Iran to Purchase Sukhoi-30 Fighter Jets From Russia

[Penguin]

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

You ignore that, unlike F-14 and F-4, the F-5 was primary an attack aicraft (CAS). So expecting a high kill number there is silly, as one would put F-14 and F-4 up against other aircraft if one had the choice. Number of sorties (nb. in small groups and against ground targets with anti-aircraft defences) is directly related to number of losses.

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!

See above.

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!!!

You were the one who claimed they were used only as diversion. That is incompatible with youre statement above.

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!

I'ld like to see hoe well artillery rockets to against fleeting targets, as compared to a fighter-bomber with PGMs and a targeting pod. You're comparing apples and oranges, there for..

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.

That is what you say. But you also say the Iranian military don't divulge information on their military and equiment. The implication of that is that any public source info is only distraction, misinformation. So, there is no way for you to know this. Unless you are talking first hand experience. In which case, you probably are breaking secrecy rules.

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.

That is your opinion.

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've not said titanium is unimportant. It is ONE of at least 2 factors, the other being avionics.

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

Hey, I'm just spouting wiki junk, remember. And if you are so sick or repeating yourself, why don't you stop. You have an ignore button. But noooooo,..... you keep coming back for more.

 

[AmirPatriot]

artillery rockets

The Fateh 313 is is not an artillery rocket. Its a 500 km ranged quasi ballistic missile with pinpoint accuracy.

 

[Hack-Hook]

The Fateh 313 is is not an artillery rocket. Its a 500 km ranged quasi ballistic missile with pinpoint accuracy.

Perfect against high value target not good against a column of advancing tanks .
In war with Iraq sometimes we faced such scenarios and what saved us was not artillery rockets neither airplanes like F-5 or F-4 it was AH-1J that stopped advancing Iraqi armored columnsiin Khuzestan and Kermanshah

 

[Penguin]

The Fateh 313 is is not an artillery rocket. Its a 500 km ranged quasi ballistic missile with pinpoint accuracy.

Semantics.

In the strictest sense, a rocket is any vehicle or device that obtains its thrust from and is therefor propelled by a rocket engine.

Some military weapons use rockets (rocket engines) to propel warheads to their targets. A rocket and its payload together are generally referred to as a missile when the weapon has a guidance system (not all missiles use rocket engines, some use other engines such as jets) or as a rocket if it is unguided.

This makes distinctions difficult. Take e.g. the munitions for US M142 HIMARS and M-270 MLRS. The MLRS Family Of Munition (MFOM) rockets and artillery missiles include:

• M26 (United States): Rocket with 644 M77 Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions (DPICM) submunitions, range of 32 km.
  • M26A1 (United States): Extended Range Rocket (ERR), with range of 45 km and 518 M85 submunitions (an improved version of the M77 DPICM submunition).
  • M26A2 (United States): As M26A1, but using M77 submunitions. Interim use until M85 submunition entered service.
• M27 (United States): Completely inert training Launch Pod/Container to allow full loading cycle training.
• M28 (United States): Training rocket. M26 with three ballast containers and three smoke marking containers in place of submunition payload.
  • M28A1 (United States): Reduced Range Practice Rocket (RRPR) with blunt nose. Range reduced to 9 km.
• XM29 (United States): Rocket with Sense and Destroy Armor (SADARM) submunitions. Not standardized.
• M30 (United States, Finland): Guided MLRS (GMLRS). A precision guided rocket, range over 60 km with a standard load of 404 M85 submunitions.
  • M31 (United States, Finland): Guided Unitary MLRS. Variant of the M30 with a unitary high-explosive warhead for use in urban and mountainous terrain.[18][19]
• M39 (MGM-140) (United States): Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). A large guided [ballistic] missile using the M270 launcher, with a variety of warheads.
• XM135 (United States): Rocket with binary chemical warhead (VX (nerve agent)). Not standardized.

A ballistic missile is a missile that follows a ballistic trajectory with the objective of delivering one or more warheads to a predetermined target. A ballistic missile is only guided during relatively brief periods of flight (there are unguided ballistic missiles too, e.g.the 9K52 Luna-M, although these may well be considered 'rockets'), and most of its trajectory is unpowered and governed by gravity and air resistance if in the atmosphere.

It is no coincidence that e.g. the main strategic missile force of the PLA, which controls China's nuclear and conventional strategic missiles, is called the People's Liberation Army Rocket Force. The military branch of the Russian Armed Forces that controls Russia's land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) is called Strategic Missile Troops or Strategic Rocket Forces of the Russian Federation or RVSN RF
The point I was making stands: whether you call it rocket or missile, how well does Fateh 313 do against fleeting i.e. moving target, as compared to a fighter with PGMs and targeting pod?

 

[AmirPatriot]

Semantics.

In the strictest sense, a rocket is any vehicle or device that obtains its thrust from and is therefor propelled by a rocket engine.

Some military weapons use rockets (rocket engines) to propel warheads to their targets. A rocket and its payload together are generally referred to as a missile when the weapon has a guidance system (not all missiles use rocket engines, some use other engines such as jets) or as a rocket if it is unguided.

This makes distinctions difficult. Take e.g. the munitions for US M142 HIMARS and M-270 MLRS. The MLRS Family Of Munition (MFOM) rockets and artillery missiles include:

• M26 (United States): Rocket with 644 M77 Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions (DPICM) submunitions, range of 32 km.
  • M26A1 (United States): Extended Range Rocket (ERR), with range of 45 km and 518 M85 submunitions (an improved version of the M77 DPICM submunition).
  • M26A2 (United States): As M26A1, but using M77 submunitions. Interim use until M85 submunition entered service.
• M27 (United States): Completely inert training Launch Pod/Container to allow full loading cycle training.
• M28 (United States): Training rocket. M26 with three ballast containers and three smoke marking containers in place of submunition payload.
  • M28A1 (United States): Reduced Range Practice Rocket (RRPR) with blunt nose. Range reduced to 9 km.
• XM29 (United States): Rocket with Sense and Destroy Armor (SADARM) submunitions. Not standardized.
• M30 (United States, Finland): Guided MLRS (GMLRS). A precision guided rocket, range over 60 km with a standard load of 404 M85 submunitions.
  • M31 (United States, Finland): Guided Unitary MLRS. Variant of the M30 with a unitary high-explosive warhead for use in urban and mountainous terrain.[18][19]
• M39 (MGM-140) (United States): Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). A large guided [ballistic] missile using the M270 launcher, with a variety of warheads.
• XM135 (United States): Rocket with binary chemical warhead (VX (nerve agent)). Not standardized.

A ballistic missile is a missile that follows a ballistic trajectory with the objective of delivering one or more warheads to a predetermined target. A ballistic missile is only guided during relatively brief periods of flight (there are unguided ballistic missiles too, e.g.the 9K52 Luna-M, although these may well be considered 'rockets'), and most of its trajectory is unpowered and governed by gravity and air resistance if in the atmosphere.

It is no coincidence that e.g. the main strategic missile force of the PLA, which controls China's nuclear and conventional strategic missiles, is called the People's Liberation Army Rocket Force. The military branch of the Russian Armed Forces that controls Russia's land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) is called Strategic Missile Troops or Strategic Rocket Forces of the Russian Federation or RVSN RF
The point I was making stands: whether you call it rocket or missile, how well does Fateh 313 do against fleeting i.e. moving target, as compared to a fighter with PGMs and targeting pod?

The Chinese and Russian nuclear deterrence structures that you mentioned - those names are translated and so we cannot be sure on their intentions. But that is not my point.

The Fateh-313 is still not an artillery rocket. Most commentators wouldn't even describe it as a rocket, since it is guided. Guided rockets are generally called missiles in the defence community (weapon classifications are not clear cut as you proved, so please don't bring up any dictionary definitions).

An artillery rocket is generally a short range (<50 km) unguided rocket. Prime example is the Katyusha. They are designed to saturate an area with a lot of firepower.

The Fateh-313 has a 500 km and is very accurate.

Fateh 313 do against fleeting i.e. moving target, as compared to a fighter with PGMs and targeting pod?

VEVAK was using Operation Kaman 99 as an example, in which the targets were decidedly non-stationary airfields.

Fatehs would be used to conduct precision strikes on aircraft shelters/bunkers (like in Kaman 99), as well as air defence radars/TELs and other targets within reach. They are not CAS aircraft or attack helicopters. So I don't know why you were saying they should do the job of them.

IMO, the qualitative edge missiles grant is indispensable. Difference is that we prefer ballistic types, whereas the American doctrine uses cruise missiles. Missiles can be used to take out the high value tactical targets I mentioned, and also heavily defended strategic targets like oil faculties.

A good use of missiles and air force would be for the missiles to pin down the enemy early on, granting breathing space for the air force. If everything goes to plan, the air force does not need to worry about ground based air defences, because the missiles will have destroyed them. They would also face a weakened enemy air force due to strikes on command & control and aircraft on the ground. The missiles would aid the air force in gaining air superiority (and in turn, hopefully, air supremacy), and from thereon in, the air force can delivery the real heavy firepower, because in the long run bombs dropped by aircraft are cheaper than single use missiles.

 

[Penguin]

The Chinese and Russian nuclear deterrence structures that you mentioned - those names are translated and so we cannot be sure on their intentions. But that is not my point.

The Fateh-313 is still not an artillery rocket. Most commentators wouldn't even describe it as a rocket, since it is guided. Guided rockets are generally called missiles in the defence community (weapon classifications are not clear cut as you proved, so please don't bring up any dictionary definitions).

An artillery rocket is generally a short range (<50 km) unguided rocket. Prime example is the Katyusha. They are designed to saturate an area with a lot of firepower.

The Fateh-313 has a 500 km and is very accurate.

Again, it doesn't matter. Besides, Vevek onl referred to Fateh 110 in his post.

Interesting you should explain to me the difference between a rocket and a missile as the latter having guidance, right after I posted that the difference between the two is that the latter has guidance. And since this is a free webspace, I will bring up whatever material I choose. I have in previous posts already indicated how and for what rockets are used.

An artillery rocket is a rocket used in rocket artillery. Rocket artillery is a type of artillery equipped with rocket launchers instead of conventional guns or mortars. That is, the term is defined by how and what for the rocket is used, not the physical characteristic of the rocket perse. The idea that an artillery rocket is of limited range, or can only do saturation fire is outdated. See the increased ranges, the introduction of e.g. GPS guided warheads, sometimes combined with the use of unitary warheads etc. The boundary with a tactical ballistic missile is increading blurred.

BM-30 Smerch > 80 km
9A52-4 Tornado > 100km
M270 G-MLRS > 120 km
Astros II / SS-150 > 150km
Weishi-1B (WS-1B) > 180km
Weishi-2 (WS-2) > 200-400km, depending on whether A/B/C/D version
Weishi SY-400 > 400km (specifically designed as a low cost alternative to ballistic missiles)

VEVAK was using Operation Kaman 99 as an example, in which the targets were decidedly non-stationary airfields.

Fatehs would be used to conduct precision strikes on aircraft shelters/bunkers (like in Kaman 99), as well as air defence radars/TELs and other targets within reach. They are not CAS aircraft or attack helicopters. So I don't know why you were saying they should do the job of them.

IMO, the qualitative edge missiles grant is indispensable. Difference is that we prefer ballistic types, whereas the American doctrine uses cruise missiles. Missiles can be used to take out the high value tactical targets I mentioned, and also heavily defended strategic targets like oil faculties.

A good use of missiles and air force would be for the missiles to pin down the enemy early on, granting breathing space for the air force. If everything goes to plan, the air force does not need to worry about ground based air defences, because the missiles will have destroyed them. They would also face a weakened enemy air force due to strikes on command & control and aircraft on the ground. The missiles would aid the air force in gaining air superiority (and in turn, hopefully, air supremacy), and from thereon in, the air force can delivery the real heavy firepower, because in the long run bombs dropped by aircraft are cheaper than single use missiles.

I didn't start an off-topic discussion on the relative merits of F-5 or of the capabilities if Iran's military industrial complex. Or of the relative merit of wikipedia versus e.g a regular encyclopedia or any others source (while neglecting that this is a webforum and not the writing of an academic paper, to which different standards might well apply e.g. because looking up something from an encyclodepia - any encyclopedia - does not constitute 'literature review'). Or that I suggested Iran had or should have huge numbers of F-5 or F-5 derived aircraft. All BS points.
When he looses poor attitude, we can discuss friendly.

As for you own reply

What exactly are 'decidedly non-stationary airfields'? Mobile airfields? Like runways, bunkers and permanent radar/tel positisions are stationary (radars and tels themselves may be more mobile)

Indeed, rockets/missile are not CAS aircraft or attack helicopters. But if one suggests to advanced rocket artillery or tactical ballistic missiles are better to have than tactical fighter ground-attack aircraft, one does have to solve the problem of how to deal with fleeting targets ujsing missiles/rockets.

The F-5A first flew in 1959 and the F-5E in 1972. So, in essence a late 1950s design. Both Fateh-110 and -313 date to the late 1990s and early 2000s. Clearly, today, after 40 more years of developments rockets and missiles are capable of more than they were in the late 1950s. So, yes, some roles previously performed by aircraft from those days can now also be conducted with rockets/missiles, perhaps some even better. Then again, a modern light fighter in the weightclass of the F-5, like.g. the South Korean T-50 based TA-50 and FA-50, or armed Aeromacchi M-346/Yak130, Hongdu JL-15, and Guizhou JL-9 (FTC-2000) can be very usefull and capable assets e.g. in ground attack (light strike, CAS) with PGMs and targeting pods but also in air defence (e.g. to protect airfields, or to take care of leakers coming through a screen of heavier air defence fighters) particularly using longer range IIRH or ARH missiles in combination with IRST. The trainers of today can do things the trainers of the 1950s ara wouldn't be able to do. This applies even to slower ones like L-159 Alca or Hawk 100/200.

But let me suggest you go back to how the discussion with Vevek got started. Because HE took it very much off course because of HIS chip on HIS shoulder.

The Chinese and Russian nuclear deterrence structures that you mentioned - those names are translated and so we cannot be sure on their intentions. But that is not my point.

See for yourself using the website of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation:
_________________________________________________________________
Sergei Karakaev Commander of the Strategic Missile Forces, colonel general
http://eng.mil.ru/en/management/types_of_troops.htm

Каракаев Сергей Викторович Командующий Ракетными войсками стратегического назначения, генерал-полковник
http://structure.mil.ru/management/types_of_troops.htm

Karakayev Sergey Viktorovich Commander of the Strategic Missile Forces, Colonel-General
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&u=http://structure.mil.ru/management/types_of_troops.htm&edit-text=

The Strategic Missile Forces (SMF) are an Arm of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, the main component of its Strategic Nuclear Forces (SNF).
http://eng.mil.ru/en/structure/forces/strategic_rocket.htm

Ракетные войска стратегического назначения (РВСН) — род войск Вооруженных Сил Российской Федерации (ВС РФ), главный компонент ее стратегических ядерных сил (СЯС).
http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/strategic_rocket.htm
(nb. note the use of ROCKET in the url)

Strategic Rocket Forces (RVSN) - branch of the Armed Forces (the Armed Forces), a major component of its strategic nuclear forces (SNF).
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&u=http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/strategic_rocket.htm&edit-text=
______________________________________________________________________
Chinese themselves (MoD) actually speak of the 'PLA Rocket Force'.
http://eng.mod.gov.cn/ArmedForces/second.htm

Alternatively, they use 'Second Artillery Corps' . Check the URL above (second.htm > about PLA-RF). See also:
"Song Zhongping, a Beijing-based military expert who served in the Second Artillery Corps of the People's Liberation Army (now the Rocket Force), said that military cooperation between China and Syria has a long history."
http://eng.mod.gov.cn/DefenseNews/2016-08/19/content_4714992.htm

Ask my friends over at CDF (China-Defence.com) and see also
http://fas.org/nuke/guide/china/agency/2-corps.htm
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-Second-Artillery-Corps.html
______________________________________________________________________

 

[Penguin]

Should Iran ever seriously shoehorn a Russian RD-33 or Chinese WS-13 into its domestic single or twin tail F-5 variant(s), you end up with something along the lines of the Northrop F-20. To get an idea of combat radii for different missions for such a plane, see: http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-20.htm

Air superiority (internal fuel, 2 Sidewinder): 320 nmi = 593 km
(range incl. 5 min combat time on target, 20min. reserve at sea level)

Combat air patrol: (internal fuel, 3x 330 gallon fuel tanks, 2 Sidewinder): 300 nmi = 556 km
(range incl. 138 minutes on station, 20min. reserve at sea level)

Close air support (internal fuel, 2x 330 gallon fuel tanks, 7 mk 82 bombs, 2 Sidewinder): 150nmi = 279 km
(range incl. 48 min. loiter time, 20min. reserve at sea level)

Hi-lo-hi interdiction (internal fuel, 2x 330 gallon fuel tanks, 7 mk 82 bombs, 2 Sidewinder): 550nmi = 1019 km
(range incl. 20min. reserve at sea level)

This is not an impossible scenario:

Few years ago , Iran imported RD93 engine for its Mig29 fleet and also engine modification for its F5 fleet. Few Iran F5 has RD93 engine to test the frame endurance.

https://defence.pk/threads/iranian-military-engine-development-news-and-updates.446453/#post-8627128

Iranian engineers increased the length and weight of the F-5 and changed the shape of its tail fin and engine unit. Two American engines J85-GE-21B were replaced by Russian RD-33s.

http://www.kommersant.com/p815301/r_529/Iran_Arms_Aviation_Military/

Iranian Fighters to Fly with Russian Engines

https://defence.pk/threads/iranian-military-engine-development-news-and-updates.446453/#post-8627236

LtR (in order of increasing size):
Northrop F-5, Chengdu F-7, Mikoyan Mig 29, Grumman F-14, Sukhoi Su 24, Lockheed C130 Hercules.

Clearly, if born as an F-5 (variation), you will not ever grow into a larger class A/C like an F-15 or similarly size F-14.

Still, as its use (and often succes over F-14 and F15) in US OPFOR/Agressor training squadron shows, just because it is small doesn't mean it is toothless or useless
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5#United_States

 

[AmirPatriot]

You do know, I am not here to argue with you, you don't need to get so defensive. We are merely discussing.

Besides, Vevek onl referred to Fateh 110 in his post.

Incorrect. You yourself quoted him on this page (first post on this page) and he mentions the Fateh 313.

An artillery rocket is a rocket used in rocket artillery. Rocket artillery is a type of artillery equipped with rocket launchers instead of conventional guns or mortars. That is, the term is defined by how and what for the rocket is used, not the physical characteristic of the rocket perse. The idea that an artillery rocket is of limited range, or can only do saturation fire is outdated. See the increased ranges, the introduction of e.g. GPS guided warheads, sometimes combined with the use of unitary warheads etc. The boundary with a tactical ballistic missile is increading blurred.

BM-30 Smerch > 80 km
9A52-4 Tornado > 100km
M270 G-MLRS > 120 km
Astros II / SS-150 > 150km
Weishi-1B (WS-1B) > 180km
Weishi-2 (WS-2) > 200-400km, depending on whether A/B/C/D version
Weishi SY-400 > 400km (specifically designed as a low cost alternative to ballistic missiles)

Granted. Rocket artillery is indeed moving towards higher accuracy and increased range.

But Iran's limited funds mean we cannot use a 500 km (!) ranged quasi ballistic missile as artillery. Such ranges and expense put into guidance mean the Fateh would be reserved for high value targets.

For example, the Ghawar oil field, accounting for over half of Saudi's oil production.

What exactly are 'decidedly non-stationary airfields'? Mobile airfields? Like runways, bunkers and permanent radar/tel positisions are stationary (radars and tels themselves may be more mobile)

It was a non technical term. You were saying how ballistic missiles are ineffective against retreating targets (I suppose because the kill chain takes too long to complete, plus it's hilarious overkill), and I was saying that they were not designed for such a role

Indeed, rockets/missile are not CAS aircraft or attack helicopters. But if one suggests to advanced rocket artillery or tactical ballistic missiles are better to have than tactical fighter ground-attack aircraft, one does have to solve the problem of how to deal with fleeting targets ujsing missiles/rockets.

Ballistic Missiles can never replace aircraft completely, but they can take on some of the roles of aircraft when the need arises. I have already explained the use of aircraft and missiles working together.

can be very usefull and capable assets e.g. in ground attack (light strike, CAS)

I have specified the use of ballistic missiles as not CAS or light strike. They are most effective when attacking high value assets.

 

[Penguin]

Incorrect. You yourself quoted him on this page (first post on this page) and he mentions the Fateh 313.

I beg to differ. Here is why:

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.

Post #209

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

#209, hence this comment in #211 in which another poster brought in Fateh 313.

But Iran's limited funds mean we cannot use a 500 km (!) ranged quasi ballistic missile as artillery. Such ranges and expense put into guidance mean the Fateh would be reserved for high value targets.

I didn't suggest that one use quasi ballistics missiles in the first place. I focused on the use of aircraft.

F-5A combat radius with maximum fuel and two 530-pound (240 kg) bombs: at least 558 miles = 885 km.

Fateh 110 warhead is between 450 and 650 kg, Fateh 313 is almost identical so likely same warhead but longer range.

It was a non technical term. You were saying how ballistic missiles are ineffective against retreating targets (I suppose because the kill chain takes too long to complete, plus it's hilarious overkill), and I was saying that they were not designed for such a role

Ballistic Missiles can never replace aircraft completely, but they can take on some of the roles of aircraft when the need arises. I have already explained the use of aircraft and missiles working together.

I have specified the use of ballistic missiles as not CAS or light strike. They are most effective when attacking high value assets.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/iran-to-...jets-from-russia.421427/page-14#ixzz4JzdYW3Ia
An airstrike or air strike is an offensive operation carried out by attack aircraft. Air strikes are commonly delivered from aircraft such as fighters, bombers, ground attack aircraft, and attack helicopters. The official definition includes all sorts of targets, including enemy air targets, but in popular use the term is usually narrowed to a tactical (small-scale) attack on a ground or naval objective. Weapons used in an airstrike can range from machine gun bullets and missiles to various types of bombs. It is also commonly referred to as an air raid.

In close air support, air strikes are usually controlled by trained observers for coordination with friendly ground troops in a manner derived from artillery tactics.

Air interdiction (AI), also known as deep air support (DAS), is the use of preventative aircraft attacks against enemy targets, that are not an immediate threat, in order to delay, disrupt, or hinder later enemy engagement of friendly forces.
A distinction is often made between tactical and strategic air interdiction, depending on the objectives of the operation. Typical objectives in tactical interdiction are meant to affect events rapidly and locally, for example through direct destruction of forces or supplies en route to the active battle area. While strategic objectives are often broader and more long-term, with less direct attacks on enemy fighting capabilities, instead focusing on infrastructure, logistics and other supportive assets.

The term deep air support, relates to close air support and denotes the difference between their respective objectives. Close air support, as the name suggests, is directed towards targets close to friendly ground units, as closely coordinated air-strikes, in direct support of active engagement with the enemy. Deep air support (DAS) or Air interdiction (AI) is carried out further from the active fighting, based more on strategic planning and less directly coordinated with ground units. Despite being more strategic than close air support, air interdiction should not be confused with strategic bombing, which is unrelated to ground operations.

Strategic bombing is a military strategy used in a total war with the goal of defeating the enemy by destroying its morale or its economic ability to produce and transport materiel to the theatres of military operations, or both. It is a systematically organized and executed attack from the air which can utilize strategic bombers, long- or medium-range missiles, or nuclear-armed fighter-bomber aircraft to attack targets deemed vital to the enemy's war-making capability.

You are suggesting Fatah 313 use in a strategic bombing role, right? Or at least stratgic air interdiction.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Post #209

Since you didn't specify which post, I took the most recent post I saw with the Fateh-110, which also included the Fateh-313.

F-5A

An F-5 might be fine as a counter insurgency aircraft, or light CAS, but that is not the role of the F-110/313. The Fateh is for high value targets.

You are suggesting Fatah 313 use in a strategic bombing role, right?

It could be used in that role to destroy oil facilities or runways. But in a tactical role it could be used to destroy air defences and aircraft bunkers, as well as other stationary high value targets.

 

[Penguin]

Since you didn't specify which post, I took the most recent post I saw with the Fateh-110, which also included the Fateh-313.

Oh please.... just admit you made a mistake.

An F-5 might be fine as a counter insurgency aircraft, or light CAS, but that is not the role of the F-110/313. The Fateh is for high value targets.

So, that means Fateh 110/313 is not a good F-5 replacement, contrary to what some here suggest.

It could be used in that role to destroy oil facilities or runways. But in a tactical role it could be used to destroy air defences and aircraft bunkers, as well as other stationary high value targets.

Which is the point I was making: if you discard your F-5s (or aircraft in general) because you have Fatah 110/313 (or, in general, with advanced artillery rockets or tactial ballistic missiles), how do you deal with mobile (possibly high value) targets?

 

[AmirPatriot]

Oh please.... just admit you made a mistake.

I didn't. In one post he did mention the 313, and in another he did. There is no mistake. If you had specified the post, there wouldn't be this confusion.

So, that means Fateh 110/313 is not a good F-5 replacement, contrary to what some here suggest.

Correct.

if you discard your F-5s (or aircraft in general)

I was never in favour of discarding aircraft as a component of a war fighting force. In fact, I think the opposite.

But the F-5s are getting old and need to be replaced by a different aircraft. An armed trainer like the Yak-130 (though hopefully, an Iranian equivalent) would be suitable for counter insurgency operations. UCAVs with bigger payloads are also useful.

 

[OldTwilight]

The topic suppose to be about purchasing Su-30 .... I would enjoy to read some review about Su-30 ...

 

[BlueInGreen]

I think now more than ever Iran needs updated fighter jets and interception air craft. With the latest news of US spy planes the (P-8 Poseidon) coming within ONE mile of Iranian airspace and subsequently Iran stating it will not hesitate to shoot down the aircraft, we are experiencing another round of escalating tensions after the arrival of update S-300 air defence system and constant confrotation at sea, coupled with t with Phillipines telling US to get out, China saying US has no need to be in South China Sea and the Russians intercepting another US spy plane again over the black just not too long ago.

Lol, I guess peace doesn't exist. The world really is in a state of war.

The su-30's, mig 29's and any other aircraft that Russians are willing to let Iran BUILD would be a step in the right direction. Also I would advocate for both Iran and Russia to finally sit down and get some of the bad blood from the past our of the way (just tie up ANY lose ends that remain). China, Russia, Iran, Syria, ugh... North Korea (I'm not a fan of North Korea no matter what any one says but they have a right to defend themselves). Because one thing is for sure, for some reason the US is on the offensive again with all the near incursions into other countrise sovereign air space and the US canidates talking like there is war over the horizon.

 

[Penguin]

The topic suppose to be about purchasing Su-30 .... I would enjoy to read some review about Su-30 ...

Me too. The Yak 130 was offered as lead-in trainer for the Su-30 as part of a package. Some here take offence that I suggest it has other usefull capabilities and therefor might make a good choice (as I I somehow reflected on Iranian aircraft industry or air force)

The Su-30 sale could be in limbo until at least 2021. And even then there’s no guarantee it or any similar deal will go through. For starters, Su-30s are expensive—no less than $50 million per copy, perhaps too much for Iran.
“The Iranian air force is not well-funded,” Kash Ryan, author of Air Combat Memoirs of The Iranian Air Force Pilots, told The Daily Beast via email.

Cash isn’t even the main problem. Military officials can negotiate all they want and even sign contracts, but Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei, Iran’s top religious leader, has final say over arms deals. “In a country like Iran where a dictator like Khamenei rules with an iron fist, the air force won’t have much say in actual decision-making,” Ryan said.

The air force is low on Khamenei’s list of priorities. The ayatollah has a habit of only approving arms deals that boost his own political allies, especially within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the religious branch of the Iranian military. “Economic interests of a few, kickbacks and corruption decide what should or can be purchased,” Ryan said.

Most recently, Khamenei nixed the (non-religious) Iranian army’s attempt to buy new T-90 tanks from Russia. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps does not operate significant numbers of armored vehicles or manned aircraft and, unlike the mostly-secular army and air force, would have little use for high-tech T-90s and Su-30s, instead favoring special forces, ballistic missiles and drones

There’s a middle ground between the air force’s desire to buy Su-30s from Russia and Khamenei’s own intention to limit the flying branch’s spending. Iranian officials have proposed licensing the Su-30 design from Russia and producing the planes locally using mostly cheaper, Iranian-made components. Local production might also help Tehran thread the ever-loosening sanctions and avoid a U.S. veto at the United Nations.

That’s a nice idea for boosters of the Iranian air force. But it, too, is unlikely to work within Iran’s labyrinthine political system, Tom Cooper, author of several books about Iranian air power, told The Daily Beast via email.

“Although the necessary companies, most of the tools, and especially know-how are available or could be purchased from abroad, there is not enough coherence/unity between different cliques,” Cooper explained, “resulting in a situation where Iran can’t launch series production of such complex arms systems.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/27/iran-s-trying-to-rebuild-its-air-force.html

Personally, I'd be interested in hearing more about the interservice rivalries and politics involved in this. That is probably more difficult to learn about than any relative merits of one jet over another, or one (type of ) system versus another.