IRIAF | News and Discussions

[Hack-Hook]

Yeah,Iran is very complex when it comes to this,airliners have to fly over high mountains with very danger weather conditions and turbo prop engines are limited when it comes to attlitude

Not that . the problem was the engine could not provide enough power in iran warm weather in summer n it was ok for cold weather of Ukraine.

 

[skyshadow]

Mig-29 on alert,armed with r-73 AA-11 Archer

Iran air force IRIAF F-4 E has been modernized to allow it to carry anti-ship missiles up to 160km,precise laser/eo/ir guided bombs and rockets and modern long range ARH guided a2a missiles like fakour 90(iran improved version of AIM54)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1128247840759799808

https://twitter.com/x/status/1128249053664481281

 

[skyshadow]

 

[gambit]

LOL! I only brought up the fact that Iran has a conscript system because of the absurd comment you made about my lack of military training which is an absurd thing to say to any Iranians my age due to our conscript system vast majority of us have some military training which was the main point I was making.

Duration of time served is just as, if not more important. Can you dispute what I posted about the layout of your two-yrs term? Can you make any credible comparison between contributions of your two-yrs vs my ten? Not only that, in my civilian yrs, I have nearly 9 yrs in avionics, specifically radar detection, and even more specific, I designed radar field tests for detection of 'low altitude autonomous' air vehicles. So that made nearly 20 yrs of contributing to US airpower.

 

[gambit]

As far as we know, according to the those who captured the drone (Iran), there was extensive measures taken to greatly reduce the RCS of this UAV, in form of RAM and others. RQ-170 is stealthy not stealth. There is nothing that is truly stealth. But I am sure you already know this.

Am going to give you an explanation that you will not like because it is technically sound. I expect you to dispute it. I do not post this to change your mind but this is for the benefit of the silent readers out there who want more than just what Iran says about this event.

Look at this F-16 inside an EM anechoic chamber...

Why did we bothered to put a 'non-stealth' fighter into an EM anechoic chamber?

Most people thinks that an EM anechoic chamber is ONLY to measure the 'stealthiness' of the F-22 and similar. That is not true. An EM anechoic chamber is usually used to test the radiation pattern of various transmitters on aircrafts and even cars. BMW tested their cars at Benefield Anechoic Facility (BAF) at Edwards AFB, US.

For receivers, while an aircraft is inside the chamber, its antennas can be tested and measured to see how many directions can the antennas receive and how efficient are those receptions. In the reception process, efficiency can be a negative because that efficiency can produce interference from many signals when the intention is to focus on a narrow range of signal(s).

So when we put a 'non-stealth' fighter like an F-16 into EM isolation, we are testing the various communication methods like common HF, GPS, Link-16, and weapons guidance that can come from ground sources. We want to see which signal can interfere with what, from which direction(s), and when. In combat, these communication signals are active at various times and even at all times.

The installation of RAM on the RQ-170 is not to reduce RCS, although that is a benefit. The drone is unmanned and remotely piloted. It can also receive various communication signals from other sources. The absorber is there to primarily control interference. If there is a reduction in RCS, great. If not, we do not care. The remote pilot feature is satellite relayed so that mean the antennas for that are topside. Absorber reduce and even eliminate any interference from edge diffraction signals that came from radar or any common EM transmissions that can negatively affect those topside antennas. The transmission/reception signals for the remote pilot feature should be as absolute integrity as possible.

You will not like my explanation despite being technically and logically sound. I cannot go any more details because that would enter the INFOSEC realm. You will not like this explanation because it reduces the propaganda impact this event. It is better and important for Iranians to believe that Iran was able to detect anything 'stealth' from America.

 

[WinterNights]

Am going to give you an explanation that you will not like because it is technically sound. I expect you to dispute it. I do not post this to change your mind but this is for the benefit of the silent readers out there who want more than just what Iran says about this event.

Look at this F-16 inside an EM anechoic chamber...

Why did we bothered to put a 'non-stealth' fighter into an EM anechoic chamber?

Most people thinks that an EM anechoic chamber is ONLY to measure the 'stealthiness' of the F-22 and similar. That is not true. An EM anechoic chamber is usually used to test the radiation pattern of various transmitters on aircrafts and even cars. BMW tested their cars at Benefield Anechoic Facility (BAF) at Edwards AFB, US.

For receivers, while an aircraft is inside the chamber, its antennas can be tested and measured to see how many directions can the antennas receive and how efficient are those receptions. In the reception process, efficiency can be a negative because that efficiency can produce interference from many signals when the intention is to focus on a narrow range of signal(s).

So when we put a 'non-stealth' fighter like an F-16 into EM isolation, we are testing the various communication methods like common HF, GPS, Link-16, and weapons guidance that can come from ground sources. We want to see which signal can interfere with what, from which direction(s), and when. In combat, these communication signals are active at various times and even at all times.

The installation of RAM on the RQ-170 is not to reduce RCS, although that is a benefit. The drone is unmanned and remotely piloted. It can also receive various communication signals from other sources. The absorber is there to primarily control interference. If there is a reduction in RCS, great. If not, we do not care. The remote pilot feature is satellite relayed so that mean the antennas for that are topside. Absorber reduce and even eliminate any interference from edge diffraction signals that came from radar or any common EM transmissions that can negatively affect those topside antennas. The transmission/reception signals for the remote pilot feature should be as absolute integrity as possible.

You will not like my explanation despite being technically and logically sound. I cannot go any more details because that would enter the INFOSEC realm. You will not like this explanation because it reduces the propaganda impact this event. It is better and important for Iranians to believe that Iran was able to detect anything 'stealth' from America.

You appear to have a tendency to try and accuse us of not being objective and believing "propaganda" yet you're the one that is trying to push this illogical and baseless notion that this spy UAV being fielded by the CIA was not designed as a stealth platform. This makes zero sense in every possible way. This UAV was designed from the get go to be stealth and this is obvious given what is was being used for :


"The development of the RQ-170 was started by Skunk Works to meet the stealth UAV demands of the USAF."


https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rq-170-sentinel/

Your post is informative, but it does not in any way prove the point you're trying to make. You're essentially trying to say just because these other technologies have uses other than stealth then this somehow proves the sentinel was not designed to be stealth. Not a very sound deductive reasoning, is it? The core of your argument is based on no actual evidence.

 

[TheImmortal]

You appear to have a tendency to try and accuse us of not being objective and believing "propaganda" yet you're the one that is trying to push this illogical and baseless notion that this spy UAV being fielded by the CIA was not designed as a stealth platform. This makes zero sense in every possible way. This UAV was designed from the get go to be stealth and this is obvious given what is was being used for :


"The development of the RQ-170 was started by Skunk Works to meet the stealth UAV demands of the USAF."


https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rq-170-sentinel/

Your post is informative, but it does not in any way prove the point you're trying to make. You're essentially trying to say just because these other technologies have uses other than stealth then this somehow proves the sentinel was not designed to be stealth. Not a very sound deductive reasoning, is it? The core of your argument is based on no actual evidence.

There are various levels of “stealth”. Including the highest levels which include B-2 and F-22, these are nationally restricted levels of stealth and considered state secrets banned for export.

RQ-170 was designed to be stealthy, however, due to its nature of being in combat zones and UNMANNED the order was given to make it stealthy to avoid detection by Iran given what they assumed Iran’s and regional countries detection capabilties were. However, RQ-170 was purposely made with the thought that if it were to be captured it wouldn’t jeopardize state secrets.

The most advanced areas of RQ-170 was its communication devices to monitor Iranian nuclear facilities and possibly the engine given Iran’s lack of access to jet engine technology. The flying wing design was standard and instead of radar absorbing skin it appears RQ-170 opted for less advanced composite materials to reduce radar.

 

[VEVAK]

Duration of time served is just as, if not more important. Can you dispute what I posted about the layout of your two-yrs term? Can you make any credible comparison between contributions of your two-yrs vs my ten? Not only that, in my civilian yrs, I have nearly 9 yrs in avionics, specifically radar detection, and even more specific, I designed radar field tests for detection of 'low altitude autonomous' air vehicles. So that made nearly 20 yrs of contributing to US airpower.

And you think that makes you knowledgeable about Iranian weapons, tactics & an outcome of a war between U.S. and Iran because????

Fact is since WW2 U.S. has not engaged in a war with a country that can sink it's ships, not just hit it's bases but hit vital assets at it's bases & cut off 1/4 of the worlds oil supply and unlike in WW2 Nukes are not some jaw dropping capability that's never been seen before and the U.S. wiping out Iran's Air Force isn't going to stop Iran from launching armed UCAV's & missiles.

Fact is you Americans have run up a debt that's 108% of your GDP and this time around you don't have an economy that's double the size of the next country on the list & even without a war you would have to work overtime not to lose your economic supremacy to China within the next 2 decades (with it the rule of the Dollar) and doing something stupid like attacking a country that can cut off 1/4 of worlds petrodollar will do nothing but expedite your own decline so regardless of the result of the war you lose.

From the moment U.S. invaded Iraq to today the U.S. debt has gone from 50% of your GDP to 108% of your GDP & for what? You Americans where duped into spending blood and treasure in our region at a time when your economy and technology was unmatched by none and you had the technology to colonize the moon and beyond and build a fleet of real spaceships that would have ensured U.S. supremacy for the next century and by today your space technology could have made fighting over the earth's natural resources and energy pipelines seem ridicules. And the sad part is you ppl still haven't learned your lesson!

You think I don't understand that the point of the exercise was to learn what not to do so you don't repeat the same mistakes made in the sim? But the sad truth is if your own military truly understood that they wouldn't have stopped it, replaced the general playing the Red team & rigged it with a new set of rules to ensure victory!
Fact is if your own military truly understood the point of the simulation they would have gave the U.S. General playing the Red Team a medal! Because if there is a war, his actions probably saved the lives of 1000's of service men & women
Now imagine for a second that was 1 U.S. General who spent a limited time playing Iran now imagine since the U.S. invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan how many Iranian generals from different branches of Iran's military for how many years have been thinking about, planning for & building weapons to fight off a war with the U.S.? You think Iran just watched as the U.S. built bases around it's territory and did nothing? You think Iran doesn't know it's Air Force regardless of how much money Iran spent on it still wouldn't survive against U.S. Air Power and didn't plan accordingly?

 

[gambit]

You appear to have a tendency to try and accuse us of not being objective and believing "propaganda" yet you're the one that is trying to push this illogical and baseless notion that this spy UAV being fielded by the CIA was not designed as a stealth platform. This makes zero sense in every possible way. This UAV was designed from the get go to be stealth and this is obvious given what is was being used for :


"The development of the RQ-170 was started by Skunk Works to meet the stealth UAV demands of the USAF."


https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rq-170-sentinel/

Your post is informative, but it does not in any way prove the point you're trying to make. You're essentially trying to say just because these other technologies have uses other than stealth then this somehow proves the sentinel was not designed to be stealth. Not a very sound deductive reasoning, is it? The core of your argument is based on no actual evidence.

I did say you would not like it and would dispute it. I know my post was informative. In fact, since '09, I debunked most of the 'stealth' myths that were carelessly tossed around on this forum. Today, no forum 'old timer' talk about making any jet 'stealthy' any more, thanks to me. Either the jet is designed to be 'stealthy' from paper, or it is not 'stealthy' at all. I posted the basic guidelines in designing a low radar observable body yrs ago. You are free to believe anything you like.

 

[Mithridates]

I did say you would not like it and would dispute it. I know my post was informative. In fact, since '09, I debunked most of the 'stealth' myths that were carelessly tossed around on this forum. Today, no forum 'old timer' talk about making any jet 'stealthy' any more, thanks to me. Either the jet is designed to be 'stealthy' from paper, or it is not 'stealthy' at all. I posted the basic guidelines in designing a low radar observable body yrs ago. You are free to believe anything you like.

but it is possible to reduce a plane RCS even it was not designed to be stealth.
but capturing rq-170 still is a big victory even if it's not stealthy, considering EW we performed.

 

[gambit]

but it is possible to reduce a plane RCS even it was not designed to be stealth.

Absolutely. Nowhere have I ever said RCS reduction on an existing platform cannot be done.

Boeing did it on the F-15 Silent Eagle. The F-18 Super Hornet is another example.

The question is tactical value vs money. If it is going to cost you hundreds of millions just reduce the detection distance by 5 miles, like from 100 to only 95, then the money vs result is no good.

I will put it another way with this analogy...

- Alert 60. The pilot is allowed to be away from his jet. He can go to the gym, shopping, or even go home for a quickie with the wife. As long as he can get to his jet, suit up, and taxi in one hr.

- Alert 30. In this situation, the pilot should not be away from his jet. He can be out of his flight suit but he should be able to suit up, fire up, and taxi within 30 min.

- Alert 15. In this situation, the pilot is suit up, including his g-suit, but the jet is not running. The pilot must be within eyesight vicinity of his jet. He just need to taxi within 15 minutes.

- Alert 5. The pilot is in the jet with engines running, INS spooled up and aligned.

What 'stealth' does is put every airbase on Alert 5, if you want to defend yourself. Modifying an existing platform may reduce the enemy's status from 60 to 30 and this is being optimistic of your technical efforts. The tactical reality is that if you want to gain an advantage, the efforts must force the enemy to 'Alert 15' and stay there as long as possible.

but capturing rq-170 still is a big victory even if it's not stealthy, considering EW we performed.

It was not a huge loss for US, technology wise.

 

[Mithridates]

The F-18 Super Hornet is another example

did you add RAM to the outside of structure or just modified the air inlets and get that number for RCS (0.1 sqm)??
also regarding the stealth and scrambles, you know that we raided iraq h-3 airport in it's western border without being detected using your f-4s, i guess that is in contrary to your alert codes.

 

[gambit]

did you add RAM to the outside of structure or just modified the air inlets and get that number for RCS (0.1 sqm)??

You can read some of the public reports about the F-18's RCS reduction results here...

https://www.defensenews.com/digital.../09/how-stealthy-is-boeings-new-super-hornet/

also regarding the stealth and scrambles, you know that we raided iraq h-3 airport in it's western border without being detected using your f-4s, i guess that is in contrary to your alert codes.

Details? Or rather lack of?

 

[sanel1412]

but it is possible to reduce a plane RCS even it was not designed to be stealth.
but capturing rq-170 still is a big victory even if it's not stealthy, considering EW we performed.

Who ever told you it is not stealth ,is complete idiot who knows nothing,it is truth that larger fly wing design is more stealthy BUT only in 1 meter and 10 meter specter(UHF,VHF)...that clown is talking nonsense..That doesn't mean B-2 will have lower RCS on UHF/vhf spectrum than RQ-170 because it is not posible, it just mean that larger object will have better size vs rcs ratio...

 

[gambit]

Who ever told you it is not stealth ,is complete idiot who knows nothing,it is truth that larger fly wing design is more stealthy BUT only in 1 meter and 10 meter specter(UHF,VHF)...that clown is talking nonsense..That doesn't mean B-2 will have lower RCS on UHF/vhf spectrum than RQ-170 because it is not posible, it just mean that larger object will have better size vs rcs ratio...

I told him that. And am willing to bet I understand radar detection principles and low radar observability better than you do.