IRIAF | News and Discussions

[rmi5]

And what you achieved strategically? Nothing. The Kurds in Turkey today are even angrier than they were years ago. The same Turkish air force that was bombing Kurds has refused to bomb Isis in Kobani right at the border of Turkey where US has to fly missions from faraway AC. In fact the Turkish AF behavior in this regard not only has achieved nothing strategic outside the borders of Turkey but has had a negative effect inside the Turkey by making Kurds angry.

As for Iranian AF, they are supporting Iran's strategic plan for Iraq and Syria as defined by Iranian state. I am sure, you read the news and you know where Iran stands with regard to these two countries and where Turkey stands.



Yes, anybody who tries to subvert and try to bring about a military coup will be eliminated. Iran is not Turkey where every now and then its military rebels and concurs its own country in acts of mutiny. In Iran military officers who even dream about such action are fast forwarded to the next world. But they are handled by Iranians. No Arab diplomat can beat up an Iranian fighter pilot in front of his wife and get away with it. As it happens in Turkey.

Another garbage response. When Jahanbani committed a coup?!!!
Spare me of your BS.

 

[xenon54 out]

Just like Turkey wasting billions on Isis. Has Turkey stopped buying oil from Isis or the deal is still on?

I am just stating the facts.

Oh boy there we go again, just stop watching press tv.

 

[usernameless]

The Turkish pilots can not even protect themselves against Arab diplomats on Turkish streets and get beaten up in front of their wives by Arab diplomats. Go google and see for yourself.

someone who uses this kind of arguments on a defense site to measure strength between countries is pathetic to say the least, your whole credibility just dropped and says enough about your logic and the hatred which for now is hidden behind your mask, but will become more visible through your sneaky demeaning troll posts. Another thing, writing a wall of text won't increase your credibility.

 

[Gold Eagle]

Another fool who thinks phantom is better than F-16
I just wasted my time on you.

You don't even know what he is talking about and You just keep insulting him. The problem is either you don't understand what he says or you just don't want to do so.
Although a block 52 F16 is definitely far more capable than an aging F4 but in case of an operation against these terrorists, Iranian phantoms can do the same task which a modern fighters like f16 does.
Iranian Phantoms are capable of using precious munitions such as laser ,TV/IR guided bombs and missiles and also they carry modern targeting pods. not to mention that they are match with iranian UAVs. So they can do the same job a modern 4th gen aircraft does in a ground attack against terrorist organizations.

 

[Wave]

It does not matter. What matters is that IRIAF has the balls to get the job done. Turkish AF meanwhile is a joke that can not even protect its pilots who are taking their wives to hospital and get beaten up by Arab diplomats on Turkish streets.

Either ur really young or plain stupid.

 

[rmi5]

Iranian Phantoms are capable of using precious munitions such as laser ,TV/IR guided bombs and missiles and also they carry modern targeting pods. not to mention that they are match with iranian UAVs. So they can do the same job a modern 4th gen aircraft does in a ground attack against terrorist organizations.

These are all fictional, and not true. In reality, 90% of these stuff are just unveiled in fake ceremonies, but never have been used.

 

[F117]

The Aviationist » Previously unknown details about Iranian F-4, F-5, Su-24 and UAVs involvement in air strikes on ISIS targets in Iraq

An insight into the IRIAF missions in Iraq was provided by Iranian defense expert Babak Taghvaee, a very well known author of several publications about the Iranian air forces and a regular contributor to some of the most read aviation magazines.

Taghvaee summed up the key features about the Iranian air raids in an email to The Aviationist.

– 18th to 20th November, several interdiction sorties were performed by the 2nd and 4th TFB’s F-5s in the Diyala province.

– Between Nov. 20t and Nov. 23 November, the RF-4Es of IRIAF and UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) of the IRGC-ASF (Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp Aerospace Force) performed recce sorties over Jalula and Saadia.

– Between Nov. 23 and Nov. 30, the F-4Es of the 3rd TFB and 9th TFB performed CAS (Close Air Support) sorties for the Kurdish Peshmerga, Badr militia and Iraqi SpecOps.

– On Dec. 1 and 2, four Su-24MKs performed several combat air patrols and on-call CAS sorties deep inside Iraqi borders.

– On 29th and 30th November, the indigenous Sattar 4 LGBs and GBU-78/A Ghased TV guided bombs were used against the Daesh’s strongholds and heavy trucks successfully for first time in battle zone.

In conclusion, the Kurds and Iraqis retrieved the cities of Jalula and Saadia under fire support of IRIAF.

“The Americans had full coordination with Iranians during the combat sorties of IRIAF,” Taghvee highlighted.

Indeed, although it was theoretically possible for Iranian planes to fly inside Iraq without any coordination with other air forces operating in the same airspace, it would have been suicidal. For proper deconfliction of tactical assets, prior coordination and air space management and control are required.

There are several aircraft performing Airspace Control, Airborne Early Warning over Syria and Iraq: no plane could fly undetected in the area.

 

[gambit]

Yes, for such ground missions that Iran is conducing right now indeed F-4 is better since its twin engine design protects it against unfortunate engine failures and its capability to carry much more bombs and ammo than F-16 means more firepower can be delivered.

There is a reason why the A-10 have its two engines physically separated: To avoid one engine failure causing the other to fail as well.

What kind of engine failure determine whether the pilot can recover the aircraft or not. Take the F-4, for example, if a missile causes an explosive failure of the turbine system, you can bet the ejection handle that the other engine that sits so close will be so severely damaged that the pilot will NOT be able to recover the jet.

Am not saying that we designed the F-16 with its single engine because General Dynamics believed the single engine to be superior to the twin engine configuration. The F-16 was designed that way because of original idea of being a lightweight and highly maneuverable fighter to be the dogfighter that no one want to meet in combat. If the F-16 was moved into the ground strike missions, it was because the fighter proved to be highly versatile and capable enough at ANY mission.

The other part of the equation is the pilot and his training. Even for the rugged A-10, no A-10 pilot is going to fly in ways that would place his jet into unnecessary harm. No A-10 pilot is going to say to himself: 'I have two very tough engines placed far apart from each other, that mean I can low and slow and if one engine is hit, I can live with the loss.' The A-10 was designed that way not to give the pilot the license to be careless but to increase his survivable quotient in the event his jet is damaged.

Same mentality for the F-4 and F-16 pilots.They are not going to fly in ways that would allow their jets to be hit whether their jets are as tough as the A-10 -- or not. The F-4 and F-16 pilots are not going to say: 'My jet is not as tough as the A-10 so I am going to refuse this mission.' No, they will find ways to minimize exposure of weaknesses while still committed to support ground operations. This is where innovative tactics and training make the F-16 pilots of one country better than the F-16 pilots of another country.

Between the F-4 and the F-16, pilots will chose the F-16 any day. Whether it is for ground strike missions or not. The days of the F-4, as great a jet as it is, is over.

 

[Daneshmand]

There is a reason why the A-10 have its two engines physically separated: To avoid one engine failure causing the other to fail as well.

What kind of engine failure determine whether the pilot can recover the aircraft or not. Take the F-4, for example, if a missile causes an explosive failure of the turbine system, you can bet the ejection handle that the other engine that sits so close will be so severely damaged that the pilot will NOT be able to recover the jet.

Am not saying that we designed the F-16 with its single engine because General Dynamics believed the single engine to be superior to the twin engine configuration. The F-16 was designed that way because of original idea of being a lightweight and highly maneuverable fighter to be the dogfighter that no one want to meet in combat. If the F-16 was moved into the ground strike missions, it was because the fighter proved to be highly versatile and capable enough at ANY mission.

The other part of the equation is the pilot and his training. Even for the rugged A-10, no A-10 pilot is going to fly in ways that would place his jet into unnecessary harm. No A-10 pilot is going to say to himself: 'I have two very tough engines placed far apart from each other, that mean I can low and slow and if one engine is hit, I can live with the loss.' The A-10 was designed that way not to give the pilot the license to be careless but to increase his survivable quotient in the event his jet is damaged.

Same mentality for the F-4 and F-16 pilots.They are not going to fly in ways that would allow their jets to be hit whether their jets are as tough as the A-10 -- or not. The F-4 and F-16 pilots are not going to say: 'My jet is not as tough as the A-10 so I am going to refuse this mission.' No, they will find ways to minimize exposure of weaknesses while still committed to support ground operations. This is where innovative tactics and training make the F-16 pilots of one country better than the F-16 pilots of another country.

Between the F-4 and the F-16, pilots will chose the F-16 any day. Whether it is for ground strike missions or not. The days of the F-4, as great a jet as it is, is over.

I have no issue with rationality of your comment. I am also not going into the argument of why US navy always wanted twin engine designs for exactly the reasons I enumerated. But my argument was not about the survivability of A-10. It was about the strategic role of IRIAF vs. Turkish AF.

In your technical view (I assume you have a technical background from your neat writing), has Turkish AF achieved that state's strategic objectives? The answer is obvious. With F-16 or without it. Simple.

An AF is not there to impress us with its "uber" aircrafts. It has to achieve what it is there for. The strategic objectives of a country. IRIAF has done it. That is what matters.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Why should Turkey use half a century old fighters to attack Iraq while she has F-16s which are suitable for such cases? Do you have any brain?

Why not and dont forget turkey half century old airplanes are upgraded by their friend at eastern part of Mediterranean sea.

There is a reason why the A-10 have its two engines physically separated: To avoid one engine failure causing the other to fail as well.

What kind of engine failure determine whether the pilot can recover the aircraft or not. Take the F-4, for example, if a missile causes an explosive failure of the turbine system, you can bet the ejection handle that the other engine that sits so close will be so severely damaged that the pilot will NOT be able to recover the jet.

Am not saying that we designed the F-16 with its single engine because General Dynamics believed the single engine to be superior to the twin engine configuration. The F-16 was designed that way because of original idea of being a lightweight and highly maneuverable fighter to be the dogfighter that no one want to meet in combat. If the F-16 was moved into the ground strike missions, it was because the fighter proved to be highly versatile and capable enough at ANY mission.

The other part of the equation is the pilot and his training. Even for the rugged A-10, no A-10 pilot is going to fly in ways that would place his jet into unnecessary harm. No A-10 pilot is going to say to himself: 'I have two very tough engines placed far apart from each other, that mean I can low and slow and if one engine is hit, I can live with the loss.' The A-10 was designed that way not to give the pilot the license to be careless but to increase his survivable quotient in the event his jet is damaged.

Same mentality for the F-4 and F-16 pilots.They are not going to fly in ways that would allow their jets to be hit whether their jets are as tough as the A-10 -- or not. The F-4 and F-16 pilots are not going to say: 'My jet is not as tough as the A-10 so I am going to refuse this mission.' No, they will find ways to minimize exposure of weaknesses while still committed to support ground operations. This is where innovative tactics and training make the F-16 pilots of one country better than the F-16 pilots of another country.

Between the F-4 and the F-16, pilots will chose the F-16 any day. Whether it is for ground strike missions or not. The days of the F-4, as great a jet as it is, is over.

Let change scenario a little more if enemy use guns and airdefence cannons not missiile then which one is more survivable in a CAS mission F-4 or F-16.

 

[gambit]

Why not and dont forget turkey half century old airplanes are upgraded by their friend at eastern part of Mediterranean sea.


Let change scenario a little more if enemy use guns and airdefence cannons not missiile then which one is more survivable in a CAS mission F-4 or F-16.

The F-16. Because it is more maneuverable and able to make quicker unpredictable moves. Anti-aircraft gunnery is essentially making predictions as to where the target is GOING TO BE, aka 'leading the target', then shoot at that point in the sky, hoping that the target will be at the intercept point.

 

[Hyperion]

Well done Iran. Keep it up and bomb the takfiri bastards to hell!

 

[gambit]

I am also not going into the argument of why US navy always wanted twin engine designs for exactly the reasons I enumerated.

And the US Navy is going to the F-35, a single engine fighter.

But my argument was not about the survivability of A-10.

I used the A-10 only as an example of a highly specialized aircraft.

It was about the strategic role of IRIAF vs. Turkish AF.

In your technical view (I assume you have a technical background from your neat writing), has Turkish AF achieved that state's strategic objectives? The answer is obvious. With F-16 or without it. Simple.

An AF is not there to impress us with its "uber" aircrafts. It has to achieve what it is there for. The strategic objectives of a country. IRIAF has done it. That is what matters.

I responded to your comment that a twin engine fighter is somehow 'better' than a single engine one because of the availability of a 'spare' engine in case of an engine failure. We now know that argument is not really valid any more.

 

[haman10]

And what you achieved strategically? Nothing. The Kurds in Turkey today are even angrier than they were years ago. The same Turkish air force that was bombing Kurds has refused to bomb Isis in Kobani right at the border of Turkey where US has to fly missions from faraway AC. In fact the Turkish AF behavior in this regard not only has achieved nothing strategic outside the borders of Turkey but has had a negative effect inside the Turkey by making Kurds angry.

As for Iranian AF, they are supporting Iran's strategic plan for Iraq and Syria as defined by Iranian state. I am sure, you read the news and you know where Iran stands with regard to these two countries and where Turkey stands.



Yes, anybody who tries to subvert and try to bring about a military coup will be eliminated. Iran is not Turkey where every now and then its military rebels and concurs its own country in acts of mutiny. In Iran military officers who even dream about such action are fast forwarded to the next world. But they are handled by Iranians. No Arab diplomat can beat up an Iranian fighter pilot in front of his wife and get away with it. As it happens in Turkey.

mate , after sometime u can easily realize the fanboys in this forum are the overwhelming majority .

sometimes u have to just be silent in response , which is much more effective on fanboys

I responded to your comment that a twin engine fighter is somehow 'better' than a single engine one because of the availability of a 'spare' engine in case of an engine failure. We now know that argument is not really valid any more.

B.S .

for fighters like F-14 and F-15 or basically any fighter jet whose engines are far apart , that maybe a valid discussion .

but for fighters like F-18 or F-5 , the second engine is always an "spare" as u call it , to the second one in case of engine failure .

 

[Arminkh]

The only one who is stupid is you and your DNA. The reason F-16 was designed was not reliability nor attacking ground targets. F-16 came out of a fierce philosophical debate about air to air combat within Pentagon bureaucracy during 1960's. A group of people spearheaded by a talented fighter pilot/engineer by the name of John Boyd who had developed the energy–maneuverability theory (E-M theory), convinced the Pentagon to develop two fighter designs based on his theory of air to air combat. The expensive design became known as F-15 and the cheaper design became F-16. It had nothing to do with ground missions. Your ignorance is really pathetic. F-4 carries more ammo and its twin engine design makes it ideal for such missions where no air to air combat is likely to occur.

Welcome Daneshmand!

Don't argue with him it is of no use. In his narrow mind whoever doesn't think like him or agree with him is an idiot. I wonder when he will realize that if you are living in a world that everyone seems like a fool, then maybe you are the one that is a fool not them!