IRIAF | News and Discussions

[SalarHaqq]

After his obsession with Iran and uranium surrendering to the USA, now the Canadian from the Alcoholic Anonymous now is obsessed by the AvRo cF-1o5 cAnAdA loOk sAmE tHinG

This nagger was saying Russia would never deliver anything, then when it delivers only two trainer fighters, he now goes into his fantasy self-made history that "Russia is going to kill Iranian aviation by offering us aircrafts look at the AvRo aRRoW fRoM CaNaDa"!

And now he goes to imply that the Yak were for India and that Iran got planes that were made for India, contradicting himself in his own narrative, he thinks Russia will deliver nothing but he also believe that Russia is going to take on Iran aviation industry, both at the same time! Aragh Sagi in the left hand, joint in the right hand behind his mobile phone!

Basically, as good as every Iranian is eminently glad about this news. Even users with a quasi permanently negative perspective such as OldTwilight were thrilled. While non-Iranians (latest example, user Gomig-21) acknowledge the boost soon to come Su-35 fighters will give the Islamic Iranian air force, as well as the relevance of Yak-130 supplies.

There's only a group of about three naggers who, for strictly political reasons (radical opposition to the Islamic Republic and/or staunchly pro-western read anti-Russian views), attempt to relativize and shed doubt on the significant benefits Iran derives from the induction of brand new, advanced Russian military aircraft.

A couple of reminders to debunk the inoperative interjection, "but Iran just received two Yak-130 trainers, what's there to celebrate":

1) Proven delivery of as little as one single modern jet fighter and/or trainer by the Russian Federation to Iran marks a turning point in the armament trade between Iran and Russia, and illustrates anew the deep geopolitical shift witnessed in Iranian-Russian bilateral ties since around 2021, resulting in what is now a fully fledged strategic level type of relationship.

2) This puts to rest propaganda narratives fueled by the western-apologetic reformist / moderate camp in Iran, as well as by the exiled, western-funded anti-IR opposition, and western-dominated mainstream media themselves, that Russia is viewing Iran as a mere bargaining chip rather than as a strategic partner let alone an ally, even that Russia is "hostile" towards Iran, and that Moscow therefore will not be supplying Iran any military aircraft at all. Indeed, if asked a week ago, most of those impacted by said narratives would have flat out denied the possibility of such a development.

3) It stands to reason that the unveiling of two Yak-130's with IRIAF markings is but a prelude to bigger news. It is highly unlikely Iran would have ordered no more than two units of the advanced trainer, for this would not make too much sense except that it would offer domestic Iranian aircraft industries a source of technology to study and possibly reverse-engineer. However, if these two jets were simply meant to serve as study objects rather than as operational aircraft, then it would have been extremely atypical to publicize the event in the manner we witnessed. So, we can pretty much rest assured that additional Yak-130 are set to arrive.

4) Not only Yak-130, but top-of-the-line Flankers are a distinct probability as well. For one, considering how Iran is already producing her own advanced trainer, the Yasin, acquisition of Yak-130's hints to upcoming supplies of Su-30 or Su-35 fighter jets.

Secondly, a social media account by the name 'Iran Observer' announced, after the Yak-130's were shown, that "the real surprise is here" and explicitly stated Su-35's will be part of the air force of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Now this is not just any "Twitter" handle, it happens to be the original source which reported the arrival of Yak-130's some 24 hours before photographs of these at Esfahan air base were released, as respected user sanel1412 brought to our attention.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1698669866130055628

https://twitter.com/x/status/1698020670800585057

IRIAF | News and Discussions

It's always pathetic to see the comments of misinforming and confusing people on this forum react. But it's encouraging to see some people denouncing them, a fresh wind is blowing on this forum. The latest version of the Yak-130 are even more advanced as the Su-35 is even more advanced than...

pdf.defence.pk

Add to this the presence of a Flanker on a poster at Iran's Oqab 44 (Eagle 44) underground air base unveiled in February 2023, the possible Flanker mock up which showed up on a satellite picture of that same air base later on.

In short, a lot points to Iran obtaining - or having already taken delivery of Su-30 or Su-35 fighters from Russia, making the news of Yak-130 in Iran far more important and exciting than it may seem at first glance.

A final contention to address, is the notion that these acquisitions would compromise local Iranian fighter jet development and manufacturing, a contention that was even presented as a "fact". In reality however, Iran in this regard is far more likely to follow in the footsteps of the likes of China or India, which combine or have combined domestic design and production on the one hand and imports (from Russia) on the other. This is because post-Revolution Iran has traditionally placed particular importance on indigenous defence industries and self-reliance in weapons procurement, a field where the Islamic Republic has meanwhile reached top rankings globally. Indeed, it's been no less than sixteen long years since Iran signed a major arms deal with a foreign supplier, and that was just for three S-300 systems, nothing more.

Also, Iran has no equivalent to the Flankers in production or in advanced stages of development. The currently produced Iranian combat aircraft is Kousar, a modernized light fighter derived from the F-5. Obviously, this will fulfill a completely different role than the heavy interceptor / multi-role Su-30 or Su-35. So Iran would have no reason to suddenly deactivate her Kousar production lines, and Flankers won't interfere with the Kousar program. Obviously the IRIAF and IRGCAF will need and are going to field various aircraft of different dimensions and functionalities.

Nor is there reason to assume that the Su-30 or Su-35 would provoke a halt to Iran's long term plans for the development of heavy or next generation fighters. Iran still being years away from that actively pursued goal, and the existing inventory of airframes nearing retirement age, the Flankers will act as a stop gap measure and as a complement to Iran's extensive IADS. They too will have to be replaced in a couple of decades, by which time Iran could ready domestic solutions.

What's more, these modern Russian aircraft will be a source of technology for Iranian aerospace engineers and aircraft developers, thus speeding up the realization of indigenous projects. Here too, Su-35's / Su-35's aren't at odds with but nicely fit into an overall strategy of self-sufficiency. This also sets the Islamic Republic apart from the former regime of the shah, where dependence on foreign sources, in this case the USA, was absolutely overwhelming. There is simply no comparison between the autonomous, sovereign Iran of today, and the client state Iran used to be under the Pahlavi regime.

Optimism is therefore perfectly warranted, so is good mood with patriotic Iranians as well as friends of Iran and the Islamic Revolution.

 

[NaCon]

We were going back and forth on the number of jets until Sukhoi finally had a factory tour presentation on Russian TV and the rep was showing the production numbers on this screen. Apparently from the audio -- as well as the screen graphic -- he mentioned the count as 22 + 8 for the EAF with a matching timeline. We figured it's the most accurate count if it was coming straight from the horse's mouth.

If that's the case, Iran should get all 30 of them.

View attachment 951473

The most we counted that were visible from satellite pics was either 17 or 22 IIRC.

Part of the tour as they were being assembled.

View attachment 951474



Believe me, the same case exists in the EAF. They ruined the Rafales with the Tahya Misr logo in white across the center of the fuselage. If it was added for a celebration day or something all other air forces do such as anniversary etc, sure. Then wash it off. But permanently? Ugh.

View attachment 951478



I always wondered the same thing, if training on a basic or even an advanced trainer would be enough for a cadet to jump right into a single-seat behemoth like the Su-35 by himself. I guess it must be since they've been doing it in the RuAF. Or they have and use other 2-seat variants that are not necessarily comparable but would do the trick. Maybe in our case they were going to use the MiG-29M2. But I like your idea better of an Su-30MK2 or MS. Those would have closer avionics and characteristics to the Su-35.

25 SU 35

 

[AmirPatriot]

Thought I'd post this thread since there has been some discussion about the Yak-130's combat capabilities

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699530335111852471

IRIAF with paint cans can sometimes do good things even looking a little childish

View attachment 951455
The shark teeth actually look realistic when you see the red under them looking like its tongue

The same could be done on Su-35 by the IRIAF paint can team with for example a legendary bird/lion mouth templates then apply it on Su-35
The shark example could fit very well with the blue colored Su-35

The existing Cobra paint scheme was much more functional and suitable for Iran's terrain

Believe me, the same case exists in the EAF. They ruined the Rafales with the Tahya Misr logo in white across the center of the fuselage. If it was added for a celebration day or something all other air forces do such as anniversary etc, sure. Then wash it off. But permanently? Ugh.

Pfft. That's practically tasteful.

 

[LegionnairE]

Which Russian AAM would Iran benefit from?

From Russia, R-37, but i doubt they would export some to Iran, they aren't meant for export but this is one of the best AAM Russia has, otherwise for export it would be R77 export model with 110km of max range...

Otherwise Fakour, Iran already has a lot of AAM design, i don't know what else beside the R-37 would be interesting for Iran

Sticking on the R77 export would be ridiculous for Iran, also i do not know where you bring that Iranian AAM are not that good, Russian ones surely have been war approved and shot down many aircrafts, but this is like saying whatever non-war tested AAM are not that good because they have never been tested in a real situation on a real target

Also if someone know if Iranian made/ versions of Aim-54/hawk AAM/whatever were tested during IRIQ last years war let us know..

to my knowledge, R-77 is comparable to NATO's AIM-120 and R-37 is comparable with NATO's Meteor missile., both good options. Russian IIR missiles are very good too. I expect Iran to get them all.

AIM 54 and Hawk are ancient technology. Iran has just never been competitive in this field. Basically all Iranian AAMs are Fox 1s.

Air to ground is a different story, from what I understand, Iranian cruise missiles are excellent. All the effort should be made to integrate them into Yak-130 platform.

 

[Gomig-21]

While non-Iranians (latest example, user Gomig-21) acknowledge the boost soon to come Su-35 fighters will give the Islamic Iranian air force, as well as the relevance of Yak-130 supplies.

Appreciate the acknowledgment. I've been a fan and interested in the IRIAF for many years. Besides befriending the youngest son of the Shah in high school and developing an affinity for Iranian people, I also want to see Iran be in the best position possible to defend itself, just like it's entitled to. It irks me to no end that certain 'entities' think they have the right to dictate who should and shouldn't independently pursue specific endeavors when they themselves have done it. AND especially when they've been the aggressors in several conflicts -- currently and in the past -- while Iran has simply minded its own busy and has only defended itself. It doesn't go around telling others what they can have and not have. It ain't right.

Iran showcased some excellent pilots in the 8-year war with Iraq. It'll produce excellent pilots again for the Su-35 to repel and teach the "region's bully bastardos" a good lesson and spank them silly. God forbid they try since no one wants to see war or a conflict that could easily escalate into a major war in the region. But if it does, I hope to see a historical beatdown. But I'm still jealous as hell!

Pfft. That's practically tasteful.

lol, I see what you mean. But at least that's only a temporary showcasing of that Su-22 and not a permanent thing, I think.

 

[TheImmortal]

Besides befriending the youngest son of the Shah in high school

You shouldn’t have told @SalarHaqq that.

 

[drmeson]

AIM 54 and Hawk are ancient technology. Iran has just never been competitive in this field. Basically all Iranian AAMs are Fox 1s.

You can not be more wrong. Fakour-90 is an absolute monster that is in service as a Long-range BVR missile with ECM. No regional country has anything local in comparison.

It can make a mess of enemy fighters even before they enter Iranian airspace.

 

[drmeson]

LOL @ stupids here arguing over combat use of an AT.

 

[LegionnairE]

You can not be more wrong. Fakour-90 is an absolute monster that is in service as a Long-range BVR missile with ECM. No regional country has anything local in comparison.

View attachment 951586

It can make a mess of enemy fighters even before they enter Iranian airspace.

Semi active radar homing.

As I said, it's ancient technology, they are all Fox-1s.

R-77 will be a huge improvement for Iran. I would also try to get R-74M and R-37 from Russia.


Iranians on this forum always had a distorted view of reality. If I said Kowsar is the best 4th gen fighter out there, much better than Su-35 and Qaher is better than F22, I would be drowning in likes.

Su-35 carries 12 R-77s !! what a fucking beast. Basically on the same level as F-15 EX. I don't think you guys understand or appreciate what this is.

 

[TheImmortal]

You can not be more wrong. Fakour-90 is an absolute monster that is in service as a Long-range BVR missile with ECM. No regional country has anything local in comparison.
It can make a mess of enemy fighters even before they enter Iranian airspace.

I hope that is the case. However, Historical Evidence on BVR points to the contrary. No one knows how F-90 would perform in wartime, but based on historical data of BVR use during warfare (including during the time its less modernized predecessors existed) paints a very unfavorable picture.

I’m sure the Iranian Air Force knows this since they were trained by USAF and hence there has not been massive investments in field of BVR by IRIAF.

A former US pilot wrote a briefing on how inaccurate BVRs are at securing kills.


In the AMRAAM project office, Air Force Col. James Burton had been handed the job of collecting hard information on the effectiveness of missiles in air-to-air combat. Burton studied all 407 known missile kills made in the air since 1958 (except for the 1967 Middle East war and Pakistan's 1971 clash with India), focusing hard on the 2,014 missile firings made during the Vietnam War and the 1973 and 1982 Middle East skirmishes.

Burton fast became one of the most unpopular men in the Pentagon. He titled the briefing he gave on his findings "Letting Combat Results Shape the Next Air-to-Air Missile." His findings: Of more than 260 Arab aircraft knocked down by Israel in 1973, only five fell to Sparrows in 12 firings. Of the 632 Sparrows fired in all the wars Burton studied, only 73 destroyed the airplane they were fired at, for a kill rating of 11%. The ancient Sidewinder did almost three times better: of some 1,000 Sidewinder firings, 308 kills resulted in a kill rating of 30%.

To the horror of those he briefed, Burton told them he found only four BVR kills in all the wars he covered. What is more, each of the four (two by Israel, two by F04s in Vietnam) was carefully staged outside the confusion of combat to prove BVR's combat worthiness. One Southeast Asia kill was listed as a MiG-21 when it was really an F-4 mistakenly identified and shot down using Combat Tree, the BVR identification equipment of the era that was supposed to sort friend from foe. According to Burton, the only reason Israel went after its two BVR kills was strong pressure from the U.S. to establish BVR doctrine.

In 1984, Burton managed to have the idea tested in McDonnell Douglas' differential maneuvering simulators. The results were devastating. Over and over, ARM-equipped fighters shot down AMRAAM aircraft and missiles. The results were turned over to the AMRAAM office, which invalidated them and threw out the exercise. In airborne tests in Nevada, Red Force aircraft using simple radar homing and warning devices could see Blue Force AMRAAM radars coming on 10 mi. away. The warnings allowed Red Force to turn away and beat the missile. When the AMRAAM radar was reset to come on 5 mi. from the target aircraft, the change negated the longed-for BVR scenario.

In 1969, the DOD tried to test an air-to-air ARM developed from the Sparrow airframe under the project name Brazo. At modest cost, three test firings destroyed three target drones. Amlie says the program "was cancelled when it could be interpreted as eliminating large radar fighters such as the F-14 and F-15, since the tests proved you could not use a radar fighter in combat when up against ARMs. The only countermeasure was to turn the radars off, so everything was swept under a rug." Now, department rumblings suggest that development of an air-to-air ARM is again under consideration.

More evidence:


The problems continued after Vietnam. In “Promise and Reality: Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Air-To-Air Combat” a 2005 paper done for the Air War College, Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Higby (now General Higby shows in great detail that from Vietnam up to Desert Storm the billions invested BVR missile technology contributed almost nothing to the United States’ domination of the skies. Combining data from Israeli and American missions, he finds that out of 632 shots taken with BVR-capable missiles, only four resulted in kills from beyond visual range — a scant 0.6 percent. During this same period, 528 air-to-air kills were made at closer range — 144 with guns and 384 with missiles fired at opponents within visual range.

We do have anecdotal evidence: In 1999, when two MiG-25s violated the no-fly zone over southern Iraq, U.S. fighters fired six of our most sophisticated BVR missiles at them. All six missiles missed and the MiG-25s escaped to fight another day. While pervasive coverage by AWACS surveillance and control planes has given our pilots much better friend-or-foe recognition, allowing more BVR shots to be taken, true BVR kills against competent opponents are rare.

A 2011 RAND report noted that enemies successfully engaged beyond visible range after 1991 “were fleeing, non-maneuvering, and did not employ countermeasures.” “In Operation Allied Force,” the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, RAND notes, “the Serbian MiG-29s that were shot down did not even have functioning radars.” In other words, we might now be achieving BVR kills against third-rate vastly outnumbered opponents while enjoying pervasive AWACS coverage. But that is a far cry from getting kills against equally skilled peer competitors in contested air space where we may be outnumbered in terms of both planes and missiles.

What if the World’s Most Expensive Fighter Planes Can’t Defeat Our Enemies? | National Review

R-77 will be a huge improvement for Iran. I would also try to get R-74M and R-37 from Russia. Not to mention the fact that Su-35 carries 12 R-77s !! what a fucking beast. Basically on the same level as F-15 EX

There is no indication R-77 is any different than top of line Western BVRs. History has shown BVR capabilties is vastly overrated and has tremendously underperformed. (See my post above).

Go google BVR kill stats if you don’t believe me. Gonna take a wild guess and say there is less than 15 verified BVR kills in the history of warfare going back to 1960.

 

[drmeson]

Whatever an author utters in public will affect their credibility at any rate. If they engage in clownery as you put it, then this will directly impact their professional standing.

The notion that Taghvai has been right 80-90% of the time in his predictions cannot really be substantiated by hard evidence, it remains largely speculative.
Issue being that OSINT data is partial and incomplete by its very essence. So is the military-related information Iranian authorities choose make public. In other terms, regular readers most of the time are deprived of the necessary tools to verify claims made by Taghvai or similar authors who base themselves on purported inside sources.

Words mean nothing. I asked you clearly to find me a single article published by him where any information he has ever provided on IRIAF turns out to be wrong.

YOU HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE SO FAR. Evidence here means
you can simply pick his published articles (not Twitter), go through them, and point out where he has been mistaken, or proven wrong for his predictions or statements e.g. he published Kowsars delay, Yak-130 procurement, Fakour-90/maghsouds existence, SU-35S deal etc all before anyone else among publishing aviationists. It's simple this is how the literary world works. You have so far failed to do so.

You just appeared to misquote my statement. What I wrote is that Tom Cooper suggested as much, not that he published those particular sentences verbatim. A suggestion can be an indirect insinuation, and this is exactly what Cooper proceeded with. Although some of the terms he used, as we'll see in a second, come pretty close to a direct contention. At any rate they are expressive enough as is.

Again no evidence but wordplay. You said this, your direct qoute for Tom C, "Iran's modern AD systems are in fact custom designed by the Chinese for Iran"

Where is the proof that he actually said that? none exists

Black on white proof right here. Tom Cooper is making the claim that Iran cannot produce "modern SAM systems" (sic) - no nitpicking could possibly achieve to spin the explicit meaning of this quote.

Since Bavar-373 and other recently unveiled Iranian AD weapons are genuinely modern in the fullest sense of the term, it necessarily follows that Tom Cooper is of the opinion these could neither have been developed nor produced by Islamic Iran. Quod erat demonstrandum.

My statement was therefore 100% accurate. I could content myself solely with this, but let's go on.

Nowhere he is making a claim. He gives a subjective opinion that "production of modern SAM systems are outright impossible" based on his individual observation of "Combined with the persistent, age-old problems of the Iranian economy, the rule of the exclusivist cliques and endemic corruption, a lack of investment and industrial management skills".

Another explicit claim, furnishing totally undisputable proof as to the validity of my statement. Please do not tell me you're endorsing this type of brazen nonsense.



Now claiming to cite a Chinese defence industry official, to suggest that the PRC did effectively produce such designs for Iran:



Putting the adjective Iranian into quotation marks and referencing China right afterwards, Cooper is evidently insinuating that the "very advanced radar" was not designed by Iranians but by the Chinese. Again Aristotelian Λόγος leaves no room for ifs and buts, nor for pedantic terminological hair splitting.

Now he is making a claim of having an inside scoop through technicians working in CATIC (China) and SAIRAN (Iran).

Is he wrong? is he right? You can not prove anything. He is an author/reporter/commentator so that is his job to gather scoops. They could be blatant lies based upon hi agenda (case of Kyle Mizokami) but we have no way of proving otherwise unless we have something in counter to provide.

By way of an illustration to his argument, the author is citing the HQ-2 and the HQ-7 SAM's - systems Iran bought and imported from China as is and in full, further underscoring what he means. Not that this is really indispensable to mention though, since the two initial quotations onto themselves prove my point beyond the least shadow of a doubt.

Iran did purchase SAMs from China and Russia. What is your point?

Renewed use of quotation marks as a means of denying the indigeneous nature of radar designs presented by Iran as of late and dismissing declarations of Iranian officials and media in this regard.

He is establishing a technical opinion here based upon the subjective fact that some modern Iranian radars bear a very close resemblance to Chinese ones based upon his observation of close visual similarity. I see no point of conflict here. Most of the Iranian weaponry is driven from foreign designs which is totally normal. Even superpowers copy eachother's designs all the time.

What this implies is that Iran did not merely benefit from cooperation and/or technology transfer, but purchased customized radar systems from Chinese companies.

Claims of inside information through self-established sources. Can you prove him right or wrong? You can not.

Talks of ground-based, early-warning radars and electronic countermeasures provided by Chinese manufacturers to their export customers i.e. of concrete, ready-made systems and not of technical cooperation.

and the point is?

Clear-cut confirmation of my reminder that Tom Cooper has claimed several of Iran's latest weapons systems had been custom-designed from the outset in China, and are thus not the work of Iranian engineers and production facilities.

His two provided sources for such claim is having inside info through sources. He can not provide evidence of his sources being real but neither can you provide evidence that he is not telling the truth.

In particular, he very clearly shed doubt on the capability of Iranian domestic research teams and defence industries to design and manufacture the systems in question.

He has not casted single "doubt". He has done following:

- Claimed that serious SAIRAN-CATIC collaboration exists based upon his (1) Inside sources (could be right or wrong) (2) Physical resemblance of some products (he is right in some cases).
- Opined that years ago Iranian capabilities were not adequate enough to establish AD products at home the way Iran later accomplished. Opinions are not claims.

Could it be that you have sort of a soft spot for the author going by the alias Tom Cooper, which would be fine, however you'd be hard pressed to argue his commentary on the Iranian defence industry as well as on the state of scientific research in Iran is actually in line with your own analyses, because this quite ostensibly is not the case. To be clear and to remove possible misunderstandings, I am in agreement with yours but am calling out the author's. That a massive gap separates the two should be obvious.

Here is some education:

When someone makes a claim no matter how BS it sounds to you, the only way to counter it is to provide counter-evidence. There is no other way. Tom C also wrote a book on IRIAF and made claims of 159:3 kill ratio of IRIAF F-14 based on inside information he gathered. No one has ever disputed his claims with counter-evidence. Until that happens his claim stands firm. Do you think his inside info is wrong? provide counter evidence otherwise, you are also just giving opinions. Meaningless ramblings mean nothing in actual world of hardcore peer reviewed publishing.

True, SJR isn't mentioned but that wasn't my point.

if SJR is not mentioned then the rest of your speech is a mere waste of time.

Fact is that while you opened threads in this forum sharing SJR listings with the rightful purpose of driving home how Iran has been excelling in STEM research, the above quoted elucubrations by Tom Cooper are conveying the exact contrary. So once again, nowhere are your respective views aligning and I don't know why you would want to tell yourself otherwise, my friend.

The point I was making is that if anybody including Tom C, is claiming that published papers in SJR index IF carrying R&D journals are "plagiarised" then they are fools with no proper knowledge of anything.

Also, published research =/= industrial mass production capability.

 

[LegionnairE]

Burton fast became one of the most unpopular men in the Pentagon. He titled the briefing he gave on his findings "Letting Combat Results Shape the Next Air-to-Air Missile." His findings: Of more than 260 Arab aircraft knocked down by Israel in 1973, only five fell to Sparrows in 12 firings. Of the 632 Sparrows fired in all the wars Burton studied, only 73 destroyed the airplane they were fired at, for a kill rating of 11%. The ancient Sidewinder did almost three times better: of some 1,000 Sidewinder firings, 308 kills resulted in a kill rating of 30%

Lol I didn't know it was this bad but yeah, there's a reason why Sparrow and Phoenix missiles were abandoned.

To the uneducated eye, just looking at stats like range and speed on wikipedia it seems like AIM-120C is an inferior missile, in reality it's so superior it's not even funny.

 

[TheImmortal]

Lol I didn't know it was this bad but yeah, there's a reason why Sparrow and Phoenix missiles were abandoned.

If you read the report you will see even AMRAAM missiles perform badly.

Here is how Russian R-37M is performing against more “ancient” Ukrainian aircraft

Russia’s Best Missile Can Hit Ukrainian Jets From 80 Miles Away. But Ukrainian Pilots Know How To Dodge.

“We created different tactics for how to avoid this missile—and that’s why it’s not so succesful against our jets,” Ukrainian Mikoyan MiG-29 pilot “Juice” told Lithuanian broadcaster Delfi.

www.forbes.com

Why would anyone think an A2A missile can excel at BVR ranges with an inferior radar when powerful ground based radars and air defense systems struggle to get consistently kills beyond 50-75KM?

Do you think F-14/F-22/F-35 has a more powerful radar than S400/Patriot/Arrow? Do you think the homing beacon inside a A2A missile is more powerful than that of a long range air defense missile like Sayyad-4 ?

Don’t fall into the hype of BVR, rely on statistics until proven otherwise. In this day and age you have sophisticated jammers/ECM pods as well as AWACs flying. So even harder than 1960-1990 to secure air to air kills beyond visual range.

Until a BVR is able to demonstrate it’s worth in actual battlefield consistently, then it’s hype by the arms manufacturers. They are relatively unproven and their predecessors haven’t faired well in war.

 

[drmeson]

Semi active radar homing.

SARH has a massive advantage for fighters with long-ranged radars like F-14AM (upgraded AWG-9 with 800+ new parts, totally digitalised). An F-14 can track a F-15/SU-27 like fighter (RCS of ~10 m^2) at 150-200 KM depending upon aspect, launch some 2-3 Fakour-90 LRBVR from 150 KM, climb up and slow down to keep illuminating the target while staying within the cover of Iranian IADS (S-300, Bavar-373, 3rd Khordad LR-SAMS).

ECM of the adversary can jam ARH's antenna coming at it but can't jam SARH which is getting data packets of tracking info from F-14AM's WMC some 150 (and closing) KM away. ARH seeker of missile has 100 T/R elements but SARH missile is getting track info from radar with ~800-1000 T/R elements. In F-14AM's case it may even be getting track info itself from AESA radars on the ground such as Bavar-373's AESA track radars have a range of 400 KM with the capability of tracking 60 targets. That's some 10000 T/R modules guiding the interceptor missile. Good luck to the adversary with their "ECM".

Besides, The seeker of Fakour-90 is highly modern with ECM in-built, so it cant be jammed. It has been tested for tracking against 0.01m~2 RCS bearing Flying wing Shahed Saeghe UCAVs while being jammed by Falcon E-warfare platforms of IRIAF in air, it still succeeded. It is all available here https://www.key.aero/article/new-claws-persian-cats

There is a 200+ KM range bearing Maghsoud LR-BVR coming with ARH+ECM. Its already shown, it will be there in time. Meanwhile, Fakour-90 is enough to massacre 4th generation fighters even outside iranian skies.

As I said, it's ancient technology, they are all Fox-1s.

Provide evidence that a missile bearing

- ECM
- capability to track <0.1 m^2 targets
- motor that can push it to 4-5 Mach
- ranging at 150 KM

is ancient technology?

R-77 will be a huge improvement for Iran.

R-77 Export variant has 60% of Fakour range so no. Only advantage it will have is that its a light missile so it can arm SU-35S, MIG-29 SMT (if upgraded) and Kowsar-I if its Bayyenat-I radar (copy of Grifo-346) can be plugged in with Russian AAM.

Iranians on this forum always had a distorted view of reality. If I said Kowsar is the best 4th gen fighter out there, much better than Su-35 and Qaher is better than F22, I would be drowning in likes.

Provide evidence that iranians say Kowsar is best 4th generation fighter?

Su-35 carries 12 R-77s !! what a fucking beast. Basically on the same level as F-15 EX. I don't think you guys understand or appreciate what this is.

Both SU-35S and F-15 have an RCS of 10+ m~2. If they wear 12 x AAM the size of BVR's their RCS will enhance further. Long range search radars of enemies like OTH of IRIADF's, will see such a target even taking off from their runways, track radars of the layer will be waiting for them to come near. Modern combat aviation has changed which is why focus has gone to lowering RCS and ECM.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Words mean nothing. I asked you clearly to find me a single article published by him where any information he has ever provided on IRIAF turns out to be wrong.

I do not care about that. Taghvai publicly furnished outright disinformation, and this does affect his standing as a publicist, end of story.

YOU HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE SO FAR.

Evidence for what, exactly? When it comes to the point I made, the shared "Tweet" of his offers proof in and onto itself.

Evidence here means
you can simply pick his published articles (not Twitter), go through them, and point out where he has been mistaken, or proven wrong for his predictions or statements e.g. he published Kowsars delay, Yak-130 procurement, Fakour-90/maghsouds existence, SU-35S deal etc all before anyone else among publishing aviationists. It's simple this is how the literary world works.

As stressed, when a journalist publicly makes counter-factual claims, no matter the platform they do this at, it'll diminish their reputation and credibility.

Again no evidence but wordplay. You said this, your direct qoute for Tom C, "Iran's modern AD systems are in fact custom designed by the Chinese for Iran"

Where is the proof that he actually said that? none exists

Here it's you playing with words. I offered a direct quote to that effect.

Nowhere he is making a claim. He gives a subjective opinion that "production of modern SAM systems are outright impossible" based on his individual observation of "Combined with the persistent, age-old problems of the Iranian economy, the rule of the exclusivist cliques and endemic corruption, a lack of investment and industrial management skills".

You may label it an opinion if you like, the notion that Iran "cannot" produce a modern SAM system is what Cooper suggests.

Now he is making a claim of having an inside scoop through technicians working in CATIC (China) and SAIRAN (Iran).

Is he wrong? is he right? You can not prove anything. He is an author/reporter/commentator so that is his job to gather scoops. They could be blatant lies based upon hi agenda (case of Kyle Mizokami) but we have no way of proving otherwise unless we have something in counter to provide.

My aim was to expose Cooper's narrative on Iranian defence industries for what it actually is, which I indeed proceeded with.

Narrative which happens to be at very sharp variance with views commonly held around here, seeing how it tends to portray Iranian domestic capabilities as non-existent in terms of cutting edge AD technology. This in turn inspires anything but sympathy for the author.

Iran did purchase SAMs from China and Russia. What is your point?

It should be clear in the context of my post. The subject is establishing an implicit analogy between top of the line Iranian-designed SAM systems of recent make and older systems bought and imported in whole from China.

You if you choose to applaud such an analysis, you'd be contradicting the gist of your contributions to this forum.

He is establishing a technical opinion here based upon the subjective fact that some modern Iranian radars bear a very close resemblance to Chinese ones based upon his observation of close visual similarity. I see no point of conflict here. Most of the Iranian weaponry is driven from foreign designs which is totally normal. Even superpowers copy eachother's designs all the time.

No, you are ignoring the quotation marks surrounding the adjective Iranian. Logic and linguistics dictate he is insinuating that those radars are Chinese actual products, not local Iranian derivatives inspired by Chinese models.

Claims of inside information through self-established sources. Can you prove him right or wrong? You can not.

Again this isn't relevant to my demonstration.

What I endeavor to inform Iranian forum users and readers about is how in Cooper's words, the most modern air defence radars in Iranian service are not Iranian achievements, were not designed nor produced by Iran, are not the fruit of hard labor by Iranian engineers, researchers, and industrial managers but rather that they are custom-made by and in China.

And now readers know beyond the shadow of a doubt that this right here is Cooper's contention.

and the point is?

The point is, and it stems from the flow of his argument, that he ascribes such characteristics to corresponding Iranian weapons systems.

His two provided sources for such claim is having inside info through sources. He can not provide evidence of his sources being real but neither can you provide evidence that he is not telling the truth.

This is not my purpose anyway. People need to know how lowly Cooper thinks of Iran's ability to design and manufacture advanced weaponry, as illustrated by his analysis of top-tier AD systems rightly considered by the Iranian PDF community as domestic feats.

And that task I successfully accomplished.

He has not casted single "doubt". He has done following:

- Claimed that serious SAIRAN-CATIC collaboration exists based upon his (1) Inside sources (could be right or wrong) (2) Physical resemblance of some products (he is right in some cases).
- Opined that years ago Iranian capabilities were not adequate enough to establish AD products at home the way Iran later accomplished. Opinions are not claims.

Yes, he makes claims in that article. Yes, these claims are equivalent to a flat out denial that Iranian domestic research teams and defence industries have what it takes to design and manufacture the armament in question.

To reiterate, assertions like these by Cooper:

"this results in a situation where development and production of modern SAM systems are outright impossible."

"In fact, modern Iranian SAM systems are anything but indigenous."

leave no room for interpretative speculation, what they mean is not merely that extensive cooperation exists between SAIRAN and CATIC, nor that Iran proceeded to acquiring capabilities she previously lacked.

Assertions like these mean Iran has been lying about the indigenous nature of systems such as Bavar-373 and Sevvome Khordad, and that these are really Chinese developments custom-made for Iran and fraudulently passed off as Iranian.

This is precisely what Cooper is conveying in fine all along the article. Not for a second can I imagine you aren't realizing something as plainly evident as that, quite honestly. Which leaves me all the more puzzled as to why you'd choose to go to such lengths candy-coating the subject's obviously dismissive attitude towards Iranian defence industries. Considering the author's unequivocal utterances, any such endeavor can only be vain.

Source: https://warisboring.com/47047-2/

Here is some education:

Believe me, given my background and qualifications, I do not need to be lectured in this regard.

When someone makes a claim no matter how BS it sounds to you, the only way to counter it is to provide counter-evidence. There is no other way.

Why would I want to embark on such? I am perfectly content with my compatriots at PDF getting to know in case they didn't, that the individual publishing under the alias Tom Cooper has been seeking to suggest Iran could not have designed nor produced the very air defence systems everyone in this virtual community takes large amounts of pride in, and that he is crediting the People's Republic of China for those same achievements.

As long as this is understood by everyone, I'm all fine.

Tom C also wrote a book on IRIAF and made claims of 159:3 kill ratio of IRIAF F-14 based on inside information he gathered. No one has ever disputed his claims with counter-evidence. Until that happens his claim stands firm. Do you think his inside info is wrong? provide counter evidence otherwise, you are also just giving opinions. Meaningless ramblings mean nothing in actual world of hardcore peer reviewed publishing.

I think his characterization of modern Iranian AD systems is genuinely abusive, and so do you because a standpoint of this kind cannot possibly be reconciled with your own commentary on Iranian capabilities.

if SJR is not mentioned then the rest of your speech is a mere waste of time.

Cooper clearly produced a highly disparaging assessment on Iran's higher education system, like I proved with concrete quotes. Assessment which couldn't be farther removed from yours.