IRIAF | News and Discussions

[Muhammed45]

An F-16 armed with a fuel pod and 4 1000lb bombs has a max combat radius of 550km and in that configuration it's maneuverability and speed is quit limited

Also, in terms of cost just the cost of Fuel, maintenance, pilot training & ordinance cost over time means in a conflict in terms of overall costs it would be cheaper to use Missiles like the Fatteh-110, Fatteh-313 & Zolfaghar than fighters (And that's without the actual cost of the fighter it's self!)

As for replacing Iranian F-5, J-7, F-4's & F-1's for a fighter like the J-10 for now Iran's immediate concern is a platform for intercept operations as a back up to it's Air Defense and until that happens what's the point of talking about something that's a luxury rather than a necessity!

Mass producing Fatteh-110(250km), Fatteh-313(500km) & Zolfaghar(700km) in far greater numbers in my opinion should be a greater priority than purchasing fighters like the J-10, F-16 or JF-17

Couldn't say better.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Yes, but I think that 24-48 Su-30SME as universal multi-role fighter could be an excellent initial purchase for Iran, immediately after the end of UN sanctions in 2020. There anyway Iranian airforce need in practically complete modernisation, but the level of Iranian military spending will not allow to simultaneously buy everything at once.

Far too small a number when the Saudis on the other side of the Persian Gulf will have 300+ F-15s and 120 EF Typhoons by the time all their orders are delivered...

 

[mohsen]

In reality, Saudi fighters need both fuel and air refueling from U.S tankers even to reach their targets in Yemen (Sana), U.S didn't give them neither the domestic fuel production, nor these tankers, even though it's current dictator is their own puppet.
Now imagine Saudis buy their tankers, were could they hide it?!


for those who haven't read it already:
امیر عبداللهیان در برنامه "دست‌خط" مطرح کرد:
دمشق دو بار به اندازه تار مویی به سقوط نزدیک شد/ ماجرای نشست مسئولان نظام با رهبر انقلاب در ابتدای بحران سوریه/ اگر پیام مقتدارنه رهبری نبود، حتی یک جسد از منا برنمی‌گشت

 

[Hack-Hook]

An F-16 armed with a fuel pod and 4 1000lb bombs has a max combat radius of 550km and in that configuration it's maneuverability and speed is quit limited

Also, in terms of cost just the cost of Fuel, maintenance, pilot training & ordinance cost over time means in a conflict in terms of overall costs it would be cheaper to use Missiles like the Fatteh-110, Fatteh-313 & Zolfaghar than fighters (And that's without the actual cost of the fighter it's self!)

As for replacing Iranian F-5, J-7, F-4's & F-1's for a fighter like the J-10 for now Iran's immediate concern is a platform for intercept operations as a back up to it's Air Defense and until that happens what's the point of talking about something that's a luxury rather than a necessity!

Mass producing Fatteh-110(250km), Fatteh-313(500km) & Zolfaghar(700km) in far greater numbers in my opinion should be a greater priority than purchasing fighters like the J-10, F-16 or JF-17

Certainly more important than J-10 or F-16 but I believe acquiring a noticeable fleet of Modern interceptors are more important.

 

[raptor22]

In reality, Saudi fighters need both fuel and air refueling from U.S tankers even to reach their targets in Yemen (Sana), U.S didn't give them neither the domestic fuel production, nor these tankers, even though it's current dictator is their own puppet.
Now imagine Saudis buy their tankers, were could they hide it?!


for those who haven't read it already:
امیر عبداللهیان در برنامه "دست‌خط" مطرح کرد:
دمشق دو بار به اندازه تار مویی به سقوط نزدیک شد/ ماجرای نشست مسئولان نظام با رهبر انقلاب در ابتدای بحران سوریه/ اگر پیام مقتدارنه رهبری نبود، حتی یک جسد از منا برنمی‌گشت

They have.

 

[mohsen]

They have.

VS
the reality:
Pentagon To Senate: We Can’t Know If U.S. Fuel Helps Saudi Arabia Kill Civilians In Yemen
The Defense Department gave two reasons for not having that information. It said it does not know whether the Saudi and United Arab Emirates planes that receive American aerial refueling are headed for bombing runs or reconnaissance missions, and it cannot investigate the impact of Saudi-UAE airstrikes since Yemen is a conflict zone

 

[raptor22]

VS
the reality:
Pentagon To Senate: We Can’t Know If U.S. Fuel Helps Saudi Arabia Kill Civilians In Yemen
The Defense Department gave two reasons for not having that information. It said it does not know whether the Saudi and United Arab Emirates planes that receive American aerial refueling are headed for bombing runs or reconnaissance missions, and it cannot investigate the impact of Saudi-UAE airstrikes since Yemen is a conflict zone

 

[mohsen]

View attachment 460951

Your photo VS the REALITY, good luck.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Your photo VS the REALITY, good luck.

The REALITY is that the RSAF DOES operate KC-135 tankers, and probably uses some of them in Yemen. But they also use US tankers, probably because they have to loiter over the area and need extra tankers to do that.

 

[eagle2007]

Mohsen & raptor22,

The RSAF has 5 remaining KE-3 aerial refueling aircraft. They originally imported 8 decades ago but they had three converted to specialized electronic warfare platforms. These were purchased alongside 5 E-3 AWACs.

So the "TRUTH" is both of you are right in a way. The RSAF has an active and operational tanker fleet but given the sortie traffic over Yemen, a fleet of just 5 aircraft isn't enough for sustained ops. There is a golden rule of aircraft maintenance: the more you fly, the more you break and with older airframes, these breaks will increase in frequency and duration. Finally, if RSAF E-3s are anything like their American siblings, they're only getting harder and more expensive to maintain.

So while the Saudis almost certainly are producing all the jet fuel they need, they don't have enough tankers to feasibly deliver the demand required by the RSAF, thus the USAF's assistance.

AmirPatriot,

To be clear, the RSAF does NOT have KC135s, but KE-3s. Saudi KE-3s have identical airframes and engines to their E-3 AWACs, which are truly Boeing 707s.

USAF KC135s on the other hand, while very similar looking, are actually different. Their dimensions are subtly different, they have many small but important differences in components and design.

But it's a common misunderstanding.

 

[mohsen]

Mohsen & raptor22,

The RSAF has 5 remaining KE-3 aerial refueling aircraft. They originally imported 8 decades ago but they had three converted to specialized electronic warfare platforms. These were purchased alongside 5 E-3 AWACs.

So the "TRUTH" is both of you are right in a way. The RSAF has an active and operational tanker fleet but given the sortie traffic over Yemen, a fleet of just 5 aircraft isn't enough for sustained ops. There is a golden rule of aircraft maintenance: the more you fly, the more you break and with older airframes, these breaks will increase in frequency and duration. Finally, if RSAF E-3s are anything like their American siblings, they're only getting harder and more expensive to maintain.

So while the Saudis almost certainly are producing all the jet fuel they need, they don't have enough tankers to feasibly deliver the demand required by the RSAF, thus the USAF's assistance.

AmirPatriot,

To be clear, the RSAF does NOT have KC135s, but KE-3s. Saudi KE-3s have identical airframes and engines to their E-3 AWACs, which are truly Boeing 707s.

USAF KC135s on the other hand, while very similar looking, are actually different. Their dimensions are subtly different, they have many small but important differences in components and design.

But it's a common misunderstanding.

sorry, but on both fuel and fuel tankers, I prefer to believe our own sources, which matches the reality and Americans admission, rather than other speculations.

Saudis had a very active air campaign at the beginning, but it has reduced greatly, I see no reason for aerial refueling from Americans tankers today, unless they have no tankers at all.

 

[eagle2007]

Mohsen,

IMHO, the fuel is an absurd point to argue, as the Saudis have abundant refining capacity and there's plenty of stats a simple Google search will return proving it.

But back to the tankers, you may be on to something.

1) Availability- small fleets of unique aircraft tend to have poor availability, aka it's unlikely even under ideal conditions that all are fully mission capable. Even in the USAF, with nearly 400 tankers in inventory, ~25% are not mission ready at any given time.
2) Age- The USAF has >30 E-3s and their availability is even worse than the tankers. The "youngest" KE-3 in Saudi service is 32 years old and if USAF E-3s are having an increasingly hard time keeping their flights up, imagine what the RSAF is going through.

So, I will modify my previous comments.

As you pointed out, the early phase of the intervention show major action by the RSAF, possibly the highest tempo the RSAF has ever exercised. Dozens and dozens of sorties per day for months on straight. When you have only 5 tankers supporting likely several squadrons of combat aircraft, the wear and tear likely increased "regular" maintenance to several times that of peacetime. Something else that crops up with increased flying is inspection cycles, especially heavy or depot-level maintenance. In peacetime, aircraft can go over a year without having to go through such because such inspections on based on hours flown/time on airframe. In this scenario, what normally would take a year or more to accumulate is done is just 1-2 months of sustained high tempo flying. Once 1 of the 5 are on the ground for heavy maintenance, the pressure on the remaining aircraft increases and so begins an escalation of maintenance problems.

Under this kind of scenario, even with a decent supply chain, it's not hard to see how the fleet could become less and less available and eventually could become effectively grounded with only 2 or 3 airframes available for any operations and unable to conduct sustained high tempo for more than a week or so at a time.

Finally, you have to remember one final factor: training. In addition to any combat operations, the RSAF still has to maintain and train new KE-3 crews and also be available for F-15 pilots for refueling ops training (which, for the F-15 pilots at least, is not as intensive).

This would explain the need for USAF tankers, even to this day. The small and inadequately sized KE-3 fleet is simply incapable of dealing with this much workload.

These problems will only escalate with the continued deliveries of the new F-15SAs (84 to be delivered over the next several years)...

 

[mohsen]

Mohsen,

IMHO, the fuel is an absurd point to argue, as the Saudis have abundant refining capacity and there's plenty of stats a simple Google search will return proving it.

well Abdollahian's argument was that Saudi's F-15 need a specific fuel which they don't produce it themselves. in your simple search, can you find anything about that?!

 

[raptor22]

Mohsen,

IMHO, the fuel is an absurd point to argue, as the Saudis have abundant refining capacity and there's plenty of stats a simple Google search will return proving it.

But back to the tankers, you may be on to something.

1) Availability- small fleets of unique aircraft tend to have poor availability, aka it's unlikely even under ideal conditions that all are fully mission capable. Even in the USAF, with nearly 400 tankers in inventory, ~25% are not mission ready at any given time.
2) Age- The USAF has >30 E-3s and their availability is even worse than the tankers. The "youngest" KE-3 in Saudi service is 32 years old and if USAF E-3s are having an increasingly hard time keeping their flights up, imagine what the RSAF is going through.

So, I will modify my previous comments.

As you pointed out, the early phase of the intervention show major action by the RSAF, possibly the highest tempo the RSAF has ever exercised. Dozens and dozens of sorties per day for months on straight. When you have only 5 tankers supporting likely several squadrons of combat aircraft, the wear and tear likely increased "regular" maintenance to several times that of peacetime. Something else that crops up with increased flying is inspection cycles, especially heavy or depot-level maintenance. In peacetime, aircraft can go over a year without having to go through such because such inspections on based on hours flown/time on airframe. In this scenario, what normally would take a year or more to accumulate is done is just 1-2 months of sustained high tempo flying. Once 1 of the 5 are on the ground for heavy maintenance, the pressure on the remaining aircraft increases and so begins an escalation of maintenance problems.

Under this kind of scenario, even with a decent supply chain, it's not hard to see how the fleet could become less and less available and eventually could become effectively grounded with only 2 or 3 airframes available for any operations and unable to conduct sustained high tempo for more than a week or so at a time.

Finally, you have to remember one final factor: training. In addition to any combat operations, the RSAF still has to maintain and train new KE-3 crews and also be available for F-15 pilots for refueling ops training (which, for the F-15 pilots at least, is not as intensive).

This would explain the need for USAF tankers, even to this day. The small and inadequately sized KE-3 fleet is simply incapable of dealing with this much workload.

These problems will only escalate with the continued deliveries of the new F-15SAs (84 to be delivered over the next several years)...

Thanks ,
My Q is distance btw these 2 ain't that much, actually they are neighbors and Yemen doesn't have an air force and there is no AD except using R-27 to shoot down Saudis fighter jet otherwise RSAF faces no threat in Yemen sky so there would be no dog fight or chasing or risky situation that need more fuel ... so why do they need refueling? can't they use extra fuel tanks?about loitering as Amir said drones could not be replaced?
Second Q, what about Iran? surly Iran fleet is much more older.

 

[VEVAK]

Certainly more important than J-10 or F-16 but I believe acquiring a noticeable fleet of Modern interceptors are more important.

You'll get no argument from me there! Iran needs a replacement for it's F-14 fleet for intercept and air superiority missions to back up it's Air Defense and that should be top priority for Iran next to mass producing various types of Missiles & UAV's.