IRIAF | News and Discussions

[WinterNights]

The 'actual evidence' you insist on does exist, but just because they do exist does not mean they are publicly available. So even if somehow I am 'in the know', I cannot reveal such evidence anyway. I care about my country as much as you care for yours, right?

So what remains are our willingness to put aside any biases, look at the list of available evidence, the chain of associations, and at least be willing to entertain reasonable assumptions of alternative conclusions, as best of conclusions as we can.

Until these evidence you're keeping close to your chest are actually revealed, then going by all the available evidence, the main conclusion will lead towards what I am saying. This is not about whether I am Iranian or not. Those who know me here know that I strongly scrutinise claims coming form Iran. Despite your beliefs, we Iranians don't just buy statements coming form Iran. If you actually followed this Iranian section, you'd know some of the most strict minded people regarding Iran are Iranians themselves.

Your mind is made up. I get that. But you are not the only person who are interested in this event and its associated technical issues involved. I post not to debate your made up mind, but give the silent readers out there the alternative conclusions that do not exist in most forums, certainly not in Iranian military oriented forums.

On the contrary, I am open minded. I don't peddle fantasies. If There truly was such strong evidence backing your side of the argument, then I'd be on your side.

 

[mohsen]

Few general rules to observe about Americans :
A) To an American their military technology is always cutting edge and second to none..the reality is that their technology is already old ....full of bugs...extra expensive and difficult to maintain examples...performance of Patriot AD in Israel, and Saudi Arabia...F35 disaster... Zumwalt class warships..etc...(too many to mention!)..The primary reason other countries buy them is political blackmail that the US government runs on these vassal countries..(case Turkey wants S-400..Americans are forcing Patriots down their throat!!).
B) To an American they are always the good smart guys and the enemy is the evil dumb *** who wet their pants when they see an American soldier. ..The reality is exactly reverse (US sailors wetting their pants when captured by IRGC in the Persian Gulf)..

Since WWII US military has not fought a winning war:
1- Korea war (just ask kim youm youm ..lol)
2- Vietnam (we know how that ended!)
3- Afghanistan (Northern alliance entered Kabul and Americans claimed victory!..still bleeding!..now they want out honorably!).
4-Iraq ( Saddam generals all received phone calls with US visa offers in exchange for abandoning their posts..they did..US military entered Baghdad and claimed victory!!!..Iraq generals did it again in Mosul when ISIL entered..wonder how many ex Iraq generals are now in US..lol ).

Of course US military wins wars is in Hollywood battle fields..but that is another story.....

Conclusion: Do not get into any argument with an American about War, technology or any thing of the sort...They are the best ....the have the best.... and that is written in their minds it is called "american exceptionalism" .

LOL, today Yemenis drone targeted Saudi Patriot system in Najran airport, yesterday their fighter jets were targeted with these drones, two days earlier, their weapons cache.
Open space of Saudi Arabia, American style of A2/AD!

This is what General Hajizadeh meant when he said we are superior to Americans in stealth bomber drones.

 

[gambit]

I have a hard time believing they went through all that hassle in regards aero-instability that is inherent in a flying wing (without vert-tail) concept AND not gaining any low radar cross-s. Seems like a waste. Would you care to explain why not using a more conventional design?

I explained on this forum -- 6 YEARS AGO -- how we solved the problem of yaw axis stability and controls on a flying wing.

The solution was in the 1940s, but the execution was finally possible today by way of computer assist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceleron

In sum, the B-2 uses split ailerons at the wing tips to maintain yaw axis stability and controls without the use of vertical stabilizers. In fact, given the advances in avionics, from electronics to software (flight control laws), it is actually structurally and architecturally easier to adopt the split ailerons than to have at least two vertical stabs.

I do not agree with you premise in that specific post. You explain the EM chamber for f16, correctly and rationally I might add,...

Thanks. That is all we need to know.

...but then you move on to say that the case is the same for the RQ. You did not really connect your premise to your conclusion, hence I do not find the argument to be true.

As I already explained, even if I know what I said is true, I would never say it is true. INFOSEC is the reason why. Instead, in the interest of debate, the best I can do is propose to the readers THAT explanation. You and the readers can take it any way you wish.

Of course US military wins wars is in Hollywood battle fields..but that is another story.....

You mean like how Iran faked up an aircraft carrier and sunk the fake ship for your propaganda benefits?

 

[Ray_Atek]

https://news.yahoo.com/military-mystery-chinas-supersonic-stealth-010000785.html
Upper air intake same as in Sofremahi design.

 

[Sina-1]

I explained on this forum -- 6 YEARS AGO -- how we solved the problem of yaw axis stability and controls on a flying wing.

Anybody with basic aerodynamic understanding knows this. This was thought in my class in 2003 and I’m sure way before that as well.

The solution was in the 1940s, but the execution was finally possible today by way of computer assist.

Yes! Thanks for the history glimpse!

In sum, the B-2 uses split ailerons at the wing tips to maintain yaw axis stability and controls without the use of vertical stabilizers. In fact, given the advances in avionics, from electronics to software (flight control laws), it is actually structurally and architecturally easier to adopt the split ailerons than to have at least two vertical stabs.

I haven’t made any calculations personally but even if we would to agree on the fact that a flying wing concepts are structurally more sound, they are in any case more expensive and/or complex to design and operate. My proof for that is empirical. Even today most of the uav/uvac produced are of the type fuselage-wing-tail types. This is true for both long rang and short range operations. And as you put it, the hardware/software required to stabilize these type of aircraft are available and I reckon that they are common knowledge (at least for specialists)

Hence if a flying wing concept is chosen, by the cia I might add, it raises questions to what attributes they were desiring. IMO low radar observability is the most likely reason.

 

[PeeD]

Here is a nice video from the DCS simulator:

It's just a game but it illustrates important factors in BVR combat:

- Energy state and out bleeding of BVR missiles
- Rather realistic range performances of BVR missiles
- Impact of air density
- Impact of radar doppler filtering "beam/notch"
- Impact of ground cutter "notch" and terrain masking
- Impact of being able to force a enemy into defensive posture

This may help to get an idea what air combat looks like in reality.
Of course this is a 1:1 forced kill situation. In real operations one side would simply disengage and retreat if necessary.

 

[arashkamangir]

Here is a nice video from the DCS simulator:

It's just a game but it illustrates important factors in BVR combat:

- Energy state and out bleeding of BVR missiles
- Rather realistic range performances of BVR missiles
- Impact of air density
- Impact of radar doppler filtering "beam/notch"
- Impact of ground cutter "notch" and terrain masking
- Impact of being able to force a enemy into defensive posture

This may help to get an idea what air combat looks like in reality.
Of course this is a 1:1 forced kill situation. In real operations one side would simply disengage and retreat if necessary.

Yup seen this. I also recommend this channel as a whole to everyone.

Yup seen this. I also recommend this channel as a whole to everyone.

Also checkout this:

 

[Ray_Atek]

Upper air intake same as in SofreMahi fighter jets.

 

[skyshadow]

 

[VEVAK]

Here is a nice video from the DCS simulator:

It's just a game but it illustrates important factors in BVR combat:

- Energy state and out bleeding of BVR missiles
- Rather realistic range performances of BVR missiles
- Impact of air density
- Impact of radar doppler filtering "beam/notch"
- Impact of ground cutter "notch" and terrain masking
- Impact of being able to force a enemy into defensive posture

This may help to get an idea what air combat looks like in reality.
Of course this is a 1:1 forced kill situation. In real operations one side would simply disengage and retreat if necessary.

The advanced software's that go with American AESA radars address a lot of the ground clutter and filtering problems Iranian AWG-9's would be faced with and the speed of which they can go radar on & acquire targets will easily give them so much of an edge that if you add all the other U.S. air & space deployed assets to the mix the only conclusion would be that they only way you could possibly defeat the U.S. in the Air is with sheer numbers & the only way Iran could possibly hope to do that economically is with UCAV's that can be equipped with some kind of a revolutionary com system, new type of Air to Air missile & a new high speed UCAV's that can be mass produced at an appropriate price that can be mass deployed across the country & we will have no choice but to launch a vast number of Missiles & UAV/UCAV's against the bases that are launching these aircrafts.

The SIM also shows the requirement for high endurance, high speed & highly maneuverable platforms for Air Superiority but at the end of the day it's a sim & in a SIM they can blast their afterburners as much as they want but in real life your fuel and your ability to refuel will no doubt dictate your defensive maneuvers.....

 

[TheImmortal]

View attachment 561826 View attachment 561825
Upper air intake same as in SofreMahi fighter jets.

Unless a UFO crashes intact in an IRGC research and development facility, Iran won’t be able to build a next gen engine to power that Sofreh Mahi concept for another 50 years, unless Iran planes to stick a J-85 in there.

Furthermore, Sofreh Mahi was pre RQ-170 capture. Since RQ-170 capture and release of Iranian flying wing designs, there has been no mention of this project. Thus it could shelved like many Iranian Air Force projects.

But yes, possible 6th gen fighter concept designs have shown top air intakes. The B-2 also has them currently, so it’s possible.

 

[DoubleYouSee]

Unless a UFO crashes intact in an IRGC research and development facility, Iran won’t be able to build a next gen engine to power that Sofreh Mahi concept for another 50 years, unless Iran planes to stick a J-85 in there.

Furthermore, Sofreh Mahi was pre RQ-170 capture. Since RQ-170 capture and release of Iranian flying wing designs, there has been no mention of this project. Thus it could shelved like many Iranian Air Force projects.

But yes, possible 6th gen fighter concept designs have shown top air intakes. The B-2 also has them currently, so it’s possible.

it isn't worth investing such project in Iran..........We'd better to make something like f-18

 

[gambit]

Anybody with basic aerodynamic understanding knows this. This was thought in my class in 2003 and I’m sure way before that as well.

Yes! Thanks for the history glimpse!

Not in this forum.

I haven’t made any calculations personally but even if we would to agree on the fact that a flying wing concepts are structurally more sound, they are in any case more expensive and/or complex to design and operate.

Not really.

In aviation, controls are in 3 axes -- x y z -- and there is no way to get around that.

In most aircraft designs, we have discrete flight controls structures for each axis. If we eliminate one axis of controls, the aircraft would depart from controlled flight. There is no way to get around that.

So for most designs, we have the main wings to provide lift and on the wings, we have discrete flight control structures to alter the wings' shapes. These structures are leading edge (LE) and trailing edge (TE) flaps, and ailerons. Each of these structures have its own mechanical actuator.

Next are the horizontal stabilizers. They provide most of the maneuverability and they come in pairs. Two mechanical actuators.

Next is/are the vertical stabilizer(s). Each have its own mechanical actuator.

For the flying wing using split ailerons method to maintain yaw axis stability and control, we physically relocate the vertical stabilizers' mechanical actuators to be logically parallel with the wing ailerons' mechanical actuators. Then via software, we move the ailerons when needed.

The concept is not new. With the F-18 Super Hornet, we eliminated the actual speedbrake structure and uses all flight control surfaces in precise coordination with each other so that all of them act as speebrake.

https://www.ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html

The Super Hornet has no such device, yet achieves the same effect through what can only be described as digital magic. The speedbrake function is produced by a balanced deployment of opposing flight control surfaces, generating drag without loss of flight control authority or change in aircraft pitch attitude.

With the F-18 SH, we literally eliminated the speedbrake structure and its hydraulic actuator. Two major physical components removed.

For the B-2 flying wing design, we did not eliminate the yaw axis but with software, we logically relocated the yaw axis vertical stabilizer to inside the ailerons'. It is a corollary to the F-18SH's flight controls system that eliminated the speedbrake phyiscal structure.

Hence if a flying wing concept is chosen, by the cia I might add, it raises questions to what attributes they were desiring. IMO low radar observability is the most likely reason.

The flying wing design have long range attribute before radar was invented. The RQ-170 was intended to exploit that attribute. Yes, the longer the RQ remains undetected, the longer it will be able to provide intelligence. But what good is an airborne intelligence asset if it cannot remain flying for distance and time?

 

[PeeD]

The advanced software's that go with American AESA radars address a lot of the ground clutter and filtering problems Iranian AWG-9's would be faced with and the speed of which they can go radar on & acquire targets will easily give them so much of an edge that if you add all the other U.S. air & space deployed assets to the mix the only conclusion would be that they only way you could possibly defeat the U.S. in the Air is with sheer numbers & the only way Iran could possibly hope to do that economically is with UCAV's that can be equipped with some kind of a revolutionary com system, new type of Air to Air missile & a new high speed UCAV's that can be mass produced at an appropriate price that can be mass deployed across the country & we will have no choice but to launch a vast number of Missiles & UAV/UCAV's against the bases that are launching these aircrafts.

The SIM also shows the requirement for high endurance, high speed & highly maneuverable platforms for Air Superiority but at the end of the day it's a sim & in a SIM they can blast their afterburners as much as they want but in real life your fuel and your ability to refuel will no doubt dictate your defensive maneuvers.....

Range performance is indeed another major point: being able to use afterburner and have a nearby base to land is a major advantage. In a defensive campaign, the IRIAF would have this advantage, the enemy not.

As for older MSA pulse doppler radars vs. PESA/AESA: yes doppler and cutter precision and rejection is better with modern digital AESAs. Beaming and notching is more difficult.
However: the main benefit beside high gain is electronic beam steering and it's high update rate.

The AWG-9 will do it's job for long range Phoenix, Fakkur, Sedjil shots. High update rate of AESAs ist not necessary.
Notching, beaming with support of ECM is possible. We can hope for digital processing, filtering and modern algorithms to counter that.

 

[Ray_Atek]

Unless a UFO crashes intact in an IRGC research and development facility, Iran won’t be able to build a next gen engine to power that Sofreh Mahi concept for another 50 years, unless Iran planes to stick a J-85 in there.

Furthermore, Sofreh Mahi was pre RQ-170 capture. Since RQ-170 capture and release of Iranian flying wing designs, there has been no mention of this project. Thus it could shelved like many Iranian Air Force projects.

But yes, possible 6th gen fighter concept designs have shown top air intakes. The B-2 also has them currently, so it’s possible.

J79 can be used for SofreMahi startup project for validating it's concept
SofreMahi aerodynamic design need some test and the engine preparing is it's second problem to solve.