Iran to Purchase Sukhoi-30 Fighter Jets From Russia

[yavar]

Right now Iran can build Fatteh-110 missiles in the 1000's with ranges over 300km with an accuracy far greater than what F-5's could provide.

my brother if i can add if you let me . the better example would be Fateh 313 with 500 Km range and 700 KG warhead

 

[VEVAK]

Of really. There is TONS of information out there (as you can see by e.g. a reference to an actual book) I have yet to see an Iranian poster here link you information by the Iranian government, something I've often challenged people that make wild claims to do. Obviously, they can't, for equally obvious reaons. A well referenced wiki page - that allows you to trace back underlying source material - is infinitely more usefull than some forum or blog poster's individual claims.



It doesn't have to. Surely you've heard of institutions such as e.g. SIPRI. Or market research by companies specialized in that. Or data from non-Iranian governments e.g. on weapons deliveries. etc.

Essentially you say no other source than Iranian government statements constitute fact. Which is BS. How do you think intelligence agencies compile information on countries? All from official sources and/or their own spies?

Anyway, I've never claimed wiki data to be super accurate or definitive, which is eveidenced by my retracing wiki data and correlating with other sources to establish the validity and reliability of numbers given on various wiki pages.

Which is more than you do here.

So, in effect, you are barking up the wrong tree.


I think you lack knowledge on e.g. to what extent the Sjah was working to build Iranian military forces. F-5 purchases and deliveries to Iran are well documented. WIth F-4, the F-5 was a workhorse of the Iranian air force in the war with Iraq. This too is well documented. If the F-5 is so unsuitable for Iran, how come the only visible Iranian developed warplane(s) - Azarakhsh, Seaqeh are clearly F-5 based (rather than e.g. F-4 Phantom, or F-14 Tomcat)? And how come Iranians here chestthump about it, claiming it is F-18 equivalent?


Well, congratulations. Why then is Iran bothering with Azarakhsh and Seaqeh, or contemplating the purchase of SU-30s? Why bother with aircraft alltogether?

Chengdu F-7 (Mig 21):
Combat range 850 km (459 nmi, 528 mi) (air superiority = with two AAMs and three drop tanks)
Ferry range: 2,200 km (1,187 nmi, 1,367 mi)

Northrop F-5A/B
Combat radius with maximum payload: 195 miles
Combat radius with maximum fuel and two 530-pound bombs: 558 miles.
Range with maximum internal fuel -- 1387 miles.

Northrop F-5E/F
Combat radius with maximum fuel and 2 Sidewinder missiles -- 656 miles.
Range on internal fual: 760 nmi (870 mi, 1,405 km)
Range with maximum fuel -- 1543 miles (1777 km)
Ferry range: 2,010 nmi (2,310 mi, 3,700 km)

Mirage F1
Combat radius: 425 km (230 nm, 265 mi) hi-lo-hi at Mach 0.75/0.88 with 14 × 250 kg bombs
Ferry range: 3,300 km (1,780 nmi, 2,050 mi)

In effect, the F-5E isn't any worse than contemporary jets like F-7/Mig-21 and Mirage F1


I never said the F-5 lacked during the Iran-Iraq war. I merely stated the documented number of losses. In war, losses are inevitable. It is your interpretation of the F-5 data.


So why is Iran bothering with Saeqeh?
How is Yak-130 inferior to e.g. F-5 or Seaqeh? (IMHO, it isn't, except for the top speed).

Like it or not, Iran will need advanced trainers if it is to operate top of the line fighters effectively.
Like it or not, there comes an end to F-5 and there is a limit on improvements that can be made to that design. See Northrop F-20 (and I seriously doubt Saeqeh is better)


Totally disregarding the succes of F-5 in a very very large number of nations. I.e. I do not believe the titanium-explanation to be the sole or even the most important reason. I think we can end our discussion of Iranian aircraft development then completely, since the Iranian government will not go public and will hide any aircraft underground in bumkers. Hence, there is nothing to discuss. Not by me, not by you (information limitations apply to both of us)



Kowsar 88 is an F-5 based double cockpit jet (trainer)
http://www.airrecognition.com/index...ing-jets-kowsar-88-and-azarakhsh-2110121.html
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931120001326

On reliability of wiki

When you Google the question "How accurate is Wikipedia?" the highest-ranking result is, as you might expect, a Wikipedia article on the topic ("Reliability of Wikipedia").

That page contains a comprehensive list of studies undertaken to assess the accuracy of the crowd-sourced encyclopedia since its founding 10 years ago. Of course, if you find yourself on this page, you might worry that the list itself may not be trustworthy. Well, the good news is that almost all those studies tell us that it probably is.

In 2005, the peer-reviewed journal Nature asked scientists to compare Wikipedia's scientific articles to those in Encyclopaedia Britannica—"the most scholarly of encyclopedias," according to its own Wiki page. The comparison resulted in a tie; both references contained four serious errors among the 42 articles analyzed by experts.

And last year, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its articles about 10 types of cancer as the Physician Data Query, a professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer Institute.

The self-described "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has fared similarly well in most other studies comparing its accuracy to conventional encyclopedias, including studies by The Guardian, PC Pro, Library Journal, the Canadian Library Association, and several peer-reviewed academic studies.

Still, because anyone can edit Wikipedia entries, they "can easily be undermined through malice or ignorance," noted BBC technology commentator Bill Thompson. Vandalism of Wiki entries is common in the realm of politics. In 2006, for example, slanderous comments were added to U.S. Sen. Bill Frist's biography page; the IP addresses of the computers used to make the edits traced back to some of his political rivals' staffers. To counter such activity, Wikipedia places editing restrictions on articles that are prone to vandalism.

A Small Study of Our Own

To add to the debate, Life's Little Mysteries carried out its own, albeit small, test of Wikipedia's accuracy by consulting experts from two very different walks of life: theoretical physics and pop music.

Life's Little Mysteries asked Adam Riess, professor of astronomy and physics at Johns Hopkins University and one of the scientists credited with proposing the existence of dark energy , to rate Wikipedia's "dark energy" entry.

"It's remarkably accurate," Riess said. "Certainly better than 95 percent correct."

This is not true, however, of the page about the indie pop band "Passion Pit," according to its drummer, Nate Donmoyer. Donmoyer found 10 factual errors on his band's page ranging from subtle to significant. Some information even appeared to have been added to the page by companies or organizations in search of publicity.

"It's kind of crazy," Donmoyer told LLM. "I don't think I can trust Wikipedia again. The littlest white lies can throw its whole validity off."

It may make sense that Wikipedia would have more reliable articles about academic topics than pop culture ones, considering that the latter are more prone to rumors and hearsay. On the other hand, there's no Passion Pit entry at all in Encyclopaedia Britannica. With more than three million English-language entries, Wikipedia very often wins our preference by default.
http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

The HARVARD university guide to using resources states:

What's Wrong with Wikipedia?

There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information, and when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.

Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. (Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays.

The fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic research doesn't mean that it's wrong to use basic reference materials when you're trying to familiarize yourself with a topic. In fact, the library is stocked with introductory materials, and the Harvard librarians can point you to specialized encyclopedias in different fields. These sources can be particularly useful when you need background information or context for a topic you're writing about.

http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376

Clearly, the apparent accuracy of a Wikipedia article is inversely proportional to the depth of the reader's knowledge of the topic. That is to say, his or her ability to assess that which is written in a Wikipedia article. Which also implies one does not ever take any Wikipedia article's (un)reliability as a given, and always attempts to verify it e.g. by looking at what source references are given and checking those. Which is what any good researcher would do with any material found in the literature in his/her field.

1. Iran is NOT going to put it's interests at risk just to prove Wikipedia and it's sources wrong!

2. I can build a website, write whatever I want and make false quotes from some Iranian general and then source it back to Wikipedia as information.
Posting nonsense and asking others to prove you wrong is easy because you can't prove a negative!

Wikipedia is fine when searching for readily available public information like information available in encyclopedia but when it comes to Iran's military, Iran doesn't make information about it's military public so the information is solely based on conjecture of people that have never even been to Iran let alone have access to it's classified data.

Years ago Jane's, Global Security & other western annalists were all claiming that Iran had no more than a handful of F-14's left the estimate from all western military annalists were between 6-12 during the same year 24 Iranian F-14's took part in a military parade & there were later reports that U.S. radars had picked up a formation of around 40 Iranian F-14 over Iranian Airspace.


3. I have seen Simorgh (F-5-B Trainer) production facilities in operation over 6 years ago so feel free to believe whatever nonsense you want and you can even quote Iran's president on an official Iranian website to me and it still wont make a difference to me as it pertains to the simorgh because I know what I saw!

For Iran, it's far more beneficial if the west thinks the Simorgh, P4, Toophan are all conversion, overhaul or upgrade programs otherwise they will be facing lawsuits if and when Iran's relations with the U.S. changes so from the perspective of Iranian official & IRIAF all that matters is that they have the capability


4. Kowsar 88 is not a trainer version of the Azarakhsh

1st Article you posted about the Kowsar 88 was from 2012
And the 2nd article was from a year and a half ago where Iran's defense minister announced that the aircraft had entered the final stage of manufacturing which means a full scale prototype had already been tested the 1st production model is almost complete and if it's test go well the production will commence.
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931120001326

The picture is blurry but what you see here is the picture of the Kowsar 88 and the facility where the 1st production model is being built.

The aircraft above the saegheh is the Kowsar 88

 

[Penguin]

1. Iran is NOT going to put it's interests at risk just to prove Wikipedia and it's sources wrong!

Nonsensical

2. I can build a website, write whatever I want and make false quotes from some Iranian general and then source it back to Wikipedia as information.
Posting nonsense and asking others to prove you wrong is easy because you can't prove a negative!

Sure, all things in all wiki pages are nonsense, including verifiable referenced public sources
You claim I post nonsense > You prove it is nonsense.
I cross-reference multiple sources, compare data contained theirein, and try to make sense of it.

Wikipedia is fine when searching for readily available public information like information available in encyclopedia but when it comes to Iran's military, Iran doesn't make information about it's military public so the information is solely based on conjecture of people that have never even been to Iran let alone have access to it's classified data.

In other words, assuming this is so (hypothetically), pretty much ANYTHING BY ANYONE on this forum about Iranian military and arms industry is FICTION (NON-FACT, CONJECTURE). That includes any claims about Irans huge military might.

Years ago Jane's, Global Security & other western annalists were all claiming that Iran had no more than a handful of F-14's left the estimate from all western military annalists were between 6-12 during the same year 24 Iranian F-14's took part in a military parade & there were later reports that U.S. radars had picked up a formation of around 40 Iranian F-14 over Iranian Airspace.

I'm sure, with the data that was available, that was their best assessment. 79 were delivered. Losses and attrition occurred. It is quite possible that between the assessment and the appearance in a military parade and between the parade and the radar sighting more airframes were put back into flying condition. It is also not necessarily or automatically the case that flyable F-14s are fully combat capable. So, your interpretation of what we will for now assume to be facts may well be equally flawed.

3. I have seen Simorgh (F-5-B Trainer) production facilities in operation over 6 years ago so feel free to believe whatever nonsense you want and you can even quote Iran's president on an official Iranian website to me and it still wont make a difference to me as it pertains to the simorgh because I know what I saw!

i.e. mind closed. Ok, end of sensible discussion then.

For Iran, it's far more beneficial if the west thinks the Simorgh, P4, Toophan are all conversion, overhaul or upgrade programs otherwise they will be facing lawsuits if and when Iran's relations with the U.S. changes so from the perspective of Iranian official & IRIAF all that matters is that they have the capability

I don't know what you are trying to proove, as I have not claimed anything negative about Iran, its air force or its military industry.

4. Kowsar 88 is not a trainer version of the Azarakhsh

Did I say it was?

1st Article you posted about the Kowsar 88 was from 2012
And the 2nd article was from a year and a half ago where Iran's defense minister announced that the aircraft had entered the final stage of manufacturing which means a full scale prototype had already been tested the 1st production model is almost complete and if it's test go well the production will commence.
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931120001326

The picture is blurry but what you see here is the picture of the Kowsar 88 and the facility where the 1st production model is being built.
The aircraft above the saegheh is the Kowsar 88

Again, I'm not clear on what you are trying to prove here.

Besides: "when it comes to Iran's military, Iran doesn't make information about it's military public so the information is solely based on conjecture." and "I can build a website, write whatever I want and make false quotes from some Iranian general"

 

[Salahuddin Ayubi]

So Russia is cozying up to Turkey, Pakistan, KSA and now Iran. We know of its warm relationship with China vis-a-vis NATO and US. Interesting.

 

[VEVAK]

Nonsensical


Sure, all things in all wiki pages are nonsense, including verifiable referenced public sources
You claim I post nonsense > You prove it is nonsense.
I cross-reference multiple sources, compare data contained theirein, and try to make sense of it.


In other words, assuming this is so (hypothetically), pretty much ANYTHING BY ANYONE on this forum about Iranian military and arms industry is FICTION (NON-FACT, CONJECTURE). That includes any claims about Irans huge military might.


I'm sure, with the data that was available, that was their best assessment. 79 were delivered. Losses and attrition occurred. It is quite possible that between the assessment and the appearance in a military parade and between the parade and the radar sighting more airframes were put back into flying condition. It is also not necessarily or automatically the case that flyable F-14s are fully combat capable. So, your interpretation of what we will for now assume to be facts may well be equally flawed.


i.e. mind closed. Ok, end of sensible discussion then.


I don't know what you are trying to proove, as I have not claimed anything negative about Iran, its air force or its military industry.


Did I say it was?


Again, I'm not clear on what you are trying to prove here.

Besides: "when it comes to Iran's military, Iran doesn't make information about it's military public so the information is solely based on conjecture of people that have never even been to Iran let alone have access to it's classified data."

1.In terms of Simorgh there is no discussion I know what I know because I've seen it so what you or anyone else says or thinks means nothing to me so don't waist your breath.

2. Why on God's green earth would Iran ever want to make any information on it's military public! To gain what exactly?

3. The F-5 hasn't been the backbone of Iran's Air Force since the 70's! and other than for training short ranged fighters that lack Air Refueling capability will never be of much use in a country the size of Iran. In the war Iran used F-5's as decoys and other than that they lack the capability of having any use beyond Iran's own boarders and since the 80's they never have and can never be the backbone of Iran's Air Force.
F-5's and Iranian versions and variants of that aircraft are mainly good for advanced pilot training so Iran has NO NEED to produce large quantities of them.

FYI Your lack of knowledge is not my problem!

Like it or not Iran chose the F-5 solely because of it's low titanium requirements! and your doubts and opinion on it are nothing but your own delusions and lack of knowledge.

The most expensive part of a Fighter jet is it's Airframe! The main reason for that is Titanium and then the Titanium Aluminum composites that are also expensive & hard to produce.

An F-14 is made up of 35% Titanium some large areas require full titanium sections and other areas require Titanium Aluminum composites

And the F-22 requires even more titanium than the F-15

And the price of these fighters are all in the same order of the amount of titanium required to produce them. From the F-5E to the A-10, F-16, F/A-18, F-14, F-15 & then the F-22 as the most expensive.

Iran ~8 years ago finished developing it's 1st Titanium Aluminum composite and to go from R&D to production took time.

So again believe whatever you want but the absolute only reason Iran chose the F-5 platform to reverse engineer was solely based on the low titanium requirements of that platform and for Iran the only thing it's a backbone of is training advanced IRIAF pilots nothing more!

A fleet of 200 Azarakhsh,or Saegheh fighters wouldn't even be able to go up against 50 F-16's let alone against 25 F-15 or Typhoon fighters and these are 4 & 4.5 gen fighters and the Yak-13 is even more useless than that!


Finally, Iran's ability to produce F-5's a platform designed 60 years ago doesn't make Iran a powerful country!


4. In terms of Iranian F-14'a according to Iranian sources Iran has a total of 60 F-14's and keeps ~40 of them active and combat ready and plans on keeping them till 2030.


5. If anyone here or on wiki claims to know how many Tanks, APC, IFV, Helicopters, MLRS, Missiles, SAM's..... Iran has is solely based on conjecture.
Iran not only hides it's weapons in fortified bunkers but they also hid the bunkers under dirt to reduce visual target lock from aircrafts and the only weapons you see outside bunkers are a small limited amount used for training.
And this is another thing I know for a fact and can easily prove if I wanted to which I don't!

 

[Malik Alashter]

1.In terms of Simorgh there is no discussion I know what I know because I've seen it so what you or anyone else says or thinks means nothing to me so don't waist your breath.

2. Why on God's green earth would Iran ever want to make any information on it's military public! To gain what exactly?

3. The F-5 hasn't been the backbone of Iran's Air Force since the 70's! and other than for training short ranged fighters that lack Air Refueling capability will never be of much use in a country the size of Iran. In the war Iran used F-5's as decoys and other than that they lack the capability of having any use beyond Iran's own boarders and since the 80's they never have and can never be the backbone of Iran's Air Force.
F-5's and Iranian versions and variants of that aircraft are mainly good for advanced pilot training so Iran has NO NEED to produce large quantities of them.

FYI Your lack of knowledge is not my problem!

Like it or not Iran chose the F-5 solely because of it's low titanium requirements! and your doubts and opinion on it are nothing but your own delusions and lack of knowledge.

The most expensive part of a Fighter jet is it's Airframe! The main reason for that is Titanium and then the Titanium Aluminum composites that are also expensive & hard to produce.

An F-14 is made up of 35% Titanium some large areas require full titanium sections and other areas require Titanium Aluminum composites

View attachment 332601
View attachment 332600 View attachment 332599

And the F-22 requires even more titanium than the F-15

And the price of these fighters are all in the same order of the amount of titanium required to produce them. From the F-5E to the A-10, F-16, F/A-18, F-14, F-15 & then the F-22 as the most expensive.

Iran ~8 years ago finished developing it's 1st Titanium Aluminum composite and to go from R&D to production took time.

So again believe whatever you want but the absolute only reason Iran chose the F-5 platform to reverse engineer was solely based on the low titanium requirements of that platform and for Iran the only thing it's a backbone of is training advanced IRIAF pilots nothing more!

A fleet of 200 Azarakhsh,or Saegheh fighters wouldn't even be able to go up against 50 F-16's let alone against 25 F-15 or Typhoon fighters and these are 4 & 4.5 gen fighters and the Yak-13 is even more useless than that!


Finally, Iran's ability to produce F-5's a platform designed 60 years ago doesn't make Iran a powerful country!


4. In terms of Iranian F-14'a according to Iranian sources Iran has a total of 60 F-14's and keeps ~40 of them active and combat ready and plans on keeping them till 2030.


5. If anyone here or on wiki claims to know how many Tanks, APC, IFV, Helicopters, MLRS, Missiles, SAM's..... Iran has is solely based on conjecture.
Iran not only hides it's weapons in fortified bunkers but they also hid the bunkers under dirt to reduce visual target lock from aircrafts and the only weapons you see outside bunkers are a small limited amount used for training.
And this is another thing I know for a fact and can easily prove if I wanted to which I don't!

Excuse me are those numbers on those tables represents kilo gram or grams because these numbers really doesn't make no sense?.

 

[VEVAK]

Excuse me are those numbers on those tables represents kilo gram or grams because these numbers really doesn't make no sense?.

It makes perfect sense the amount titanium also take into account the amount of titanium that gets wasted when they build each section/part of the aircraft.

An F-14 weighs in at 43,735 lb but you need to purchase 41,000 lb of titanium to build those parts and of 43,000 lb aircraft only 30% of the airframe is made up of titanium the rest gets wasted during shaving, cutting, putting holes in the parts and creating titanium aluminum composite you need for the skin

Read the fine print.

 

[Malik Alashter]

I know that f-15 weighing about 14.5 ton while the table says more than 18 ton of titanium used for it

 

[Penguin]

1.In terms of Simorgh there is no discussion I know what I know because I've seen it so what you or anyone else says or thinks means nothing to me so don't waist your breath.

And that is the reason why you've joined a discussion forum ?

2. Why on God's green earth would Iran ever want to make any information on it's military public! To gain what exactly?

So, as I indicated, according to your reasoning, no one can discuss anything military related to Iran proper, because its all speculative. Unless they have inside information, in which case they would likely be sworn to secrecy and be traitors if they blabbed. So, end of discussion here on anything military of Iran. And YET YOU KEEP POSTING.

3. The F-5 hasn't been the backbone of Iran's Air Force since the 70's!

NO ONE CLAIMED ANY SUCH THING.

and other than for training short ranged fighters that lack Air Refueling capability will never be of much use in a country the size of Iran. In the war Iran used F-5's as decoys and other than that they lack the capability of having any use beyond Iran's own boarders and since the 80's they never have and can never be the backbone of Iran's Air Force. F-5's and Iranian versions and variants of that aircraft are mainly good for advanced pilot training so Iran has NO NEED to produce large quantities of them.

With perhaps few exceptions, e.g Operation Kaman 99, neither the Iranian nor the Iraqi air force really massed their (air) forces: both sides constantly piecemealed them. Mostly there were flights of no more than 6 aircraft in a single attack. Attack typically consisted of a few aircraft with a few bombs and always faced targets defences. Nowhere did either side really mass forces to overcome target defences. Repetitious small attacks achieved little but repairable damage. Particularly the constant 1-2 aircraft by F-5s raids into Northern Iraq. A kind of mutual face slapping exercise - foolish and irritating but hardly decisive.

https://books.google.nl/books?id=oCsNS_Z4iI4C&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq="f-5"+iran-iraq+air+war&source=bl&ots=Bxz3yeC6Gk&sig=Ig-wwSdbaPYBjgqp4RS74nk-ooo&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiiieef14HPAhUnLMAKHRtdA8k4ChDoAQgiMAA#v=onepage&q="f-5" iran-iraq air war&f=false

Iran lost 180 aircraft, half of which shorter range/lower payload F-5s, 80 longer range/higher payload F-4, 9 F-14 Tomcats and 1 P-3 Orion. F-5 achieved 26 A2A victories (including 8 helicopters), versus 80 for the F-4 (including 2 helicopters). F-14 at least 41
https://books.google.nl/books?id=FGsuCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT596&lpg=PT596&dq="f-5"+iran-iraq+air+war&source=bl&ots=VO-jDhbZ9Y&sig=wi0zF2iHCtyeiVIMjCJN6fUvxGw&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXp6Hv1oHPAhWoJMAKHSdaBskQ6AEIczAN#v=onepage&q="f-5" &f=false

F-14 achieved 64 kills, including a Silkworm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_aerial_victories_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war
Iraqis fear F-14s AIM-54 and oftern turned tale upon spotting F-14, without a fight.

Losses and kills reflect the respective roles and strengths of the aircraft. F-5 and F-4 were both used in strength.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Kaman_99

FYI Your lack of knowledge is not my problem!

And you lack of both knowledge/insight and ability to reason is not mine.

Like it or not Iran chose the F-5 solely because of it's low titanium requirements! and your doubts and opinion on it are nothing but your own delusions and lack of knowledge.

It is still totally unclear what in my post got you so riled up. Obviously you feel either offended or attack. Neither offense nor attack occured. I suggest you do something about the chip in your shoulder.

The most expensive part of a Fighter jet is it's Airframe! The main reason for that is Titanium and then the Titanium Aluminum composites that are also expensive & hard to produce.

Sure, just like the most expensive parts of a navy ship is the hull

"Cost" in advanced military airplane procurement is calculated in multiple ways, including total program cost, lifetime cost and cost including training, spares and support.
http://www.engineering.com/Advanced...Through-2025But-Are-Costs-Out-of-Control.aspx

In 2008, a RAND study revealed that manufacturing costs of fixed wing aircraft has been essentially flat for decades, despite rising wages and benefits; increased aircraft complexity has been the biggest cost driver. With two exceptions (specialty metals and avionics systems, such as navigation equipment), materials and equipment used in aircraft manufacturing have increased in cost at roughly the same rate as other measures of inflation.

When considering comparison pairs of aircraft, RAND found that complexity of the aircraft (performance characteristics and airframe material) contributed to aircraft cost escalation, often at rates far exceeding those of inflation.

Roughly a third of the overall cost escalation is due to economy-driven factors. The remainder is due to customer-driven ones—mainly system complexity. In particular, the increased demand for greater aircraft stealth and reduced aircraft weight contributed to cost escalation.

Material and equipment costs are the other two economic factors in aircraft cost growth. These two elements account for just over half of the weapon system cost for typical fixed-wing aircraft.

• Metals (e.g., aluminum, steel, titanium) or composites (e.g., carbon fiber, bismaleimide, and thermoplastics) are mainly used for the manufacture of the airframe (the aircraft’s main structure). Modern aircraft increasingly use high-strength, low-weight materials such as titanium and composites for improved performance. Composites have the added benefit of potentially reducing signatures (i.e., reducing the possibility of detection by sensors such as radar).
  
• Equipment comprises all systems such as avionics (electronics to control the aircraft), sensors (such as radar), other mission systems (such aselectronic countermeasures, communications, targeting systems, guns, and missiles), and propulsion systems.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG696.html
See page 26 of the report for the respective contriburion (after economic factors such as labor cost) of (in order of declining importance) navigation equipment, titanium, thermosetting raisins and plastics, as well as aircraft engines, steel, aircraft parts and aluminium.

An F-14 is made up of 35% Titanium some large areas require full titanium sections and other areas require Titanium Aluminum composites

View attachment 332601
View attachment 332600 View attachment 332599

And the F-22 requires even more titanium than the F-15

And the price of these fighters are all in the same order of the amount of titanium required to produce them. From the F-5E to the A-10, F-16, F/A-18, F-14, F-15 & then the F-22 as the most expensive.

Related http://www.titanium.org/resource/resmgr/2005_2009_papers/McCormackFINAL_2007.pdf
Titanium in Military Airframes. Al McCormack. Global Sourcing Commodity Manager - Metals. GKN Aerospace.

And while F-15s 10% goes to F-22s 40%, it goes back down with F-35 JSF to 20%, which is just 2% points more than F/A-18.

Interesting tables you posted.
To bad there is no SOURCE reference includes (e.g. a book or article ref.)

Those data incidentally are a bit different from those here.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=BWG-lk8Ba3sC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq="+titanium+in+military+airframes"&source=bl&ots=cuvTFvbjdT&sig=wtY9LECF-iWfztAQo2ByM7iNO4A&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJ18P454HPAhWFKsAKHferCMoQ6AEIMTAD#v=onepage&q=" titanium in military airframes"&f=false
= Titanium: Past, Present, and Future
Report of the Panel on Assessment of Titanium Availability: Current and Future Needs of the Committee on Technical Aspects of Critical and Strategic Materials; Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems; Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
See Table 24 page 116: While estimate of e.g. F-18 is about the same, that for F-16 is hugely different.

If F15 requires more titanium 'buy' then F-15, and if F15 has 10% of airframe with titanium, then F-14 can't have 35%. So, either the 'buy' amount for F-14 or F-15 is incorrect, or the % of aircraft weight for F-14 or F15. Without source reference, it is impossible to see how estimates were arrived at, and to determine where the error lies.

Iran ~8 years ago finished developing it's 1st Titanium Aluminum composite and to go from R&D to production took time.

So again believe whatever you want but the absolute only reason Iran chose the F-5 platform to reverse engineer was solely based on the low titanium requirements of that platform and for Iran the only thing it's a backbone of is training advanced IRIAF pilots nothing more!

It doesn't really matter why Iran chose F-5 rather than another plane, fact is they (apparently) did.

Besides, according to your reasoning, no one can discuss anything military related to Iran proper, because its all speculative. Unless they have inside information, in which case they would likely be sworn to secrecy and be traitors if they blabbed. So, end of discussion here on anything military of Iran. And YET YOU KEEP POSTING.

A fleet of 200 Azarakhsh,or Saegheh fighters wouldn't even be able to go up against 50 F-16's let alone against 25 F-15 or Typhoon fighters and these are 4 & 4.5 gen fighters and the Yak-13 is even more useless than that!

I never claimed it could. In fact, I've shown that reference to such numbers are in fact highly likely to be erroneous. So, I don't understand why you are barking up my tree....

Finally, Iran's ability to produce F-5's a platform designed 60 years ago doesn't make Iran a powerful country!

Fully AGREE

4. In terms of Iranian F-14'a according to Iranian sources Iran has a total of 60 F-14's and keeps ~40 of them active and combat ready and plans on keeping them till 2030.

Maybe, maybe not. I already said how many Iran bought in the days of the Shah. Estimates on servicable aircraft vary.
Iran had an estimated 44 F-14s in 2009 according to Combat Aircraft. Aviation Week estimated it had 19 operational F-14s in January 2013, and Flight Global estimated that 28 were in service in 2014. As said, all speculative, just like the statement above. See also item 5 below for an explanation of that.

5. If anyone here or on wiki claims to know how many Tanks, APC, IFV, Helicopters, MLRS, Missiles, SAM's..... Iran has is solely based on conjecture.
Iran not only hides it's weapons in fortified bunkers but they also hid the bunkers under dirt to reduce visual target lock from aircrafts and the only weapons you see outside bunkers are a small limited amount used for training.
And this is another thing I know for a fact and can easily prove if I wanted to which I don't!

I know that f-15 weighing about 14.5 ton while the table says more than 18 ton of titanium used for it

While I understand one might needs to acquire more unprocessed ore in order to get a given amount of processed metal, only 10% of F-15 weight is said to be (processed) titanium.
Titanium in Military Airframes. Al McCormack. Global Sourcing Commodity Manager - Metals. GKN Aerospace.
http://www.titanium.org/resource/resmgr/2005_2009_papers/McCormackFINAL_2007.pdf (page 9 of 20)

 

[VEVAK]

I know that f-15 weighing about 14.5 ton while the table says more than 18 ton of titanium used for it

You have to be familiar with Titanium to understand why! working with titanium is not like working with metals like steel you can't just simply melt it down and mold it to whatever you want working with titanium and aluminum
titanium composites is completely different and extremely time consuming.

And to give you a simple explanation so you can understand the amount of titanium you need to construct a simple titanium screw is almost double the weight of that titanium screw your building and that's how you end up requiring more titanium than the actual weight of the aircraft.

Aircraft manufacturers end up with a lot of Titanium Scraps but that still doesn't change the fact that the amount of titanium required to build aircrafts like the F-15, F-22, F35 & SR-71 is more than the weight of the aircraft's themselves

http://www.monicoalloys.com/Titanium.html

Titanium is the main reason why modern fighter jets are so expensive! And U.S. aircraft manufacturers are continuously working on alternatives like liquid metal & other composites and once that is resolved countries with that technology will possess much larger Air Forces...

Titanium is among the top 10 most abundant materials on earth it's the process of processing it and turning it into an alloy or titanium composites is what makes it so expensive or else it's just black sand it's abundant an can be found all across the world so coming up with a new and cheaper method to process it is another way to reduce the costs of fighters

 

[VEVAK]

And that is the reason why you've joined a discussion forum ?


So, as I indicated, according to your reasoning, no one can discuss anything military related to Iran proper, because its all speculative. Unless they have inside information, in which case they would likely be sworn to secrecy and be traitors if they blabbed. So, end of discussion here on anything military of Iran. And YET YOU KEEP POSTING.


NO ONE CLAIMED ANY SUCH THING.


With perhaps few exceptions, e.g Operation Kaman 99, neither the Iranian nor the Iraqi air force really massed their (air) forces: both sides constantly piecemealed them. Mostly there were flights of no more than 6 aircraft in a single attack. Attack typically consisted of a few aircraft with a few bombs and always faced targets defences. Nowhere did either side really mass forces to overcome target defences. Repetitious small attacks achieved little but repairable damage. Particularly the constant 1-2 aircraft by F-5s raids into Northern Iraq. A kind of mutual face slapping exercise - foolish and irritating but hardly decisive.

https://books.google.nl/books?id=oCsNS_Z4iI4C&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq="f-5"+iran-iraq+air+war&source=bl&ots=Bxz3yeC6Gk&sig=Ig-wwSdbaPYBjgqp4RS74nk-ooo&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiiieef14HPAhUnLMAKHRtdA8k4ChDoAQgiMAA#v=onepage&q="f-5" iran-iraq air war&f=false

Iran lost 180 aircraft, half of which shorter range/lower payload F-5s, 80 longer range/higher payload F-4, 9 F-14 Tomcats and 1 P-3 Orion. F-5 achieved 26 A2A victories (including 8 helicopters), versus 80 for the F-4 (including 2 helicopters). F-14 at least 41
https://books.google.nl/books?id=FGsuCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT596&lpg=PT596&dq="f-5"+iran-iraq+air+war&source=bl&ots=VO-jDhbZ9Y&sig=wi0zF2iHCtyeiVIMjCJN6fUvxGw&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXp6Hv1oHPAhWoJMAKHSdaBskQ6AEIczAN#v=onepage&q="f-5" &f=false

F-14 achieved 64 kills, including a Silkworm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_aerial_victories_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war
Iraqis fear F-14s AIM-54 and oftern turned tale upon spotting F-14, without a fight.

Losses and kills reflect the respective roles and strengths of the aircraft. F-5 and F-4 were both used in strength.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Kaman_99


And you lack of both knowledge/insight and ability to reason is not mine.


It is still totally unclear what in my post got you so riled up. Obviously you feel either offended or attack. Neither offense nor attack occured. I suggest you do something about the chip in your shoulder.



Sure, just like the most expensive parts of a navy ship is the hull

"Cost" in advanced military airplane procurement is calculated in multiple ways, including total program cost, lifetime cost and cost including training, spares and support.
http://www.engineering.com/Advanced...Through-2025But-Are-Costs-Out-of-Control.aspx

In 2008, a RAND study revealed that manufacturing costs of fixed wing aircraft has been essentially flat for decades, despite rising wages and benefits; increased aircraft complexity has been the biggest cost driver. With two exceptions (specialty metals and avionics systems, such as navigation equipment), materials and equipment used in aircraft manufacturing have increased in cost at roughly the same rate as other measures of inflation.

When considering comparison pairs of aircraft, RAND found that complexity of the aircraft (performance characteristics and airframe material) contributed to aircraft cost escalation, often at rates far exceeding those of inflation.

Roughly a third of the overall cost escalation is due to economy-driven factors. The remainder is due to customer-driven ones—mainly system complexity. In particular, the increased demand for greater aircraft stealth and reduced aircraft weight contributed to cost escalation.

Material and equipment costs are the other two economic factors in aircraft cost growth. These two elements account for just over half of the weapon system cost for typical fixed-wing aircraft.

• Metals (e.g., aluminum, steel, titanium) or composites (e.g., carbon fiber, bismaleimide, and thermoplastics) are mainly used for the manufacture of the airframe (the aircraft’s main structure). Modern aircraft increasingly use high-strength, low-weight materials such as titanium and composites for improved performance. Composites have the added benefit of potentially reducing signatures (i.e., reducing the possibility of detection by sensors such as radar).
  
• Equipment comprises all systems such as avionics (electronics to control the aircraft), sensors (such as radar), other mission systems (such aselectronic countermeasures, communications, targeting systems, guns, and missiles), and propulsion systems.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG696.html
See page 26 of the report for the respective contriburion (after economic factors such as labor cost) of (in order of declining importance) navigation equipment, titanium, thermosetting raisins and plastics, as well as aircraft engines, steel, aircraft parts and aluminium.

Related http://www.titanium.org/resource/resmgr/2005_2009_papers/McCormackFINAL_2007.pdf
Titanium in Military Airframes. Al McCormack. Global Sourcing Commodity Manager - Metals. GKN Aerospace.

And while F-15s 10% goes to F-22s 40%, it goes back down with F-35 JSF to 20%, which is just 2% points more than F/A-18.

Interesting tables you posted.
To bad there is no SOURCE reference includes (e.g. a book or article ref.)

Those data incidentally are a bit different from those here.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=BWG-lk8Ba3sC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq="+titanium+in+military+airframes"&source=bl&ots=cuvTFvbjdT&sig=wtY9LECF-iWfztAQo2ByM7iNO4A&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJ18P454HPAhWFKsAKHferCMoQ6AEIMTAD#v=onepage&q=" titanium in military airframes"&f=false
= Titanium: Past, Present, and Future
Report of the Panel on Assessment of Titanium Availability: Current and Future Needs of the Committee on Technical Aspects of Critical and Strategic Materials; Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems; Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
See Table 24 page 116: While estimate of e.g. F-18 is about the same, that for F-16 is hugely different.

If F15 requires more titanium 'buy' then F-15, and if F15 has 10% of airframe with titanium, then F-14 can't have 35%. So, either the 'buy' amount for F-14 or F-15 is incorrect, or the % of aircraft weight for F-14 or F15. Without source reference, it is impossible to see how estimates were arrived at, and to determine where the error lies.



It doesn't really matter why Iran chose F-5 rather than another plane, fact is they (apparently) did.

Besides, according to your reasoning, no one can discuss anything military related to Iran proper, because its all speculative. Unless they have inside information, in which case they would likely be sworn to secrecy and be traitors if they blabbed. So, end of discussion here on anything military of Iran. And YET YOU KEEP POSTING.



I never claimed it could. In fact, I've shown that reference to such numbers are in fact highly likely to be erroneous. So, I don't understand why you are barking up my tree....


Fully AGREE


Maybe, maybe not. I already said how many Iran bought in the days of the Shah. Estimates on servicable aircraft vary.
Iran had an estimated 44 F-14s in 2009 according to Combat Aircraft. Aviation Week estimated it had 19 operational F-14s in January 2013, and Flight Global estimated that 28 were in service in 2014. As said, all speculative, just like the statement above. See also item 5 below for an explanation of that.




While I understand one might needs to acquire more unprocessed ore in order to get a given amount of processed metal, only 10% of F-15 weight is said to be (processed) titanium.
Titanium in Military Airframes. Al McCormack. Global Sourcing Commodity Manager - Metals. GKN Aerospace.
http://www.titanium.org/resource/resmgr/2005_2009_papers/McCormackFINAL_2007.pdf (page 9 of 20)

OMG!! YOU KNOW NOTHING!!!
Wiki is made up of BS!
GO read a book! and stop wasting my time!


https://books.google.com/books?isbn=161503062X

 

[Malik Alashter]

You have to be familiar with Titanium to understand why! working with titanium is not like working with metals like steel you can't just simply melt it down and mold it to whatever you want working with titanium and aluminum
titanium composites is completely different and extremely time consuming.

And to give you a simple explanation so you can understand the amount of titanium you need to construct a simple titanium screw is almost double the weight of that titanium screw your building and that's how you end up requiring more titanium than the actual weight of the aircraft.

Aircraft manufacturers end up with a lot of Titanium Scraps but that still doesn't change the fact that the amount of titanium required to build aircrafts like the F-15, F-22, F35 & SR-71 is more than the weight of the aircraft's themselves

http://www.monicoalloys.com/Titanium.html

Titanium is the main reason why modern fighter jets are so expensive! And U.S. aircraft manufacturers are continuously working on alternatives like liquid metal & other composites and once that is resolved countries with that technology will possess much larger Air Forces...

Titanium is among the top 10 most abundant materials on earth it's the process of processing it and turning it into an alloy or titanium composites is what makes it so expensive or else it's just black sand it's abundant an can be found all across the world so coming up with a new and cheaper method to process it is another way to reduce the costs of fighters

Chinese use 3D printing is that something can work with this titanium?.

 

[Penguin]

OMG!! YOU KNOW NOTHING!!!
Wiki is made up of BS!
GO read a book! and stop wasting my time!


https://books.google.com/books?isbn=161503062X

Look who is talking.
I've actually been quoting from books AND telling you which books they are (before you have).
Nobody is forcing you to read anything.
You have an ignore option
You have a report option.
Use it and stop whining.

How Wikipedia articles are written is beside the point. What matters is their reliability, just as it is for any other source. If anything, studies over the years suggest that Wikipedia is at least as reliable as other encyclopedias, and sometimes more so. In cases where it is unreliable, the failure is not the nature of Wikipedia, but the irresponsibility of the writer who used a source without checking it. In this respect, Wikipedia is no different from any other potential source.

Your wiki 'argument' doesn't cut it.

 

[VEVAK]

And that is the reason why you've joined a discussion forum ?


Iran lost 180 aircraft, half of which shorter range/lower payload F-5s, 80 longer range/higher payload F-4, 9 F-14 Tomcats and 1 P-3 Orion. F-5 achieved 26 A2A victories (including 8 helicopters), versus 80 for the F-4 (including 2 helicopters). F-14 at least 41
https://books.google.nl/books?id=FGsuCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT596&lpg=PT596&dq="f-5"+iran-iraq+air+war&source=bl&ots=VO-jDhbZ9Y&sig=wi0zF2iHCtyeiVIMjCJN6fUvxGw&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXp6Hv1oHPAhWoJMAKHSdaBskQ6AEIczAN#v=onepage&q="f-5" &f=false

F-14 achieved 64 kills, including a Silkworm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_aerial_victories_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war
Iraqis fear F-14s AIM-54 and oftern turned tale upon spotting F-14, without a fight.

Losses and kills reflect the respective roles and strengths of the aircraft. F-5 and F-4 were both used in strength.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Kaman_99


"Cost" in advanced military airplane procurement is calculated in multiple ways, including total program cost, lifetime cost and cost including training, spares and support.
http://www.engineering.com/Advanced...Through-2025But-Are-Costs-Out-of-Control.aspx

In 2008, a RAND study revealed that manufacturing costs of fixed wing aircraft has been essentially flat for decades, despite rising wages and benefits; increased aircraft complexity has been the biggest cost driver. With two exceptions (specialty metals and avionics systems, such as navigation equipment), materials and equipment used in aircraft manufacturing have increased in cost at roughly the same rate as other measures of inflation.

When considering comparison pairs of aircraft, RAND found that complexity of the aircraft (performance characteristics and airframe material) contributed to aircraft cost escalation, often at rates far exceeding those of inflation.


Material and equipment costs are the other two economic factors in aircraft cost growth. These two elements account for just over half of the weapon system cost for typical fixed-wing aircraft.

• Metals (e.g., aluminum, steel, titanium) or composites (e.g., carbon fiber, bismaleimide, and thermoplastics) are mainly used for the manufacture of the airframe (the aircraft’s main structure). Modern aircraft increasingly use high-strength, low-weight materials such as titanium and composites for improved performance. Composites have the added benefit of potentially reducing signatures (i.e., reducing the possibility of detection by sensors such as radar).
  
• Equipment comprises all systems such as avionics (electronics to control the aircraft), sensors (such as radar), other mission systems (such aselectronic countermeasures, communications, targeting systems, guns, and missiles), and propulsion systems.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG696.html
See page 26 of the report for the respective contriburion (after economic factors such as labor cost) of (in order of declining importance) navigation equipment, titanium, thermosetting raisins and plastics, as well as aircraft engines, steel, aircraft parts and aluminium.

As I said before! Iranian F-5's had the most amount of sorties, least amount of kills & the highest number of losses against an ill trained Iraqi Air Force

Iran lost 100 F-5's just to bring down 26 enemy aircrafts and that was in the 80's against an ill trained Iraqi Air Force!

Yes Iran heavily used it's F-5's in the war that's because they heavily used every freaking fighter they had available to them! SO WHAT!!!

And yes Iranian F-5's were used in the Kaman 99 operations mostly against targets within 100km that's something Iranian Fateh-110 & Fateh-313 will be able to do today far better with greater effect than Iranian F-5's or Yak 130's ever could!

Conclusion: Iran didn't pick the F-5 because they thought it was a good fighter! They picked it mainly because of the Air Frames low titanium requirements making it the cheapest supersonic airframe and it was always meant to be a starting ground for Iran to kickoff it's fighter industry threw time and calculated small steps forward.

Customer driven factors are irrelevant in this discussion especially when it come to Iran producing it's own fighter and if anything it's prof that Iran should never purchase the Yak-130 when it can easily produce a superior platform.

The most expensive part of a fighter is it's Air Frame mainly due to the high cost of Titanium & Titanium Aluminum composites and that is a FACT your own chart proves it!!

I'm getting sick of repeating myself!! BYE!

 

[VEVAK]

Chinese use 3D printing is that something can work with this titanium?.

YES! 3D printing has been used to produce complex titanium parts but it's a different type of 3D printer Germany has that technology! The one Germany has works more like welding than printing...

But that still doesn't reduce material cost if anything it may increase it and I don't know a 3D printer of that type large enough to produce an aircrafts fuselage...

What is more likely to happen in the future in terms of fighters is the development of composites that will reduce the amount of titanium required or the development of a new method to process titanium that will bring down the costs.

3D printing of various part of fighters is already happening but currently that's reserved for smaller more complex parts


Iran has massive reserves of titanium and has developed the technology to process it but it's still expensive, hard to produce and not without it's challenges Iran's missile industry & aircraft industry both require it.
And the low titanium requirements of the F-5 is the main reason why Iran chose that Aircraft.

This is from last year:

Iran’s Attempt to Procure Titanium Alloy Was Violation of Anti-Proliferation Resolution 1737 (2006), Sanctions Committee Tells Security Council
Delegates Hail ‘Historic’ Entry into Force of Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
The Panel of Experts assisting the Security Council’s so-called 1737 Iran Sanctions Committee found that the country’s attempted procurement of Grade 5 titanium alloy bars had been in violation of resolution 1737 (2006) and subsequent texts, the subsidiary body’s Chair told the 15-member organ today

http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc12163.doc.htm