirole without additional tanks should have a combat range of ~3000 Km (fly 1500 Km, fire/drop, fly back 1500 Km). Something in the class of SU-35 or SU-57. Cause as you wrote: Iran is a large country.

As i wrote in a post before, the fuel consumption of the R-35-300 is that high (8 tons fuel at max dry within an hour), that the Mig23 with R-35-300 has a combat range of only ~1200 Km (fly 600 Km, fire/drop, fly back 600 Km). Even if the engine would be upgraded like the J85->OWJ, me think the gains would be less than 10% fuel saving after that upgrade. So the combat range would still be insufficient for the needs of Iran.

Also the development of an greater fighter turbofan engine by Iran itself would also help to develop/build turbofan for own developed passanger planes and own developed transport planes and own developed air tanker and so on. And this reduce the costs for Iran massive in the long run cause it do not need to buy expensive from other countries.

So building an iranian turbofan includes much more than only a good fighter engine. It includes the ability and the mastering to build any other needed turbofan engines for iran, civilian or army.

Thanks Ich for your perspective.

Not attempting to be nitpicking, regarding your 8ton/hr fuel consumption, but let's consider 2 things:

1. Iran's needs based on its circumstances

Considering cost, qty, quick implementation/acquisition, and indigenous development/repair/maintenance - all suggest Iran needs an engine of its own, one that is NOT necessarily perfect but one that is good enough

I believe Iran can implement this engine within a year, Russia would possibly help as it feels this is old technology and will not interfere with future sale of AL31F/AL41F to Iran (or competition for Russia with other countries).

Not letting PERFECTION be the enemy of GOOD ENOUGH - modified R-35-300 can have much performance improvements if NOT BETTER but equal at least to AL21F which it uses right now in Su24 (at the very least) - single piece welded fan quite dramatically reduced noise and improve (somewhat) fuel consumption, I can talk about other things with regards to fuel savings, but I won't give you a headache. Let's go with nominal improvements ...

2. Engine performance 'compared' to alternative in an apple-for-apple comparison

You suggest that Iran should go for something that gives it a 1500Km+ combat radius. First of all, Iran HAS NOTHING TODAY that allows it to do that, not even with drops tanks (with a realist weapons load). So anything better than what it has, is an improvement.

Iran's F4Es had to do aerial refueling TWICE to hit H-3 in Iraq. even with drop tanks. F-14As burn fuel like crazy (and heating issues if they go too fast) while carrying 4 Phoenix missiles under its belly, and still has a combat radius of 630km, on a good scenario basis. I can go into detail on everything Iran has ... nothing that comes near even 1000km combat radius. Not the mig29s, Not F5Es, nothing. Even Su24 bombers or Su25s don't get anywhere near that.

Let's assume that instead of TF30-414A, Iran replaced the 2 engines with 2 x R-35-300. Now Iran has substantially higher max take off weight able to carry more weapons/fuel, and instead of afterburner at 20,000 pounds of thrust with TF30, it can fly with non afterburner R-35 ... now doing the math, we get a speed of M1.8 carrying say, 8.8 tons of fuel internal and external (not even addressing the fact that the 2 x R-35 are half a ton lighter than 2 x TF30-414A, and 1 meter shorter.

The new Iran F-14 can perform a combat radius of 1,000km+ with limited need to use afterburner. There are 3 different ways to calculate this, but without giving you a headache, I point you to F14D with F110 (23,000/13,000) analysis and fuel consumption of the turbofan, based on 13,000 maximum non-afterburner thrust, and afterburner consumption of 1.8 for anything above 13,000 pounds of thrust. Not even addressing the extra fuel it can carry because of close to 29,000 pounds of take off afterburner of R-35. At RR we often used a round number of 10lbs/km fuel consumption for the old engines we worked on. Sometimes for better accuracy, we went as high as 11 or 11.5 for safe rough calculation. Of course this was for a similar engine as R-35 or TF30. For others, it was way different.

Also, I must be the only person who DOES NOT BELIEVE that Russia will sell Iran Su35s or even a worthwhile quantity of Su30s - I so much hope I am wrong. My reason, because it reneged before, again and again, with Mig31, and it will again if U.S. offers it something lucrative, like May 2000, even though Iran had already PAID IN ADVANCE. Iran is nothing but leverage for Russian. And even China.

But Russia would in fact sell technology for R-35 because it is somewhat under the radar and not that significant. Iran can certainly do a new F-14 with 2 new R-35 engines. The laser welding they have mastered in the last 20+ years. The metal fab is very doable for Iran today (for the level of F-14 design of the 1970s and even the F-14D of 1980s, the slight changes).

May be this is not perfect as you want it. But it is good enough in my opinion for Iran at this point. Until in the future it has enough leverage to buy the next up generation, be it Su35s or others. While waiting, the U.S. is less inclined to f**k with Iran, same as Arabs and Israelis, also Iran is training pilots through the 6-months process, grow its knowledge base and be better positioned.

For commercial and/or AWACS. Iran should seriously consider building something like a AvroJet. Iran has had these since 1980s. It knows it well. Excellent engines and amazing fuel consumption. Lots of redundancy (4 engines) room for mistakes).

Have a great weekend.

 

[Ich]

Thanks Ich for your perspective.

Not attempting to be nitpicking, regarding your 8ton/hr fuel consumption, but let's consider 2 things:

1. Iran's needs based on its circumstances

Considering cost, qty, quick implementation/acquisition, and indigenous development/repair/maintenance - all suggest Iran needs an engine of its own, one that is NOT necessarily perfect but one that is good enough

I believe Iran can implement this engine within a year, Russia would possibly help as it feels this is old technology and will not interfere with future sale of AL31F/AL41F to Iran (or competition for Russia with other countries).

Not letting PERFECTION be the enemy of GOOD ENOUGH - modified R-35-300 can have much performance improvements if NOT BETTER but equal at least to AL21F which it uses right now in Su24 (at the very least) - single piece welded fan quite dramatically reduced noise and improve (somewhat) fuel consumption, I can talk about other things with regards to fuel savings, but I won't give you a headache. Let's go with nominal improvements ...

2. Engine performance 'compared' to alternative in an apple-for-apple comparison

You suggest that Iran should go for something that gives it a 1500Km+ combat radius. First of all, Iran HAS NOTHING TODAY that allows it to do that, not even with drops tanks (with a realist weapons load). So anything better than what it has, is an improvement.

Iran's F4Es had to do aerial refueling TWICE to hit H-3 in Iraq. even with drop tanks. F-14As burn fuel like crazy (and heating issues if they go too fast) while carrying 4 Phoenix missiles under its belly, and still has a combat radius of 630km, on a good scenario basis. I can go into detail on everything Iran has ... nothing that comes near even 1000km combat radius. Not the mig29s, Not F5Es, nothing. Even Su24 bombers or Su25s don't get anywhere near that.

Let's assume that instead of TF30-414A, Iran replaced the 2 engines with 2 x R-35-300. Now Iran has substantially higher max take off weight able to carry more weapons/fuel, and instead of afterburner at 20,000 pounds of thrust with TF30, it can fly with non afterburner R-35 ... now doing the math, we get a speed of M1.8 carrying say, 8.8 tons of fuel internal and external (not even addressing the fact that the 2 x R-35 are half a ton lighter than 2 x TF30-414A, and 1 meter shorter.

The new Iran F-14 can perform a combat radius of 1,000km+ with limited need to use afterburner. There are 3 different ways to calculate this, but without giving you a headache, I point you to F14D with F110 (23,000/13,000) analysis and fuel consumption of the turbofan, based on 13,000 maximum non-afterburner thrust, and afterburner consumption of 1.8 for anything above 13,000 pounds of thrust. Not even addressing the extra fuel it can carry because of close to 29,000 pounds of take off afterburner of R-35. At RR we often used a round number of 10lbs/km fuel consumption for the old engines we worked on. Sometimes for better accuracy, we went as high as 11 or 11.5 for safe rough calculation. Of course this was for a similar engine as R-35 or TF30. For others, it was way different.

Also, I must be the only person who DOES NOT BELIEVE that Russia will sell Iran Su35s or even a worthwhile quantity of Su30s - I so much hope I am wrong. My reason, because it reneged before, again and again, with Mig31, and it will again if U.S. offers it something lucrative, like May 2000, even though Iran had already PAID IN ADVANCE. Iran is nothing but leverage for Russian. And even China.

But Russia would in fact sell technology for R-35 because it is somewhat under the radar and not that significant. Iran can certainly do a new F-14 with 2 new R-35 engines. The laser welding they have mastered in the last 20+ years. The metal fab is very doable for Iran today (for the level of F-14 design of the 1970s and even the F-14D of 1980s, the slight changes).

May be this is not perfect as you want it. But it is good enough in my opinion for Iran at this point. Until in the future it has enough leverage to buy the next up generation, be it Su35s or others. While waiting, the U.S. is less inclined to f**k with Iran, same as Arabs and Israelis, also Iran is training pilots through the 6-months process, grow its knowledge base and be better positioned.

For commercial and/or AWACS. Iran should seriously consider building something like a AvroJet. Iran has had these since 1980s. It knows it well. Excellent engines and amazing fuel consumption. Lots of redundancy (4 engines) room for mistakes).

Have a great weekend.

Yes, all Iran has as Air Force at the moment are training pieces for mechanics and pilots and ingenieurs ect.

None of the existing air planes in the IRIAF do satisfy the needs Iran has in this sector. Even with your suggested upgrade.

Your idea to modify F4 or F14 in the way you wrote will not change the situation in general. I do not say that your idea is nonsense. But it will bind so much resources ( e.g. rebalancing the F4 or F14 after changing the engine into an other with complete different specs is not an easy task, let alone copy and producing the engine itself) and will bring Iran in the end only a very small step forward. And then Iran still has to develop its own turbofan engine for its own fighter/interceptor bomber/multirole.

This intermediate step you want Iran to do will let Iran stay in the same situation as it is now for additional 15 or more years - cause Iran has not the resources to do your upgrading idea and own turbofan for own interceptor/multirole parallel.

So me see it as a better way for Iran to move fast to own turbofan and own fighter plane. Sure it would let the Iran also stay the next 5+ years in the actual situation, but Iran for now can compensate its air weakness with its missiles and with its UAVs for most tasks and can manage future air threads with its better own fighter.

 

[EvilWesteners]

Yes, all Iran has as Air Force at the moment are training pieces for mechanics and pilots and ingenieurs ect.

None of the existing air planes in the IRIAF do satisfy the needs Iran has in this sector. Even with your suggested upgrade.

Your idea to modify F4 or F14 in the way you wrote will not change the situation in general. I do not say that your idea is nonsense. But it will bind so much resources ( e.g. rebalancing the F4 or F14 after changing the engine into an other with complete different specs is not an easy task, let alone copy and producing the engine itself) and will bring Iran in the end only a very small step forward. And then Iran still has to develop its own turbofan engine for its own fighter/interceptor bomber/multirole.

This intermediate step you want Iran to do will let Iran stay in the same situation as it is now for additional 15 or more years - cause Iran has not the resources to do your upgrading idea and own turbofan for own interceptor/multirole parallel.

So me see it as a better way for Iran to move fast to own turbofan and own fighter plane. Sure it would let the Iran also stay the next 5+ years in the actual situation, but Iran for now can compensate its air weakness with its missiles and with its UAVs for most tasks and can manage future air threads with its better own fighter.

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

 

[Ich]

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

Thank you too Yes, i know that me is very non compromiseing at this point. I know that you want a good thing for Iran and me is not sure if Iran does not go your way. Maybe yes, maybe no.

The problem for me in such a good discussion is that me really do know nothing about internals, about what is going on in Iran till it comes to a decision. The only perspective i have is the info i get here or on other pages, together with my thoughts how i would go the way if i would be Iran. That do not have to be the best way in reality. I all see it from the view of an self-sufficient Iran. My view of an self-sufficient Iran.

 

[EvilWesteners]

Thank you too Yes, i know that me is very non compromiseing at this point. I know that you want a good thing for Iran and me is not sure if Iran does not go your way. Maybe yes, maybe no.

The problem for me in such a good discussion is that me really do know nothing about internals, about what is going on in Iran till it comes to a decision. The only perspective i have is the info i get here or on other pages, together with my thoughts how i would go the way if i would be Iran. That do not have to be the best way in reality. I all see it from the view of an self-sufficient Iran. My view of an self-sufficient Iran.

I respect your opinion and your kind gesture.

I worked with people a million times smarter than me on NIMROD project in UK, and I saw (although not in the beginning) giant, giant mistakes by these so called "super smart" people. Having lived through that, and remembering the final conclusions on where everything went wrong - has led me to believe, that even a novice can have "CLARITY OF VISION", and even the super smart, super experienced, super "know-it-all" can be so drastically wrong.

So I have no ego when it comes to ideas, concepts, visions, perspectives, and opinions.

It takes GOOD JUDGMENT to understand TIMING and then make a good decision. When that happens, it is like a Picasso painting. An engineering project is more like an art than a science (strange to say). One just hopes that the good judgement, timing, clarity of thinking/vision all come together for and within a project with a great team, and everything just being right for it to happen successfully.

What people don't realize is how many American projects totally and utterly fail, and fail miserably, only to be brought back with wasting so much taxpayer money, so much it is not even fathomable. F-35 wasted so much money, around $400b and so did F-22. These projects could have been done for about 10% of the final cost, but Americans accept WASTE. Heck they waste 40% of food produced in U.S. They waste 21% of their energy. If you work within the American industry, it is amazing how much they waste. Boeing wastes so much, no one can believe. Between 2003-2011, Boeing wasted (really wasted totally) about $2b in PCs and Blade Servers in the Tacoma and Everett planning and manufacturing and inspection centers. The Boeing field (where they test planes before delivery, often now called King County Int Airport) they wasted $150m worth of computers, servers, wiring, networking equipment like Foundry and Switches in what use to be called MCI datacenter, now completely closed down.

I can even mention the Comanche helicopter and the original (first one) Bradley AFV which Israelis rejected, after they had spent about $20b in like 18 years of development.

But Iran by comparison does not have that much to waste and through at a project until it succeeds. It needs to be smarter and by in large, they are. Hence my ideas/suggestions behind my recommendations for Iran may want to do that is most logical.

Thanks for Iran's missiles (being very precise relatively), Iran has room for maneuver with an Air Force. But Iran does not pilot training, and other non air dominance strategic requirements.

So, I respect everyone's opinion and their perspective. I have no idea who is right or wrong. No one really knows, until the fat lady sings. And as usual, THERE IS A LOT OF LUCK ALSO INVOLVED, in projects in life. Look at MSN and how it evolved to BING search engine. Microsoft got screwed by Google which paid a $200k signing-bonus to the project manager for MSN search engine redevelopment, to pull him out of MS. That is how Google became # 1 (and stealing IP from Inktomi).

Thanks again Ich, for being such a gentleman.