I like to think I’m somewhat bright Dr Meson
Your constant trolling, misquoting users, weak memory, and misquoting research articles tell us otherwise.
I did not say that Manteghi said that, I said that he used a picture of AL-31 taken directly from web.
I said analysis by those here and on social media said that Iran is targeting an AL-31 class engine. I did not say Manteghi said that.
Did he actually say we are going to make AL-31? Quote his exact words if you can.
If he did not then the picture is open to interpretation. How many times have we seen models of other foreign products throughout Iran’s armed forces?
Do you seriously think that Mantaghi who has a Ph.D. in engineering, has been an MD of giants in Iran such as Iran Khodro, IAIO, and dozens of others, has been a faculty member of Malek Ashtar, University of Tehran, and an SSJ veteran with published books, and articles did not know that he is showing a Russian AL-31 picture on the poster as an Iranian future product? Just because you are a fool, does not mean everyone else must be as well.
Again, the timeline he showed on the poster is showing Iranian engines. Them being based upon foreign designs means nothing here since copies =/= same as procurements.
The poster shows
2001: Iranian Tolue Mini-Turbojet Derived from French TRI-60
2006: Iranian Tolue Turbofan Derived from Soviet R-95-300
2014: Iranian Owj Turbojet Derived from American J-85-GE-21
2020: Iranian Jahesh-700 Turbofan Derived from American Williams FJ-33
2026: Iranian larger Turbofan derived from Russian Al-31
Since AL-31 whose picture he showed is a Russian product so yes it will be TOT because Iran would not steal a Russian design while being in a strategic alliance with Russia. No country would do that, no one actually ever has.
It is funny, like previously on dozens of occasions you failed in your quest to "prove" that I was paddling the idea of using Russian AL-31 on the domestic light fighter. Nowhere I said Russian AL-31 on domestic fighters. Nowhere Manteghi said AL-31 he showed is a Russian AL-31.
Life Lesson (again): Read before commenting.
You cannot “steal” AL-31 like it’s a jewel from a museum. Even the Iranian who got caught trying to take F-35 engine tech out of US only had blueprints of the physical design. He did not have details on engine computer or the algorithm that powers the entire engine, which you can physically make a 1 for 1 copy of anything you want, but if you cannot match the coding and algorithms of the onboard computer then you won’t match performance or possibly even have the system work.
And this signifies what? Iran and Russia are in a strategic alliance. SU-35 powered by AL-41 are coming to Iran, TEM showed AL-31/41 on their poster as Iranian turbofan by 2026. Big deal for you apparently but to anyone with any common sense, it is not. Su-35S's AL-41F will be overhauled inside Iran so how "odd" it will be if the same AL-31/41 are being manufactured inside Iran? Your whole argument actually means nothing when an official of Iran has already shown AL-31 as a future domestic product.
No I said you were paddling the idea of AL-31 on Kowsar (wether Russian or Iranian ToT was irrelevant)
Stop backtracking. I see, "Russian or Iranian" AL-31 has now become "irrelevant" for you because you are caught misquoting a user (me) again, pants down. Either you are suffering from weak memory or you are just deliberately wasting everyone's time here. You first falsely thought I was propagating the idea of Russian AL-31 on Kowsar and spent your entire day/night finding my posts, and screenshotting them, still got proven wrong because nowhere I had said the use of a Russian Engine.
And btw again, TOTed products are never ever the same products as their original versions. I told you before their specs differ always which is why they get a local designation. Dozens of examples exist in combat aviation as I had given before and you ignored them on purpose.
MIG-21 =/= F-7 (Differences: Aerodynamics, Controls, Avionics, Armanents, Turbojets)
SU-30M/SM/MKK =/= SU-30MKI (Differences: Aerodynamics, Controls, Avionics, Armanents)
SU-27 =/= J-11 (Differences, Flight controls, Avionics, Armanents, Turbofans)
SU-33 =/= J-15 (Differences: Avionics, Armanents, Turbofans)
F-5F =/= Kowsar (Differences: Body length, Controls, Avionics, Armanents, Turbojets)
Lavi =/= J-10 (Differences: Aerodynamics, Controls, Avionics, Armanents, Turbofans)
Kfir =/= Mirage V (Differences: Aerodynamics, Controls, Avionics, Armanents, Turbojet)
Cheetah =/= Mirage (Differences: Aerodynamics, Controls, Avionics, Armanents)
Hence Russian Supplied AL-31 =/= TOT'ed Iranian-made AL-31.
my comment still stands, you are naive if you think Russia is handing AL-31 physically or it’s ToT to Iran. Either one is highly unlikely.
Manteghi going to Google and copy and pasting a literal picture of Russian AL-31 and throwing it on his slide is “google info”.
So according to you, Manteghi is "naive" and relies upon "Google info" so he showed AL-31 on his poster as the future Iranian turbofan around 2026? Thats your logic right?
The thing is man, between Manteghi (respected official, experienced) and a troll (you), I chose to believe him. You can believe in whatever you want to believe.
I will repeat again, Wether it’s Russian supplied AL-31 or Russian supplied ToT of AL-31 Iranian variant is the same when I made the comment. I was not claiming you said only Russian engines. I said both probabilities are unlikely. The latter (ToT) is even more unlikely.
Call Manteghi or TEM offices directly and tell them that you "think" their presentation was false and that apparently, you know more about Russian-Iranian strategic dealings than them all.
“some turbofan”. You are talking about THE best Russian engine produced in last 20 years. Only engine greater is AL-41 found in SU-57.
SU-35 is their most advanced mass-produced fighter, yet it's coming to Iran. They also signed S-300 with Iran when it was the most advanced deployed HIMAD in their hand. AL-31 TOT in 2026 ? not a big deal considering evolving alliance between the two countries.
No country gives away its prized jet engine tech to anyone. Period.
- J-85 licensed production in Canada, Italy
- J79 licensed production in Belgium, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, and Japan
- F404 licensed production in the Republic of Korea, Sweden
- F110 licensed production in Japan, Turkey
- RD-33MK licensed production in India
- RD-93 licensed production in China
- Spey licensed production in China
- AL-31F licensed production in India
You were saying?
Comparing it to OTH radar or selling an ECW jammer is not remotely the same thing. Why is this shocking to you?
Then please give examples "OTH" radars being TOTed if it's such an insignificant thing in defense doctrine. If it's so less important then countries would be selling the tech.
I gave plenty of examples Turbojets/Turbofans TOTs above including RD-33, AL-31, you can do same about OTH's.
China still does not have AL-31 tech
Please explain why would China need AL-31 when they have their own equivalent WS-10A/G and WS-15? There are problems in few designs for now but Chinese are a growing tech superpower, how long will it take them to fix and even produce something even better than Russian product? they no longer are dependent upon Russia for things that they were reliant upon a decade ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_aircraft_engines#Turbofan_engines
It never shares its premier engine tech with anyone either. Can you show an example it has? I’m still waiting. So why doesn’t this get added to your list? Because of Ukraine war? Come on
"India's Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has obtained licensed production for RD-33MK variant in 2006"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_RD-33
"AL-31FP is built in India by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) at the Koraput facility under a deep technology transfer agreement"
https://www.key.aero/article/after-burn
It knows Iran couldn’t reverse engineer it. Neither can Pakistan. 20 years later, no Iranian RD-33. Would have made more sense to reverse engineer a RD-33 than building Owj.
There are zero signs of Iranian attempts to copy or get a license for RD-33 production as there are zero signs of Iran being even remotely interested in expanding or upgrading the MIG fleet for ~30 years. No country in a military relationship with Russia has ever attempted to copy a Russian product without Paying Moscow anyways.
We are far from strategic allies. And IF we are strategic Allies that can get their best engine tech handed over then we can get their ECM, air defense systems, and best A2A missiles as well.
Russia has given Turbojet/Turbofans TOT to countries (China, India) before but not a single example exists for R-33, R-37 BVR transfer.
We are still waiting for results of this “change”. First everyone said the arms ban lift would bring “change” then we got zero weapons during that time, despite our Chief of Staff going over there and saying we signed “deals”.
Now we all hope (including me btw) us selling them some drones and ammo would bring “change”. This is all hope at this point. It’s not lack of trying on Iran’s part. Russia has yet to reciprocate.
Meanwhile if Turkey asked Russia for Su-57 the production lines would be opened up.
And where is proof of what we got? It’s been 1.5 years since the war started and they “isolation”. Meanwhile we are reportedly agreeing with US to not sell them BMs. Is that something a strategic ally would do?
None of these rants matter because international diplomacy is like this everywhere. Russia has been the single biggest supplier of weapons to Iran since the war. Whatever foreign stuff (post-Iraq war) we have today came from Russia than minorly from China. They back out of contracts (48 x MIG-29, S-300) that is because they are not very diplomatically not very powerful in global dynamics anymore. They barely have a 2 trillion USD economy and a dwindling population which is isolated from the rest of the world. This is one big factor they behave the way they behave with certain countries. If you want to understand Russian behavior internationally, you will have to see/read about their society. For Iran its simple, take it or leave it, Russians would not change themselves.
If jet engine tech is not a premier tech then why did it take so long for China to build a rival class engine and get it working? A country that has magnitudes higher the industrial/scientific base and funding than Iran.
Chinese combat aviation just picked up 2 decades ago. By the turn of the century, they were still flying J-7 with PL-7 sidewinders. They had no local proper BVR, no modern radar, no ECM package, and turbofans of their own 20 years ago. Their first indigenous 4th gen fighters FC-1, J-10 were both borrowed designs and one of them got rejected by PLAAF. Then came the age of JH-7, J-10C, Local Sukhois, J-20, J-31, Dozens of Giant UCAVS, AWACS, local turbofans, local BVRs, Local AESA's, local ECMS ... things change with time.
Today they have all of that, Their end products are getting better than Russian products so they are not even reliant.
You would not understand it obviously but to measure a country's tech and industrial capabilities, a huge marker is its STEM R&D output. Chinese are LEADERS of the globe now in that domain hence their industrial capabilities are increasing multifold supported by a ~20 Trillion USD GDP.
Making one J-700 is not the same as serial mass production. Serial mass production at a consistent performance and economic cost is what matters. Look how long it took China to fix the performance issues in its various WS engines. Yet they are still using AL-31’s and were installing them in J-20’s until Recently.
Iran had to pivot from soumar because the engine was too expensive and matching Russian performance was not worth it.
So again, since J-700 has been revealed how many have we seen produced? What are its performance characteristics? What are its problems? What is it costs? What platform uses it in large number?
It could take Iran 10 years to mass produce J-700 reliably and cost effectively. Or it could take 2 years. We don’t know. We are just speculating.
Jahesh-700 example is totally illogical since it's currently not powering some large fleet of aircraft in Iran. Had it been ordered by lets say IRGC-AF for their UCAV fleet, we would have seen its assembly line like we have seen OWJ being assembled for Kowsar. Demand leads to mass production. If there is no demand then why would we see assembly lines?
For example any country can unveil a missile, but how many of them can build at the performance level and consistency and cost as Iran can? If Saudi Arabia or Turkey tommorrow unveiled one BM in the Emad class would we say that they can now build 1000s at the same cost/performance level like Iran can? Of course not. It might take them 20 years to reach us.
TOT's include vendor's supervision of the establishment of facilities in the client's premises that ensure mass production. If Iran gets AL-31 TOT as Manteghi was showing then the mass production capability will come from NPO Saturn-supplied SOPs.
So then your “analysis” that F-5 has a 1m2 cross section is irrelevant since it will never be flying “clean”.
And you have yet to present a counter claim of what F-5’s RCS is from different angles and loaded. You have claimed frontal 1m2 clean (no tanks no armament).
Stop dodging, You in previous post claimed that I said,
"F-5 with drop tanks and fully loaded armament is going to be at 1m2 RCS". I am waiting for evidence of this statement from me.
My assumption of low RCS of N-156 family of airframes and their descendants has always come from facts such as:
-N-156 airframe, despite being tracked/shot at has not been shot at BVR ranges by same A2A missiles that took down F-4, F-14 at distances in the same conflicts, namely R-40 and R-23. It faced MIG-25PD, MIG23ML both armed with SARH R-40 and R-23 Med-BVR missiles that took down multiple F-4, even F-14 (Hashem Ale Agha). IRIAF deployed F-5 multiple times even across the borders (diversion attack for H-3). The bulk of its shootings came from ground Track radars illumination from below which is just unavoidable. Even in conflicts against Mig-25PD, MIG-23ML, MIG-21F it came out victorious.
- The F-18 itself is a N-156 driven design, recorded by USN to have a RCS of 1-3 m^2. (Peter Grinning, USN historian).
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/2300/Articles/PG/PGSA.htm
Has an F/A-18 ever been shot at BVR ranges? It has shot down many aircraft in Gulf War I and II, the only time it was shot down was through R-40 within at borderline WVR ranges. F/A-18 never ever loses in exercises.
- Has an F-16 ever been shot at BVR ranges? It has fought against BVR carrying MIG-25, MIG-23, MIG-29 in Israel-Syria conflicts, fought against Mirage-2000H, SU-30MKI, MIG-29UPG, MIG-21-93 in Indo-**** conflict, ended up bombing the enemy, harassing the interceptors into escaping the zone (yes, SU-30 did nothing). It engaged electronically superior Mirage-2000 in Turk-Greek theatre dozens of times but the only time it was shot was at WVR ranges through Magic Sidewinder which Turkish pilots fault not the machine's. This plane has massacred the entire 3rd / 4th generation aircraft of the world but has never been caught at BVR ranges.
What is common among these? The low RCS and N-156 or similar origin.
So what is your estimation of RCS of F-5 with drop tanks and armaments? Frontal? Side? Worst case? Best case?
- Statistical values of properties that vary with the environment are never "estimated". They are:
(a) Simulated over a certain changing function like in the case of RCS the distance and angle between the airframe and the oscillator/EMR generator
(b) Then comes the real experimental results with the same parameters
(c) Simulated values are equated to experimental values through the use of a coefficient like lets say simulated values of a F-5 airframe RCS is 18 m2, the real-life RCS turns out to be 3 m2 at the same distance + angle then the relationship over that range of distance+angle becomes:
.......................... Simulated RCS * (1/6) = Real RCS ..........................
(d) Now the designers do not have to necessarily collect experimental data, they can just go around simulating the value and put it in the equation to guess the real-life value. Even then it can be not very reliable since relationships between simulated and real values are only linear over certain lengths e.g. coefficient = 1/6 may become 1/8 or go 1/4 for another combination of distance+angle.
For you, it will become "mental gymnastics" offcourse but that is how simulated and experimental properties are correlated in natural sciences. This is the fundamental concept behind theoretical and experimental sciences that even a well-read undergrad kid may know. You have tried (and failed) to paddle simulated values as real-life values before, I thought you were trolling but now I think you just do not understand the concept.
This is the reason the paper you were parading around does not even for once mentions that their simulated values are real-life values. Even their RAM-reduced values were not real values. Just a relationship. It could very well be 33 m2 then the coefficient would have had to be 1/11 or something.
Which if correct is irrelevant since the F-5 will neither be frontal attacking at all times nor it will be clean.
Same can be said about every plane, including F-22, F-35, J-20. All aspect RCS is averaged but has peaks and valleys in plots of RCS vs distances vs angles.
When was the last time US airforce fought a near peer adversary in field of air defense?
Even Syria managed to hit a Israeli F-16 (masters of ECW) with a freaking S-200.
I never said anything about ground-based interceptions. Read again, I said airborne interception. Ground AD has multiple multifold powerful tracking radars with 10K+ T/Rs to keep illuminating the target and S-200 has a powerful SARH illuminator called 5N62B. The same can not be said about an ARH/SARH airborne interception where T/R elements are usually <1000.
