IRIAF | News and Discussions

[SalarHaqq]

let just say in iran iraq war for example our navy boast of Morvarid operation and say we destroyed iraq navy and throw them our of persian gulf. but let see what happened there.
in the phase 1 of operation , air force suppressed iraqi airforce and army aviation protected task-force 421 they successfully managed to supress iraqi defense and let our marines destroy iraqi defence and installation on on the Iraqi oil terminals at Mina al Bakr and Khor-al-Amaya.
on the second pase of the operation navy decided to alone go and close iraqi ports of AL-Faw and Um-AlQasr . guess what happened two Iraqi Osa boat sank by Iranian boats but the situation was not good for 2 LaCombattante Ship so they asked for help from air-force they sent two F-4 armed with 6xAGM-56 each by the time they arrived Peykan was Sank after being hit by two Termit missile it made the F-4 pilots so angry that they hit any , I mean any moving iraqi target they could see and then for more F-4 from Shiraz air base joined them and bombed every port facility and air defence facility the could find in area and literally destroyed every possible activity there , then iraqi tried to send some helicopter and mig-23 to the area to protect the F-4s with the help of F-14s which were send to the area destroyed all those migs and helicopters that were sent to help but 1 mig-23 which escaped , then they went and bombed Mina-al-Bakr terminal
in that operation which is named the most successful operation of our navy Our navy lost half of the fighting force they sent to area and managed to destroy 2xOSA Boat and one Mig-23.
air force destroyed two port, 1 oil terminal , 11 boat (Osa and P6) and 6mig-23 and 1 Mig-21 and one Super ferlon Helicopter + all Iraqi air defense facilities in the area.

so how can you tell me our war doctorine is not based on air force , in every successful operation we had air force played a critical role. we may not advertise it but our army still rely on air force and recently drones which is another type of air force

During the Sacred Defence the Islamic Republic's defence doctrine had not taken shape yet. Iran had to rely on structures inherited from the former regime to a much larger extent. Today these battles would be fought very differently.

Moreover, since the 1990's-2000's the potential enemy Iran has been preparing for is not a neighbor but the USA no less. In short, Iran succeeded to make possible the impossible: namely, to deter military aggression by the USA regime.

And in this feat, Iran's air force definitely played no role. It's Iran's asymmetrical approach which made it possible. The allocation of funds to development projects in the different branches of the Iranian military is reflective of where the doctrinal focus lies. This doesn't stand to debate.

not speculative Russia don't sell you the airplane without RADARS and electronic system , it will sell you with them and ask you for their cost . then you must go and remove those and built your own electronic and put them inside . its like paying twice for the airplane subsystems.

Domestic upgrades to certain electronic systems won't cost Iran as much as the entire aircraft imported from Russia.

no but to me it looks as they phase out their mig-23s they are stopping order new Su-30 and bought Rafale and they still work on Tejas . to me it seems they plane slowly focus on rafale and thyeir own light fighter and slowly phase out russian airplanes. maybe not today , not tomorrow but certainly in the next decade we see a different type of indian air force which is equipped with more light to medium fighter

I don't think India will retire its Flankers long before the airframes reach their limit.

its not the question of what they do , its simple physics , and biology , no pilot can stay counscios if they try to pull out the acceleration a missile can do. dogfight and agility is a thing of past yes they are awesome ,.... in movies . but in reality the fight is done at BVR and the one wins who had better electronic. even if you come in WVR fight , who care which one is more agile , now a days modern fighter pilots only turn they head toward the target and lock it and fire .its not if the target is behind them as the missile can do a 180 degree turn and engage the target from front.

I still find PeeD's assessment trustworthy, for there's no doubt he definitely took into account the above and more when he came to that conclusion.

 

[Hack-Hook]

During the Sacred Defence Iran's defence doctrine had not taken shape yet. Iran had to rely on structures inherited from the former regime to a much larger extent. Today these battles would be fought very differently.

Moreover, since the 1990's-2000's the potential enemy Iran has been preparing for is not a neighbor but the USA no less. In short, Iran succeeded to make possible the impossible: namely, to deter military aggression by the USA regime.

And in this feat, Iran's air force definitely played no role. It's Iran's asymmetrical approach which made it possible. This doesn't stand to debate.

if so why go and buy some Russian fighter. they had no place in war doctorine

Domestic upgrades to certain electronic systems won't cost Iran as much as the entire aircraft imported from Russia.

as i said 2/3rd of the price of kowsar is those domestic electronics

I don't think India will retire its Flankers long before the airframes reach their limit.

many of them are past half their useful age

 

[Mr Iran Eye]

PeeD misses this forum because he's the only one I really respect in his analyzes and I know he knows more than he says here on this forum. I read ridiculous analyzes here that it becomes heavy. PeeD gives a balance here but for now it's almost total imbalance with ridiculous analysis and deduction.

I repeat a question on the F4-SM, why has a new cell been created and why shortly after Iran announces in 2020 the construction of a heavy fighter?

Can we announce the construction of a heavy fighter without having the engine that goes with it? And what would be the plane that would have tested the new engine according to you, according to the logic of things?

 

[drmeson]

Can you publish these patents?

As to the RAM experiment:

Russian researchers have developed coatings and techniques in the stealth design that can reduce the head-on RCS of a Sukhoi Su-35 fighter aircraft by a factor of 10, thereby halving the radar range for the target detection. Moreover, the Su-35 aircraft consists of a treated cockpit canopy that reflects the impinging radar waves and conceals the RCS contribution from metallic components.

https://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/92617/excerpt/9781107092617_excerpt.pdf

So depending on what the true RCS of a SU-35S is, you can get quite a dramatic reduction. If Iran applied this to something like a Kowsar-II I wonder what result it would get.

I can publish patents? you mean I can post it here? If you can read Russian then its on WO Patents in .pdf format. These SUKHOI Patents were the talk of the town in the aviation fan circuits for years because they listed two things:

- Usual Flanker Airframe i.e. SU-27,30,33,35,37, all have 10-15 m2 RCS.
- SU-57 has an RCS of 0.1 to 1 m2 (Not that stealth compared to F-35, F-22).

The link I provided for Russian Academy of Sciences is a University research project to implement RAM coat and plasma stealth. But it turned out to be just that, a academic utopian university research project from mid 2000s without any practical implementation. We have never seen a RAM coating on any operational flanker in Ru-AF service? Some suspect chinese J-16 uses it though. Even if we say hyptothetically RuAF has some hidden RAM coated SU-35 squadron for the sake of argument, RAM is not some magic paint that can turn a 15 m2 RCS airframe into 1-3 m2. That's IMPOSSIBLE. RAM does not reduce RCS that drastically otherwise what is the point in having any newly designed airframe. IRIAF should just get their entire fleet of F-4E/D coated with RAM and there you go, they can compete with F-35 right there lol they have the "size" and "speed" that you often consider as deciding factors for which aircraft is great and which is not.

We are not discussing Kowsar-I here, we are discussing flankers and we have established proof of the following:

- Sukhoi's own Video I posted shows IRBIS-E on SU-35S can barely track a 1-2 m2 target (F-16, Kowsar-I, FCK-1, T-5, T-50 etc) at 100 km. It will track EF-2000, Rafale (0.5-0.7 m2) even below that range. That too, if the adversary is not using Jamming.

- Itself SU-27,30,33,35 airframes have 10-15 m2 RCS as per Sukhoi Patents themselves.

- Its longest-range BVR package has a range of 110 KM (R-77-1, R-77SD).

- So for 85 Million USD IRIAF will get 10-15 m2 RCS bearing heavy maintenance jet that can track an F-16 at 100 KM and fire a BVR missile at it from 110 KM range.

So my question is this .... what is better here ? wasting 3 Billion USD to get 24 such jets or use the same 3 Billions for the following ?

- 150 x Kowsar-I/II with IEI Bayyenat-AESA, PL-15
- 100 x F-14AM with Fakour-90 + MIG-29M/SMT standard with R-74, R-77SD
- 100 x Shahed-171 and KAMAN-22 in ELINT/SIGINT and PGM strike roles.
- All data linked, all carrying domestic avionics

Except for some light procurement of PL-15 or R-77 or if possible some additional MIG-29 MLUed airframes, IRIAF wont need anything from abroad.

Above vs 24 SU-35S for 3 Billion + Avionics less toothless MIG-29 9.12 fleet dying without MLU, Few F-14 AM, Kowsar program stuck at 5-6 units per year, money being wasted for keeping prop fighters like F-7N and Mirages. What does IRIAF want here?

 

[SalarHaqq]

if so why go and buy some Russian fighter. they had no place in war doctorine

Because we're exclusively talking a restricted number, to be used as a temporary gap filler and in an auxiliary, not in a central role. So this would be in keeping with the asymmetric doctrine. If Iran went and placed an order for a hundred fighter jets or more then yes, it'd run counter to her doctrinal framework. Also I'm not saying the air force has no place at all, just that it'll be a distinctly subordinate, minimal one.

Neither am I arguing that these couple dozen Flankers are a must have. On the contrary, the point is that any larger or more costly order wouldn't be advisable. It's so to say the upper limit of what would make sense for Iran, and even that onto itself is merely an option, which may well be compensated through other means.

Truth is I think it's unlikely Iran will import any fighter jets in the coming years, and I'm even unsure about the Kousar program reaching mass production status - and not due to lacking capability. In fact domestic design and production of a heavier fighter would be feasible too in my opinion, it just doesn't square with Iran's general defence philosophy to dedicate the required funds to such a procurement. We shall see.

 

[drmeson]

maybe , but if they go with Simorgh/Iran-140 program and build early warning and airborne RADAR version of it that they were talking about , that plane would be a lot more capable in that regard

In the F-14 AM upgrade, the IR&SSJO pulled a full upgrade of AWG-9 to AWG-9+ with digitalization, new antenna change, and modern processors to bring it to APG-71 standard. That could be ~370-400 km of search range for a F-15C size RCS. A full SAIRAN e-warfare suite, Datalink, and TAC-2 like IRST can give IRIAF 8 x F-14 AWACS + e-Warfare platforms. They can accompany 8 mixed squadrons of 5 x F-14AM, 10 x KOWSAR-I and 3 x MIG-29 9.12 each along with SIGINT/ELIT UCAVs.

I will try to search more about why the talk ended.

User drmeson whom I was replying to should be the better addressee for this comment. As for Kousar, it does look like a viable and possibly worthwile option to pursue, but light fighters and medium / heavy fighters aren't simply interchangeable. Transition towards an entirely light- / medium-weight fighter based air force would require a deeper doctrinal revision as well as infrastructural adaptations, which in turn would consume time and generate costs, something that would need to be taken into account.

Modern air warfare revolves around roughly 70% electronics and 30% physical characteristics. It used t be the opposite in the 1970s and even the 80s but now it's all about electronics. You can basically put the following on any maneuverable supersonic low RCS platform (F-5?) and you can muscle down the enemy atleast in interception role in the air:

- Long tracking range radar with ECCM
- Encrypted Datalink with air and ground assets
- Navigation and Encrypted communication
- e-Warfare suite (ECM, Jammers, Chaff/Flares)
- 2 x ARH BVR + 2 x All aspect WVR missiles slaved to HMD

This future was seen by Brig. Gen. Sattari when he initiated the Azarakhsh program. Azarakhsh-I was supposed to be a F-5G/F-20 with MIG-29 9.13 equivalent with RD-33, avionics like N019 radar. Sattari died and the project got into the hands of stupid people. It flew as a rebuilt F-5E with some local structure embedded a SY-80 radar of J-7G. Azarakhsh-II is Kowsar-I with Grifo-346 with e-warfare suite, datalink, FBW. It should have been airborne in ~2012 but Ahmadinejad Government and bozos in HESA were busy doing PR stunts so the focus or money that Kowsar-I deserved in 2005-2012 went somewhere else. Azarakhsh-III will be Kowsar-II which will probably be state of the art 4+ generation fighter that IRIAF needs. Saegheh Program was an aerodynamic testbed project which was never supposed to get into production and it did not. What it will lead to, may probably not even be manned.

IMO IRIAF does not need any heavy fighters anymore for a simple reason. Our missile forces and UCAV's are evolving very fast. In case of conflict with KSA, Kuwait and UAE, would it be better to send 30-40 F-4E/D armed with Ya-Ali ALCM to attack the forward bases (4 total) OR sit back and relax ... and launch some 100 x Kheybar Shikans HGVs + 100 x Mobin/Hoveyzeh CM with Shahed-171 + Mohajer-6 to destroy their airforce on ground? Why risk the pilots, why risk the aircraft that can stay in Iran and guard the airspace instead? Besides our local Kowsar-I/II platform can launch SOWs from Iranian airspace to attack the mainland peninsula.

Instead of wasting 5 Billion USD on heavy 10-15 m2 RCS bearing SU-35S, we can instead bargain for TOT of some 200 x AL-31F to put them in Kowsar-II, 500 R-77M + R74 and some additional 35-50 airframes of MLUed MIG-29M to be locally upgraded by HESA and IEI along with our own MIG-29 MLU'ed. Russians won't agree to this much independence by another client country. They love dependent clients, not independent ones.

If MIG-29 was a US fighter jet, we would have its local assembly line just like what we did with F-5E/F. This is what Iranian engineers can do to a MIG-29 inside Iran without any Russian help. The only reason the plane is not getting MLUed or not receiving even the avionics of Kowsar-I is because of ... Moscow's style of dealing with clients.

 

[drmeson]

Russia has shown to be rather permissive in this regard. Indian modifications to the Su-30 are one example, China outright reverse-engineering and putting their own version of the Flanker into serial production with Russia not filing any lawsuits against Beijing, is another. Iran domestically upgrading its Su-22 offers a third illustration.

Beyond the air force branch, let's not even get into all the weaponry Iran has developed based on or retaining at least some aspects of original Russian platforms. As far as known, Russia never lodged any complaint in reaction to this either.

---

This is where I'm having doubts. The commonly indicated range for the Mig-35 is of 2000 km versus 3600 km for the Su-35. Mig-29's range is put at 1430 km versus 3000 km for the Su-30.

As PeeD remarked:

View attachment 864057
View attachment 864058
View attachment 864059

Flankers also have superior maneuverability. Probably other advantages I can't think of right now.




I was looking at the advisability of a limited Flanker procurement (Su-30 or Su-35) on top of the above (F-14AM, Kousar, additional UCAV), not instead of it.



Upgrading 63 Mig-29's to UPG or SMT standards cost India $964 million in March 2008. However the deal included setting up a production line and training personnel in the upgrade process. Unless such modifications were to be done in Russia, it would thus cost Iran the same or a bit more given the elapsed time.

Indian example is a bad one. They always purchase stuff at the highest possible prices because of possible bribes. SU-30MK or MKI costs India 62 million USD/unit and the entire subsystems inside, its radar, the engines, the airframes, the cockpit, the ejection seats, the A2A/A2G weaponry all are Russian so the money reaches Moscow! Indians might put a small local RWR to claim some local stuff but the fighter is Russian to the core and even recently Russia is providing CKD kits for the "local assembly". https://fighterjetsworld.com/air/why-iaf-su-30mki-costs-almost-twice-the-russias-new-su-30sm/23497/ India also purchased Rafale from France at 240 Million/Unit. There were some massive accusations of kickbacks and bribery by Dassault to Indian officials.

- Range is not that relevant for IRIAF because our TAB's are located at perfect places for interception from possible origins of threats. IRIAF's primary job is to secure Iranian skies first jointly with Ambush and layered SAM units on the ground. It can do so by running LR-BVR armed CAP's inside Iranian skies. It also depends upon what Kowsar-II will be.
Addition of 2 x least drag small 350-400 ltr Conformal tanks on both sides above the air intakes would give the plane some additional 2563 (Internal) + 800 ltr of JP-1 = 3363 ltr total fuel. For a 2 Fatter + 2 x PL-12 configuration, 2 x OWJ turbojets (J-85-GE-21) do a 0.42 KM/Ltr which means a range of 1400 KM just on internal fuel. For a BVR CAP mission with 2 x missiles and a central 1040 ltr standard fuselage tank, we get a menacing range of 1800+ KM . Thats what CFT's can achieve and 400 ltr each is not even lots of weight or drag.

Americans did that with F-15E.

IRIAF and IAMI should seriously invest into local platform than throwing money away on 2-3 squadrons of "85 Million USD/Flanker" that will destroy rest of the fleet.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Because we're exclusively talking a restricted number, to be used as a temporary gap filler and in an auxiliary, not in a central role. So this would be in keeping with the asymmetric doctrine. If Iran went and placed an order for a hundred fighter jets or more then yes, it'd run counter to her doctrinal framework. Also I'm not saying the air force has no place at all, just that it'll be a distinctly subordinate, minimal one.

so 4-5 squadron for you is restricted numbre
each Squadron is 12-24 airplane if its bomber usually 12 if its fighter then it can be 12-18
that mean depended on your definition 48 to 90 aircraft , it may be small and limited to you but that much SU-35 is a major purchase . it better come with an assembly and maintenance facility.
and that much SU-35 means one thing . bye bye asymmetrical thinking , hello classic air force

Truth is I think it's unlikely Iran will import any fighter jets in the coming years, and I'm even unsure about the Kousar program reaching mass production status - and not due to lacking capability. In fact domestic design and production of a heavier fighter would be feasible too in my opinion, it just doesn't square with Iran's general defence philosophy to dedicate the required funds to such a procurement. We shall see.

well , it match it. in my book , where ever it was possible iran used some sort of airforce , be traditional or be drones

 

[Hack-Hook]

In the F-14 AM upgrade, the IR&SSJO pulled a full upgrade of AWG-9 to AWG-9+ with digitalization, new antenna change, and modern processors to bring it to APG-71 standard. That could be ~370-400 km of search range for a F-15C size RCS. A full SAIRAN e-warfare suite, Datalink, and TAC-2 like IRST can give IRIAF 8 x F-14 AWACS + e-Warfare platforms. They can accompany 8 mixed squadrons of 5 x F-14AM, 10 x KOWSAR-I and 3 x MIG-29 9.12 each along with SIGINT/ELIT UCAVs.

I will try to search more about why the talk ended.

well the problem is that is
1 - in one direction.
2 - the numbers are in a place without enemy E-Warfare

on other hand let look as an example on what Iran-140 AWACS can be.
the nearest counterpart is SAAB Erieye AEW&C which is installed on SAB-340 or Embraer R-99 it can reach up to 450km in a place with dense enemy E-Warfare activity , heavy RADAR clutter and against Low altitude targets in such scenario and can cover 300 degree area.
to me that's a better choice if we manage to make something out of Iran-140/Simorgh program

 

[Hack-Hook]

Instead of wasting 5 Billion USD on heavy 10-15 m2 RCS bearing SU-35S, we can instead bargain for TOT of some 200 x AL-31F to put them in Kowsar-II, 500 R-77M + R74 and some additional 35-50 airframes of MLUed MIG-29M to be locally upgraded by HESA and IEI along with our own MIG-29 MLU'ed. Russians won't agree to this much independence by another client country. They love dependent clients, not independent ones.

with that kind of thrust in an airplane like Kowsar you don't even need afterburner anymore , and the plane will have enough energy to cancel any benefit those mig-29 may have against it in close warfare, but I doubt Russia is willing to make a deal on AL-31F or any newer variant but on other hand you maybe more lucky with china WS-10b which is by the way a little more efficient than AL-31F

 

[SalarHaqq]

so 4-5 squadron for you is restricted numbre
each Squadron is 12-24 airplane if its bomber usually 12 if its fighter then it can be 12-18
that mean depended on your definition 48 to 90 aircraft , it may be small and limited to you but that much SU-35 is a major purchase . it better come with an assembly and maintenance facility.
and that much SU-35 means one thing . bye bye asymmetrical thinking , hello classic air force

I repeated several times that I'm strictly considering squadrons of 12 jets each. So 48 to 60 planes as a grand maximum. And I mentioned Su-30's as well. That's no major acquisition for an otherwise largely antiquated air force. Especially considering the size of enemy air power, as well as the size of Iran's own missile and UCAV arsenal.

Also I cited PeeD, one of the staunchest proponents of asymmetry and not exactly someone to contradict himself. Definitely won't be advocating a classical air force for Iran, will he?

well , it match it. in my book , where ever it was possible iran used some sort of airforce , be traditional or be drones

I do not include drones into the same category. Drones are part and parcel of Iran's asymmetrical thinking, to which they lend themselves perfectly, while much costlier, bulkier, maintenance-intensive and complex to operate manned aircraft obviously aren't.

 

[drmeson]

well the problem is that is
1 - in one direction.
2 - the numbers are in a place without enemy E-Warfare

on other hand let look as an example on what Iran-140 AWACS can be.
the nearest counterpart is SAAB Erieye AEW&C which is installed on SAB-340 or Embraer R-99 it can reach up to 450km in a place with dense enemy E-Warfare activity , heavy RADAR clutter and against Low altitude targets in such scenario and can cover 300 degree area.
to me that's a better choice if we manage to make something out of Iran-140/Simorgh program

Direction is not a problem since Iran has real threats from two directions only, South and NW. If we get 4 x F-14 "AWACS" Facing the Persian Gulf from high altitude providing "Search" coverage of 400 x 4 = 1600 KM that's quite enough. Similarly, the rest 2 can be deployed at TAB-2 to face NW's theatre while the rest 2 can be at Dezful or Mehrabad. If need be these planes can run away from the enemy BVR threat or defend themselves if they carry only 2 x Fatter, 1 x Fakour-90, 2 x External tank for a long Surveillance flight.

Any slow heavy AEW&C will be at mercy of long-range BVR of the enemy. BVR missiles are getting longer and longer range with time. EF-2000 or Rafale both are in the enemy arsenal and they can fire Meteor BVR that has the range and speed to be lethal to a slow AWACS even much deeper within Iranian airspace let alone into contested territory.

Its the same for the opposition too. If IRIAF get its F-14 AM equipped with Maghsoud LR-BVR in next 2 years which is supposed to be a 200+ km bearing ARH version of Fakour-90. What will happen to enemy AWACS systems?

IMO Iran should work on two systems simultaneously.

- AWACS + ELINT/SIGINIT system on both SIMORGH like Israeli EITAM system and an Unmanned large UAV (RQ-4 class)
- Few F-14 AWACS, they have already pulled an F-14AM upgraded to AWG-9+ with datalink, if they can put in additional jammers with a further improved AWG-9++. Planes will be very useful.

 

[Hack-Hook]

I do not include drones into the same category. Drones are part and parcel of Iran's asymmetrical thinking, to which they lend themselves perfectly, while much costlier, bulkier, maintenance-intensive and complex to operate manned aircraft obviously aren't.

an airplane like Flanker or F-16 or F-15 or rafale, ..... so can't be considered part of asymmetrical doctrine , but something like F-5 or grippen can easily be incorporated in assymetrical thinking.
let look at it like this Grippen-C/D for example (i don't knew much about the Grippen E/F) is designed to operate from 400m long reinforced normal roads , it designed to be able to be stored in a Barn and it designed to work in bases with only 5-6 people and that base can have 5 airplane, an F-5 variant except for the need for longer runway needs lesser for maintenance (which can be fixed with more powerful engine) how you can consider such airplane contradictory with asymmetrical warfare doctrine , to me that's the definition of asymmetrical warfare .

Direction is not a problem since Iran has real threats from two directions only, South and NW. If we get 4 x F-14 "AWACS" Facing the Persian Gulf from high altitude providing "Search" coverage of 400 x 4 = 1600 KM that's quite enough. Similarly, the rest 2 can be deployed at TAB-2 to face NW's theatre while the rest 2 can be at Dezful or Mehrabad. If need be these planes can run away from the enemy BVR threat or defend themselves if they carry only 2 x Fatter, 1 x Fakour-90, 2 x External tank for a long Surveillance flight.

Any slow heavy AEW&C will be at mercy of long-range BVR of the enemy. BVR missiles are getting longer and longer range with time. EF-2000 or Rafale both are in the enemy arsenal and they can fire Meteor BVR that has the range and speed to be lethal to a slow AWACS even much deeper within Iranian airspace.

Its the same for the opposition too. If IRIAF get its F-14 AM equipped with Maghsoud LR-BVR in next 2 years which is supposed to be a 200+ km bearing ARH version of Fakour-90. What will happen to enemy AWACS systems?

still remain the problem of electrical warfare that probably reduce the range of F-14 based radars to probably as low as 100 even more
also those F-14 can't always look at the said direction and F-14 radar have a very small problem . its reduce accuracy if enemy decide to fly at very low altitude and slow speed .

 

[SalarHaqq]

an airplane like Flanker or F-16 or F-15 or rafale, ..... so can't be considered part of asymmetrical doctrine , but something like F-5 or grippen can easily be incorporated in assymetrical thinking.
let look at it like this Grippen-C/D for example (i don't knew much about the Grippen E/F) is designed to operate from 400m long reinforced normal roads , it designed to be able to be stored in a Barn and it designed to work in bases with only 5-6 people and that base can have 5 airplane, an F-5 variant except for the need for longer runway needs lesser for maintenance (which can be fixed with more powerful engine) how you can consider such airplane contradictory with asymmetrical warfare doctrine , to me that's the definition of asymmetrical warfare .

I don't consider specific types of aircraft contrary or not to asymmetry so much, but rather the way they are used and what rank they occupy in the function they're supposed to fulfill. In a country the size of Iran, if you integrate some 50 Flankers or F-16 or etc as a mere secondary supplement to the IADS, whose role would solely consist in lessening the pressure on the latter to an incremental extent, you're still in an asymmetric framework. If however you acquire 200 new (and more or less expensive) jets, or if you change the mission parameters of those 50 units from a simple background support role to a more consistent one, then you're entering the symmetric domain.

 

[drmeson]

with that kind of thrust in an airplane like Kowsar you don't even need afterburner anymore , and the plane will have enough energy to cancel any benefit those mig-29 may have against it in close warfare, but I doubt Russia is willing to make a deal on AL-31F or any newer variant but on other hand you maybe more lucky with china WS-10b which is by the way a little more efficient than AL-31F

Verified sources claim that Russia supplied Iran with 50 RD-33 turbofans in 2008. Russia today needs Iran as an ally more than it needed before so I am not very doubtful that if Iranian strategists bargain it properly they can get some proper TOT out of Russia for a reliable Turbofan. AL-31F option is there, but even if its CDK kits of some 150 RD-33MK for TOT assembly then ~50 of them can go to the current MIG fleet, and the rest 100 can equip Kowsar-II which will become a proper 4+ generation fighter with it.

Iran already has an inventory of 106 RD-33 btw. Some of them might be just being used for parts.