SU-30SM2 allows for SU-35 capabilities and avionics in 2 seated platform. Iran should procure SU-35s first, as Russia still has some they desperately want to sell. Than get SU-30SM2, customized with a datalink that allows it to control drones
our air defense is supposed to be distributed around our country , about logistic the amount of it won't change they need to change their distribution policy.
Not all those bases are supported to host big jets , most of them only support small and medium size jets
your problem is that you think they need to destroy the base completely , not they need to destroy the outlet of the base and that don't need nukes , some bunker buster fired from 100km away . big bases are outdated and not in line with Iran asymmetrical warfare. also if we are going to have kowsar for foreseeable future , then better to distribute them around country to compensate for the lack of range , your 5 base means all those kowsar and f-5 derivate won't reach combat zone or if they reach they could not carry meaningful amount ammunition or they don't have enough fuel to participate in anything
as I said I believe medium sized multirole fighters suits us better . if you want you can get some for hauling bombs to the target , but the backbone of our airforce must be something in class of J-10c or Mig-35 or if people don't jump and say west won't sell us anything f-16 i put them here to show the class of the fighter these fighters have easier maintenance are cheaper to fly and can be procured in higher number as they are cheaper to build and if linked together or ground station can even surpass larger fighters in lethality.
Your reply is doesn't make sense in anyway conceivable because the point of my suggestion is to design affordable advanced light multi-role fighter jet with L-159 Alca as being reference for specifications then adapt to the needs of IRIAF.
You can modify the kowsar fuselage to put the engine there and have the benefit of both plan just look at the design it's clear that f5 designed to be able to go supersonic while the philosophy behind Alca won't allow such things.
I don't understand your logic behind this. Would you like to store them above ground on the airfield waiting for the opponent to launch low RCS cruise missiles at them? Can you show a better idea to protecting your airbase from a Coalition of PG airforces who will be provided with prime intelligence and weapons or US/NATO itself?
Wrong the important thing is not the aircraft themselves is the ability to mount retaliation .
You are overrating ability to go supersonic as we have seen in past 30 years that it is irrelevant when fighters get loaded to maximum acting as missile and bomb trucks.
if engine get hit there won't be any gliding because of the structural damage to the tail section , the gliding is applicable only in case of engine failure , the F5 can continue its flight with a single engine if one fail and its not just going supersonic , its the amount of ammunition it can carry and many other things , please tell me engine aside on what metric its superior to F5
Both engines of F-5 are next to each other, its not Su-25 nor Mig-29 nor Su-27/30/33/35 or Su-57 where there is adequate spacing that considerably reduces change of both engines being damaged if one is hit by SAM or AAM.
as i said that glide feature only work if its engine fail not if it hit by sam .
what ever as I said , Iran don't need flankers as airplanes like J-10, F-16, Mig-35 ..... can take over their role easily and for a lot cheaper. and let say if equipped with datalink a lot better
no Iran don't need Mountain base as they will be make inoperable in first day of war .
why build it when a f-5 based trainer can do the same thing for you and you don't need to have two production line and more importantly if your fighters are going to fly Kowsar why not train them in two sit version of Kowsar ? you think we build the two sit version of it for what purpose ?
you don't get it , the fighter must come out of the mountain , at flying speed , those missiles don't need to do so . also we can fire the missile from inside the base , we don't have such luxury for aircraft , the enemy bomb the door to the base , those aircrafts are as good as Saddam buried aircraft under the ground until several day that you can clear the door and in these time enemy have air dominance and can bomb the crew who are clearing the door to the base
I yet to see Ukraine flying airplane and you can hide helicopter in barns , by the way can you point me to some of these under ground Ukrainian airbases ?
and you must put aircraft in shelters made of military grade concert not under tent or such nonsense but you must disperse such facility to bases around country and each base must not hold more than 5-6 aircraft also airplane shelters must be at different part of the base not lined beside each other also you must not park several airplane in in one shelter. thats the key to survivability .
very simple when i look at wargames around the world , they are not that impressive anymore , t6heir radars are old their sensors are old . in short russia is 1-2 decade behind the rest of the world when it come to electronic . that's my problem with them and they are expensive.
