What's new

Iranian Aviation Products..military and civilian

There is no evidence of serial production of Jahesh or Own engine
Yes that is a mystery to me...Iran introduced this Jahesh engine more than two years ago and then everything went dark about this engine.

You are in Iran..First of all Happy new year to you. ..If you read something about this engine in Iranian press or TV please let us all know.
 
.
Iran currently is
Yes that is a mystery to me...Iran introduced this Jahesh engine more than two years ago and then everything went dark about this engine.

You are in Iran..First of all Happy new year to you. ..If you read something about this engine in Iranian press or TV please let us all know.
Happy new year to you as well .

These days , there's no good news in Iran. I would like to talk about good news , but there is nothing ...
 
.
Iran currently is

Happy new year to you as well .

These days , there's no good news in Iran. I would like to talk about good news , but there is nothing ...
look up " Infrastructure section" and you will get your surprise..Good news is all around you just have to pass your hatred of mullahs and think Iran .. even if mullahs they wanted to do everything bad the chances are they only succeed 50% of the time so 50% of what they do will be positive!!
 
.
look up " Infrastructure section" and you will get your surprise..Good news is all around you just have to pass your hatred of mullahs and think Iran .. even if mullahs they wanted to do everything bad the chances are they only succeed 50% of the time so 50% of what they do will be positive!!
Well , I was from supporter of IRI , I've been here from 2012 and supported them .... But IRI is dead ... Believe me , most of these wonderful news you are mentioning are lies ... Or just adding new source of revenue to ISI for stealing and suppressing the people...
 
.
.
I'm a curious person and can't wait for the Iranian technicians to present the CAS version of the Yasin, but in the meantime I Photoshopped this to see what the Yasin could look like with 4 hardpoints under the wing and 1× hard point under fuselage with (??) mm gun pod
:ashamed:
Fq7l-EBXwAA.jpg
 
.
I'm a curious person and can't wait for the Iranian technicians to present the CAS version of the Yasin, but in the meantime I Photoshopped this to see what the Yasin could look like with 4 hardpoints under the wing and 1× hard point under fuselage with (??) mm gun pod
:ashamed:
View attachment 921435
I think performance would suffer too much, no point in attaching weapons if it's going to fly like a cessna and get shot down by a dshk.

if, as I suggested in a different thread, Iran gets more powerful engines from Russia, it could be considered.

as it stands, it's a good trainer for Su-35
 
.
I think performance would suffer too much, no point in attaching weapons if it's going to fly like a cessna and get shot down by a dshk.

if, as I suggested in a different thread, Iran gets more powerful engines from Russia, it could be considered.

as it stands, it's a good trainer for Su-35
In that configuration it would be like all trainer jet in this category.
such as twin engines:
AIDC AT-3
Kawasaki T-4
AlphaJet
or single engines:
L-39
MB-339
Hongdu JL-8-K8
All trainers who, in addition to carrying out the pilot training task, have CAS capabilities, which apart from the AIDC AT-3, Kawasaki T-4, all others have been used and are still being used proficiently for CAS operations in conflicts.
Furthermore, reading the characteristics of dimensions, empty and full load weight and power of the engines installed, the Yasin should have very similar performance to the other trainer jet twin engines.
Just out of curiosity, go and make a quick comparison, possibly even only on wikipedia:
AIDC AT-3 : 2 × Honeywell TFE731-2 turbofan engines, 15.6 kN (3,500 lbf)
AlphaJet: 2 × SNECMA Turbomeca Larzac 04-C5 turbofan engines,13.24 kN (2,980 lbf)
Kawasaki T-4: 2 × Ishikawajima-Harima F3-IHI-30 turbofans, 16.32 kN (3,670 lbf)
Yasin: 2 × Owj turbojet engines (without afterburner version), 16 kN (3,600 lbf)
Ok the Yasin has turbojet engines, while the others are turbofans and therefore more sparing in consumption, but the installed power is only slightly lower than that of the Japanese T4.
Otherwise dimensions, empty weights and maximum take-off weight are all very similar.
Therefore I do not agree with your claims that it flies like a Cessna and shoot it down with a dshk.
 
.
In that configuration it would be like all trainer jet in this category.
such as twin engines:
AIDC AT-3
Kawasaki T-4
AlphaJet
or single engines:
L-39
MB-339
Hongdu JL-8-K8
All trainers who, in addition to carrying out the pilot training task, have CAS capabilities, which apart from the AIDC AT-3, Kawasaki T-4, all others have been used and are still being used proficiently for CAS operations in conflicts.
Furthermore, reading the characteristics of dimensions, empty and full load weight and power of the engines installed, the Yasin should have very similar performance to the other trainer jet twin engines.
Just out of curiosity, go and make a quick comparison, possibly even only on wikipedia:
AIDC AT-3 : 2 × Honeywell TFE731-2 turbofan engines, 15.6 kN (3,500 lbf)
AlphaJet: 2 × SNECMA Turbomeca Larzac 04-C5 turbofan engines,13.24 kN (2,980 lbf)
Kawasaki T-4: 2 × Ishikawajima-Harima F3-IHI-30 turbofans, 16.32 kN (3,670 lbf)
Yasin: 2 × Owj turbojet engines (without afterburner version), 16 kN (3,600 lbf)
Ok the Yasin has turbojet engines, while the others are turbofans and therefore more sparing in consumption, but the installed power is only slightly lower than that of the Japanese T4.
Otherwise dimensions, empty weights and maximum take-off weight are all very similar.
Therefore I do not agree with your claims that it flies like a Cessna and shoot it down with a dshk.
I don't know, seems a bit risky to me, all three of these planes are from the 80ies all predating drones like reaper. It makes much less sense today

Why risk a pilots life to carry this frankly mediocre payload?

1679530858797.png


Maybe ...listen to me here, there could be just 1(One) hardpoint under the fuselage for a single C802 AShM.
 
Last edited:
.
In that configuration it would be like all trainer jet in this category.
such as twin engines:
AIDC AT-3
Kawasaki T-4
AlphaJet
or single engines:
L-39
MB-339
Hongdu JL-8-K8
All trainers who, in addition to carrying out the pilot training task, have CAS capabilities, which apart from the AIDC AT-3, Kawasaki T-4, all others have been used and are still being used proficiently for CAS operations in conflicts.
Furthermore, reading the characteristics of dimensions, empty and full load weight and power of the engines installed, the Yasin should have very similar performance to the other trainer jet twin engines.
Just out of curiosity, go and make a quick comparison, possibly even only on wikipedia:
AIDC AT-3 : 2 × Honeywell TFE731-2 turbofan engines, 15.6 kN (3,500 lbf)
AlphaJet: 2 × SNECMA Turbomeca Larzac 04-C5 turbofan engines,13.24 kN (2,980 lbf)
Kawasaki T-4: 2 × Ishikawajima-Harima F3-IHI-30 turbofans, 16.32 kN (3,670 lbf)
Yasin: 2 × Owj turbojet engines (without afterburner version), 16 kN (3,600 lbf)
Ok the Yasin has turbojet engines, while the others are turbofans and therefore more sparing in consumption, but the installed power is only slightly lower than that of the Japanese T4.
Otherwise dimensions, empty weights and maximum take-off weight are all very similar.
Therefore I do not agree with your claims that it flies like a Cessna and shoot it down with a dshk.
Thank you and very useful information Mr @sahureka2 ..you saved me a lot of research because I needed to do that comparison at some time for Yasin..:-)
 
.
Therefore I do not agree with your claims that it flies like a Cessna and shoot it down with a dshk.

Because that subject is here to troll and flame-bait, nothing more. Hence their cheap and thoroughly uninformed interjection (similar to everything else they manage to produce). When they appear to be engaging in serious discussion, it's merely to slip in additional anti-Iranian propaganda talking points and/or provocations. They made their intention abundantly clear in the numerous instances in which they openly insulted Iran and the Iranian people. A troll who out of despair has spent numerous days and sleepless nights at the Iranian forum section in hopes of feeling a little more relevant. Subjects like these need to be shown the door, not thanked for their hostility and brazenness.
 
Last edited:
.
Because that subject is here to troll and flame-bait, nothing more. Hence their cheap and thoroughly uninformed interjection - like everything else they manage to produce. When they appear to be engaging in serious discussion, it's merely to slip in additional anti-Iranian propaganda talking points and/or provocations. They made their intention abundantly clear in the numerous instances in which they insulted Iran and the Iranian people. A troll who out of despair has spent numerous days and sleepless nights at the Iranian forum section so as to feel a little more relevant. Subjects like these need to be shown the door, not thanked for their hostility and brazenness.
if you deploy Yasin in a CAS role like that, you will suffer casualities to weapons like DShKs I guarantee you that.

Su25 can do that because it's built like a tank from the beginning as a CAS aircraft

You're proposing to deploy a light training aircraft that weighs less than most attack helicopters, has NO armor, engines can BARELY produce 16KN at FULL afterburner, which means huge IR signature in a modern airfield where MANPADs are everywhere.

For comparison, Russians didn't even deploy Yak 130 in Ukraine which is a much more powerful and capable aircraft than Yasin. And we're talking about Russians.
Hürjet has an engine that's putting out 84 KN thrust it can easily mount F414 which has 100 KN thrust and I still oppose the combat version of Hürjet

But I guess Iranian pilots lives are worth about this much to you guys, What else should I expect from a group of people whose idea of naval warfare is rushing towards an aircraft carrier group in a speed boat?

Logic left the chat
 
Last edited:
.
In that configuration it would be like all trainer jet in this category.
such as twin engines:
AIDC AT-3
Kawasaki T-4
AlphaJet
or single engines:
L-39
MB-339
Hongdu JL-8-K8
All trainers who, in addition to carrying out the pilot training task, have CAS capabilities, which apart from the AIDC AT-3, Kawasaki T-4, all others have been used and are still being used proficiently for CAS operations in conflicts.
Furthermore, reading the characteristics of dimensions, empty and full load weight and power of the engines installed, the Yasin should have very similar performance to the other trainer jet twin engines.
Just out of curiosity, go and make a quick comparison, possibly even only on wikipedia:
AIDC AT-3 : 2 × Honeywell TFE731-2 turbofan engines, 15.6 kN (3,500 lbf)
AlphaJet: 2 × SNECMA Turbomeca Larzac 04-C5 turbofan engines,13.24 kN (2,980 lbf)
Kawasaki T-4: 2 × Ishikawajima-Harima F3-IHI-30 turbofans, 16.32 kN (3,670 lbf)
Yasin: 2 × Owj turbojet engines (without afterburner version), 16 kN (3,600 lbf)
Ok the Yasin has turbojet engines, while the others are turbofans and therefore more sparing in consumption, but the installed power is only slightly lower than that of the Japanese T4.
Otherwise dimensions, empty weights and maximum take-off weight are all very similar.
Therefore I do not agree with your claims that it flies like a Cessna and shoot it down with a dshk.

AIDC AT-3​

HESA Yasin

Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet​

Kawasaki T-4

max takeooff weight of yasin actually is less while it uses fuel at the rate of 2-2.5 time of other jets so the carying capacity and endurance of it is actually less than those jets for the same mission

You're proposing to deploy a light training aircraft that weighs less than most attack helicopters, has NO armor, engines can BARELY produce 16KN at FULL afterburner, which means huge IR signature in a modern airfield where MANPADs are everywhere.
the engine provide that without after burner , actually it has no afterburner.
 
. .
:woot: Really? why does it use more fuel then?
it don't use more fuel than j-85 or normal owj. it use exactly the same amount of fuel as those engine without afterburner and half or less than half those engine with afterburner.

why it use more fuel than the other airplanes mentioned , well different engine , different fuel consumption . if you look at the spec you see it provide more thrust to weight ratio. the engine is development of a long line of j-85 engine variant , i guess when American wanted to use the variant in f-5 or more exactly J85-GE-21A they sort of overclocked it to reach the 3,500 lbf (16 kN) military thrust; 5,000 lbf (22 kN) after burning thrust they needed for the jet performance the initial variant which is J85-GE-1 was actually rated for 1,900–2,100 lbf (8.5–9.3 kN) thrust.
like everything overclocked the engine is bound to use more fuel than an engine that was supposed to provide that performance at the start. also being turbojet wont help its fuel consumption compared to turbofan engine
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom