IRIAF | News and Discussions

[SOHEIL]

Are we near to something like RD-33 or J-79 ???????
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_RD-33
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_J79

RD-33 ...

 

[SubWater]

RD-33 ...

Good to hear that.
In west and East make warplanes base on engines but we expect our air force build engine base on warplanes.

 

[SubWater]

every body in short can explain difference and benefits of Turbo fans against Turbo jets ?????

 

[PeeD]

Turbojets are only more efficient than a turbofan in very high speed, high altitude applications.

Outside those they become inefficient, means less thrust for the amount of fuel.

At lower altitude and speed, turboprobs beat them both.

 

[SubWater]

Turbojets are only more efficient than a turbofan in very high speed, high altitude applications.

Outside those they become inefficient, means less thrust for the amount of fuel.

At lower altitude and speed, turboprobs beat them both.

Thank you bro very short informative explanation.
I appreciate it.
my question is that:
building which of them is easier and cheaper for Iran for getting around 40 KN thrust from it.

 

[PeeD]

Your welcome.

Turbofan of course and the RD-33 is the best military turbofan Iran has at hand.

and we know Iran is working on a TV3-117 turboprop copy.

Turbojet makes no sense at all in terms of efficiency (Owj, J-85), but is easier to master than a turbofan.

 

[TheImmortal]

There is a heavy turbojet and turbofan project in the works. There is also the J-90 project which could potentially just be J-85 afterburner variant or something else.

Lastly there is a engine with 4 times the power of J-85 which is in development. That would mean >50nt engine. Two of those could power a mid size fighter.

However, eventually for a large interceptor role Iran will need to reverse engineer F110 (F-14 engine).

I don’t think Iran would spend too much time on Eastern engines as that creates even more headaches to deal with two different engine doctrines. But who knows maybe they will reverse enginer RD-33.

 

[Cthulhu]

OK, Here we go:
A turbojet, or "straight jet" engine, consists of the four stages of thrust generation arranged in a straight line within a tube. At the leading edge of the tube are one or more compressor fans, that compress the airstream; then, fuel injector nozzles mix atomized fuel with the compressed air; then, the fuel-air mixture is ignited from a continuous flame housed in a flame eddy; this combustion accelerates exhaust gases out the back of the tube, producing thrust. An exhaust turbine is situated behind the combustion stage; this turbine is driven by the exhaust gases, and drives the compressor fan.

A turbofan consists of a turbojet engine (the "core") surrounded by a larger tube (the "bypass"). A larger, slower fan, positioned upwind of the compressor section in the core, pushes air (relatively) slowly through both the core and the bypass. The air that makes it to the core is compressed and undergoes combustion as described above. The air that makes it to the bypass is ducted around the core, and mixes with the exhaust gases when it exits the back of the engine. Although the air in the bypass is moving slower than the exhaust gases ejected out the back of the core, it is still much faster than the ambient air that does not enter the engine at all.

As you can see, Turbofan engines have four sections: the fan, compressor, combustion chamber, and turbine. For the fan and the compressor in the fore half section, where the temperature is relatively low (600˚C or lower), A titanium alloy is mainly used. For the turbine and the combustion chamber in the rear half section where temperatures are higher (1500˚C or higher), a nickel-based alloy or iron-based alloy (a.k.a Superalloys) is used.
So, The problem of developing of aircraft engines shrinks down to the problem of developing single crystal superalloys, which is one of the hardest subjects to master on this planet.
http://www.tms.org/superalloys/10.7449/1980/Superalloys_1980_205_214.pdf

Superalloys need very specialized manufacturing processes (which afaik we don't have), They should be manufactured is a very spacial form (single crystal form), They use some of the rarest materials on earth (rhenium), Which Even Chinese were not able to purify till last year.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chinese-aero-engine-information-thread.300409/page-44#post-9834177

So, With smart educated Iranians fleeing the country in such a high rate, We can kiss goodbye the dream of producing domestic engines, unless of course, The greatest Islamic scientists of 21st century, Dr. Hossein Ravazadeh and Prof. Ali Akbar Raefipour, Can come up with a solution.

 

[skyshadow]

فیلم تاکسی کوثر 88 با سرعت بالا بر روی باند پرواز منتشر شد

 

[VEVAK]

I give you a scenario in which a F-5 makes sense and is cost effective:

- You need a CAS aircraft to support your ground forces with Mk.82 class firepower
- You operate within a IADS in high intensity warfare or else just counter insurgency
- You want to make use of swarm survivability should your IADS fail. A swarm with large HOBS IIR WVR AAM for self defense
- The concentration on CAS only and that with automated bombing system (SVP-24-like) or advanced targeting pod keeps necessary pilot kills at the very minimum. No dogfighting (HOBS for emergency), no race scenarios for pole positioning. Just high altitude bombing with a system that automatically releases the unguided bombs at the Fraktion of a second if you or the autopilot keeps course. Hence minimum pilot training.
- The CAS role in low threat environment means, max. speed is not critical

What do you get for that role?

Bear in mind the F-5 design is so cost optimized that it has 4 times (no guessing, fact) lower maintenance effort/cost and hence lifetime cost than a F-4

The F-4 on the other hand has a up to 3 times higher payload. While the F-5 is at least half and up to 3 times as expensive per airframe.
Do you want a F-5 with 5 Mk.82 within 50km of your requested strike position or a F-4 with 15 Mk.82 at 150km?

Iran needs something in the F-14 class to enter BVR high altitude competition with the enemy. Anything below it makes no sense, anything below it must work in a protected niche. Anything else can on the other hand make up much of the penalty by staying in the low altitude WVR game only if it comes to a engagement. There HOBS WVR missile and numbers are king.

So for now the situation could be following: In Iraq and Syria, the IRIAF operations against ISIS were just too expensive to sustain. Russians could do it, but not Iran. Using the F-4 and Su-24 fleet to low altitude dumb bomb ISIS or even using PGMs would let attrition and costs explode. F-5 operations would may be affordable but attrition would be too high.

The key to success of Russians was the following combination: Robustness and reliability/low-maintenance of the small (~30) fleet of aircraft plus the low attrition high altitude bombing capability provided by the SVP-24 keeping the cases where PGMs were absolute necessary (mobile targets e.g) at very minimum. SVP-24 proved itself in the ability to hit large target like apartment blocks and combined with heavy bombs gave high PK.

We have to expect that Irans military learned its lessons from this campaign. Same as Russians likely learned that a armed drone like the S-129 is most cost effective when it comes to small and mobile targets.

So we want to have such a capability and the F-5 would be a ideal platform for this.

I'm quite happy the IRIAF did not present a upscale F-5, F-18 like aircaft actually. It would look cool but be inefficient.
We need to pave the ground in terms of subsystems, then move to better engines and just after that try to come up with something with serious air to air capability (capability to operate in enemy airspace).
Whether it is a brute force heavy interceptor like the Mig-31 or a smart asymmetrical solution like my Qaher-313 concept. We still need to qualify subsystems such as FBW system, HMS/HMD, airborne x-band AESA/PESA (we have it already on the ground) plus weapon systems like a heavy WVR HOBS IIR AAM, anti-radar missile, air launched compact cruise missile.

PS: A twin seat F-5 also makes a good advanced supersonic trainer. So building 100 for the counter insurgency CAS role (Russian campaign) also provides a secondary role of having 100 supersoic trainers.

I would disagree with almost 50% of what you wrote here!

1st Lets talk about platforms before getting into the subsystems of platforms!

You say Iran needs CAS fighters to provide support for ground forces. Yes I could agree with that IF a threat of an invasion from a neighboring country whos Air Force wasn't that much stronger than Iran's existed Like Saddam or Saudi Arabia or Turkey! But such a threat does NOT exist so the only reason we would need CAS fighter for the immediate future would be for providing areal support for boarder areas.
Plus, against an Airpower like the U.S. that can hit you from all sides what exactly do you think the survivability of Iranian CAS fighters placed at bases within 200km of Iranian border would be????

And I'm not questioning that Iran needs a limited amount of CAS fighters and yes in a normal situation where the U.S. is NOT the main threat Iran would need 4-6 CAS fighters deployed across 14-16 bases on active status placed at bases near the boarder(within 150km) to provide Air support for Iranian boarder guards & cost guards(IRGC) (~64 Active + 24 for Training & not including storage)
So Yes your assessment that Iran would need about 100 low cost CAS fighter/Advanced trainer in a normal situation is correct BUT how many do we already have? How many CAS fighters has Iran spent time and money on?(Shafaq, Simorgh, Azarakhsh, Saegheh, Bavar, Kowsar1&2,.....) and finally we haven't been in a normal situation for the past 40 years!

Today we have ~ 60 active F-5/Saegheh/Azarakhsh/Simorgh + 20 Active J-7 + 10 Active Su-22 + handful of Su-25 + 40 or so Kowsar trainer/CAS fighter the Air Force has already ordered + storage.

And yes there is a need to upgrade & overhaul our current CAS fighter to increase survivability and there is a need to replace the Airframes of the older F-5's BUT there was no need to redesign the F-5 or build a new cockpit and canopy a simple upgrade would have been sufficient!

FYI this new fighter is bigger than the F-5 and it is an upscale version of the F-5 using Iranian J-85's OWJ engines although I'm also happy that they didn't add an additional useless stabilizers especially on the 2 seater version but if they had made it any bigger than this it wouldn't have been able to go supersonic with the owj engines at all!

As for subsystems according to the Airforce this fighter cost Iran about $16.5 Million USD per Aircraft and is equipped with at least $7Million USD worth of Avionics & subsystems and yet it doesn't even have an IRST or an Air refueling pod and there is NO excuse for that especially when you have already added 7 Million USD worth of subsystems to the platform!
(FYI the American T-38 was priced at $7 Million USD in 2016)

Don't get me wrong the various subsystems Iran has developed is astonishing BUT they are wasted on a CAS fighter such as this that doesn't have the ability to protect it's self against areal threats even within visible range nor the situational awareness and sensor capability needed to see the threats that are coming at it or the range needed to take full advantage of its advanced avionics nor the payload capacity needed to make the subsystems cost effective.....

And in Syria one of the MAIN reason the Russians could afford dropping so many bombs was mainly due to their bombers!!!!!!!!!! Do you know how many F-5's fighter variants Iran would have needed to deploy and how many sorties they would have needed to fly and how many millions of dollars worth of Air Defense equipment would have been needed and how many maintenance crew and facilities on the ground would have been needed..... to simply drop half the ordinance the Russians dropped using their larger bombers and strike aircraft alone???
So you got that backwards my friend because using CAS fighters to accomplish even half of what the Russians did would NOT have been cost effective AT ALL! Where as if we had just 1 supersonic bomber we could have dropped a large number of low cost ordnance at least in norther Syria and gotten out before the Israelis could intercept them!!!!!

You say the maintenance cost of an F-4 is 4 Times higher than an F-5 that is absolutely correct BUT in terms of capability 1 F-4 is worth far more than 4 F-5's!

How many Mk.82 do you think an F-5 can deliver to a target located 400km from it's base vs how many Mk.82 do you think an F-4E can deliver to that very same location??
What is the sensor capability and situational awareness of an F-4 as appose to an F-5? And which do you think has far greater survivability?
EVEN IN TERMS OF PROVIDING cover for your ground forces on your own territory near the boarder in an all out war what exactly are the chances of an F-4 detecting an enemy F-15 on an intercept course as appose to an F-5? (And with the proliferation of 5th Gen fighter IRST become vital to increase situational awareness and knowing when to run sometimes is far more valuable than having the weapons needed for dog fights)

As for SWARM tactics which do you think is better an Aircraft that can deploy a swarm of air launched weapons or having to pay the cost of maintaining a fleet of over 2000 manned fighter jets.....

And Iran is a relatively large country and if you were to divide the country into 20 sections each section would be about the size of the UAE or Austria and dedicating 5 CAS fighters to each section would = 100 CAS fighters
Which means in a country the size of Iran CAS fighter will be utterly useless in an all out war and Iran doesn't really need to deploy anymore than 4-6 CAS fighter across 14-16 bases located within 150km of Iranian boarders

FYI Ballistic calculation is the minimum requirement for advanced 3rd gen & 4th gen fighter's weapon system and yes it take years of R&D and trial and error to develop and perfect but it is nothing new and it's an absolute minimum requirement for all fighters but ballistic calculation can only take you so far you would still need an optical, laser, GPS or an advanced INS solution for precision targeting! And they are far more of a requirement on the ordnance of lower payload CAS fighters than they are on larger bombers!
Because it's utterly absurd NOT to have them when you lack payload! what you want to spend $20,000 USD on jet fuel alone to get your fighter to a target with 2-4 A2G ordnance but you don't wanna spend an additional $5,000 USD per ordnance worth of computer hardware, software, gyro and optics to increase the chances of your ordinance actually hitting the target? It's absurd especially when your capable of producing the weapons yourself on an Iranian designed weapon system and we are not talking about buying overpriced American PGM when Iran is fully capable of producing them at a fraction of the price!


Got to go for now talk to you later....

 

[Draco.IMF]

From 2020 (UN resolution) Iran can purchase legally weapons, lets see what Irans "partner", Russia, is ready to sell
possible that Iran made order and russia is already manufacturing them, and from 2020 delivery can start..Please, SU-30

 

[VEVAK]

I think problem is lack of good engine which prevents them from going for heavier air frames.

For Iran powerplant is actually the easy part compared to a viable Airframe! At worst you can import them.... Iran's obsession with the F-5 is strictly due to Ti and raw martial requirements

i mostly agree with you but iran most needs an interceptor, so why would it need to have an internal weapons bay (which has been heavily criticised on the f-35 as not being able to carry much) or be stealthy?

The main problem with the F-35 is it's price tag and it's price tag has nothing to do with it's internal weapons bay and the price tag is high because the Americans are trying to get other countries to pay the massive R&D cost of the F-35B's VTOL or STOVL capability.

Internal Weapons bay is not just about stealth. Most pilots will tell you SPEED IS LIFE and by speed I don't mean the speed the fighter could achieve by burning out all it's fuel at once in a few minutes.

When a fighter jet gets armed with a bunch of external weapons it's cruise speed and ability to maneuver get compromised due to the added drag and weight now you may not be able to do much about the weight part when building a platform but you can address the drag with a well designed aircraft that's equipped with an internal weapons bay and even a little bit of difference in cruise speed will have wide implication in terms of range. And in that regard an F-35 can fly circles around an F-16 and F/A-18's

Yes an unarmed F-16 if faster than an unarmed F-35 and yes even a armed F-16 could fly faster than an F-35 in terms of MAX speed but for an F-16 to accomplish that the pilot would have to completely empty it's fuel tanks and compromise it's range well beyond acceptable levels.
Yes an F-16 is more maneuverable than an F-35 but an F-35 pilot doesn't need to point it's nose at you to take you out.

And if you were to compare the F-35 with a fully upgraded F-15 the main problem with the F-35 would be it's price tag but for the U.S. Navy the F-35 is a massive improvement on the F/A-18's due to the Hornets lack of range when fully armed. So despite what people say online the F-35 most of all makes perfect sense for the U.S. Navy! and if you have the extra cash for it, it is a good replacement for the F-16's and Harriers.

 

[SubWater]

فیلم تاکسی کوثر 88 با سرعت بالا بر روی باند پرواز منتشر شد

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[PeeD]

@VEVAK

You are right that getting such a CAS fleet is a luxury thing for Iran as it has a enemy that can more or less stop their safe operation. But what if Iran is at a stage where it can afford this luxury? You gave the answer: Border guards, insurgencies in or outside the borders, in such low intensity warfare this capability is very welcome and we could not effectively provide it to Syria and Iraq in the past.

So are F-4 or Su-24 like the Russians uses better than a F-5? No. These are aircraft capable of interdiction strikes. You have more capability than you need and must pay for it with very sortie. Mach 2 capability, swing wing (Su-24), complicated avionics.
Plus, they are designed for heavy loads. Against insurgents a load of 5 Mk.82 on a F-5 at a range of 400km is sufficient as you will seldom encounter a larger target, most times a sortie means 2-3 bombs to do the job.
I said 100 Kowsar because its about 3 times the size of the Russian force in Syria to make up for the lower capability which brings higher availability. Higher availability is of more importance than load against insurgents.

As for ballistic computer: Russian Su-24 have one too but I'm talking about a SVP-24 like system. Something revolutionary not even 4th gen. Su-34 ballistic computer can compete with. This is the real game changer here and why Russian were successful with their small fleet. If the Kowsar has such a system as they hinted to, it would be the key to keep attrition low enough to be a cost effective weapon.

As for survivability: This fleet of 100 Kowsar would be fragile glass if attacked by US airpower. HOBS missile are the last defense and operating close to the own borders will provide it with advance information about incoming threats. But they main solution is: Drop the dumb bombs, push to afterburner and try to get back to your base at mach 1,5, it likely will be close because you are doing CAS and never fly more than ~400km away from your base. Honestly, the relative high speed fleeing capability is one of the main reasons why a F-5 airframe would make some sense in 2018, main points like easy and cheap operating costs aside (plus decent maneuverability).

I don't think they changed anything in the Kowsar that could make it any bigger. It is a 1:1 F-5 airframe. I also don't want to see an air refueling capability on the Kowsar. It is a cheap CAS fighter never operating in a hostile airspace far away. The overall system would become too expensive if you would want to get it tanker support, that's for more strategic aircraft only.

 

[sahureka2]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

I apologize in advance if I write nonsense, but reading the translation done via the web (I hope it is as precise as possible), the Kowsar-88 will have to training of sound speeds .
Ok, now I am reminded of some technical data that were included in these pages with reference to the services accredited to the Kowsar (F-5) presented on August 21st:
7.5 million U.S dollar price
45000 ft max attitude
1.2 mach speed
new ejection seat
100% made in Iran (entire aircraft)

the speed (which could be that in flight dive) the other data listed seem to adapt in reality to the possible performance of the Kowsar-88?