IRIAF | News and Discussions

[AmirPatriot]

A Bavar-373 close to the front will reach around 300km into the enemies airspace.

That is not necessarily true, since targets could be outside of the 300 km range. Even the Damman oil facilities of Saudi are not fully within range of a Bavar-373 deployed at, say, Bushehr AB. Enemy aircraft with missiles could take out Iranian UAVs.

Those UAVs, by the way, with 35 kg bombs, cannot do significant damage to strategic or heavy infrastructure or industry.

RQ-170 size UACV with 2 one ton bombs each.

1. It would have to be much bigger than a RQ-170, which was an unarmed reconnaissance drone.
2. This is a long way off.
3. The fact that you say a RQ-170 type UAV with stealth features shows your scenario does not envision permissible airspace.

the 35kg Sadid will be sufficient for 70% of the targets during a war

And what are these 70% of targets? I can only think of terrorist technicals or lightly built buildings. Not many strategic targets in a nation state can be destroyed by 35 kg bombs (with even less actual explosive mass).

 

[Stryker1982]

That is not necessarily true, since targets could be outside of the 300 km range. Even the Damman oil facilities of Saudi are not fully within range of a Bavar-373 deployed at, say, Bushehr AB. Enemy aircraft with missiles could take out Iranian UAVs.

This is why Iran needs the capability to deploy stand of weapons on its drones. Its such a major tactical advantage to be able to fire a rocket towards your enemy before entering their airspace from maybe 10 km range.

 

[VEVAK]

I'm curious at what UACV fleet you speak of. I don't remember Iran having any operational UACV fleet that can drop heavy payloads. Shahid-129 seems to be proven, but Iran has unvield man armed drones but we've yet to see if they truly work. Like the RQ-170 model bomber a while ago. I only wish the Sadid was like a Yankee hellfire missile but it seems to be more of a bomb with a small payload than a rocket. If Iran wants a deadly UACV capability it would require better and more powerful engines in order to carry heavier payloads. This is something we have always had a problem with. Engines!!!

1st Due to Iran's terrain UAV's, UCAV's & Cruise Missiles can be tested without anyone knowing not even the U.S.

Iran has 320 Airports & 1000's of smaller airfield where they can be launched from & the U.S. can't keep sat's over every Iranian Airport 24/7 just because Iran might at some point test a UAV at one of them plus some Iranian UAV's don't even require an Airfield like the Karrar

Iran has been building Mini Jet Engines for over a decade now and by the most part you have no idea what these engines power

Germany's 2 Tone V-1 flying bomb was powered by 660 lbf pulse jet engine and carried 1800lb payload!
The U.S. 5000lb JB-2 was also powered by a 660lbf pulsejet engine & carried 2000lb payload
The U.S. Tomahawk under 700lbf

Iran's Tolue-4 mini jet engine has 775 lbf & only weighs 56kg (less than Tomahawk engine) which mean in terms of thrust it's lighter & more powerful than a Tomahawk cruise missile engine so even if it's rate of consumption was double that of a tomahawk it's range would only be half in the same airframe but could potentially carry more fuel due to higher thrust so ~1500km easy on a land attack cruise missile configuration
1000km or more for a UCAV with 1000lb payload (4 250lb or 2 500lb)


A more expensive & powerful design can also be achieved using Iran's OWJ (J-85) Engines

So for jet powered UCAV's it's not a matter of Thrust but you can almost double your range by developing Turbofan engines with the same thrust which is something Iran will eventually get to it's just a matter of time!

 

[PeeD]

@VEVAK

In terms of Aircraft the U.S. is already developing 6th Gen aircraft who will be twin seat & the rear pilot will be controlling other UCAV(s). But now ask yourself why? why not strictly rely on SATCOM & make all your 6th gen fighters unmanned?

And the answer is simple!
1st You don't put all your eggs in one basket because their is a chance that your communication can be jammed, hacked, or destroyed whether it be on the ground or in space!

Right, now three problems:
Iran won't be able to build a 6th gen fighter for decades (mainly due to engine tech.).

How likely is that the airbase from which those fighters want to operate from remains intact after the first missile saturation attack and keeps on operating with its airstrip intact? You are right that Iran has many airfields, which could be used but this is a fundamental flaw of airpower. The US might not be able to launch a CM saturation attack that could hit sufficient targets in Iran to stop airfield based airpower to be operated. However in a decade they may decide to make their B-1, -2, -52, -21 Tomahawk capable to fly massive CM saturation attacks.
We are just fortunate that they haven't done that yet and their new turbofan JASSM will certainly give them that capability (even to their fighter fleet).
Then you have to protect against, lets say more than 10.000 cruise missiles in the first day of the conflict (60.000 within the first week) or to put a simple name for it: Your airbases and all unhardened static targets must survive the high intensity missile phase of a conflict.
Iran would need a enormously huge IADS to offer sufficient protection against future threats, in order to operate runway based airpower.
In my Mig-31 scenario, you would store them in mountain tunnel bases and bring them out after the high intensity phase was won, repair the runways and send them for UACV protection deep into the enemy country...

Last but not least: The also stored UACV swarm which might not need runways, would have a LOS MW swarm communication. No ASAT prone SATCOM communication and range limited ground based LOS MW communication but a many times redundant and expandable swarm communication with members of the swarm acting as flying relays.

2ndly The simple fact is fixed sites & satellites in a fixed orbit are easier to disrupt or destroy for a country that has that capability as oppose to a fast moving LOW RCS Aircraft moving around at different altitudes....

As described, if it is vertical start and landing, plus long range mach 3 capable plus low on X-band RCS, we can have a talk. However the combination of these capabilities is probably 50 years away, 20 for the US.

3rd A prepared Air Force using Early Warning Systems & other sensors can scramble it's aircraft in the Air Before cruise missiles have time to reach that facility & larger conventional Ballistic Missiles currently don't have the accuracy to hit targets accurately enough to destroy a well protected Aircraft bunker (Plus that's not the type of weapon Iran is facing)[(quote]

So how they want to land after one of the 2.000 CM has damaged the airstrip and the next 2000 are about to come in an hour? What if fuel, ammo etc. is taken out by CM attacks?
Irans Ghadr with a cluster warhead can endanger operations from airbases to such a degree that they become effectively inoperable. It depends in what interval you send a Ghadr.

using a blitz missiles attack before they send in their Air Force when in reality those are the 1st targets they'll be going after to make their enemy Death(communication), Dumb(taking out command centers) & Blind (Taking out radars & sensors of all types)

Anything valuable that is not heavily hardened and mobile would be destroyed in the high intensity missile phase. Mobile communication and radars plus hardened or mobile command centers, this is how its done.

And Iran needs both manned fighter jets & manned airborne sensors AND UAV's & UCAV all types

For a limited resources country like Iran, this would be a doomed path.

But if it's not a full tech transfer then NO! Iran needs to invest in building it's own and small low payload fighter like the Saegheh, Kowsar, Q-313,... are NOT the way!

Actually it's Irans decision makers wisdom displayed that they go with a Q-313 and don't waste too much resources on fighter and fighter production.

@AmirPatriot

That is not necessarily true, since targets could be outside of the 300 km range. Even the Damman oil facilities of Saudi are not fully within range of a Bavar-373 deployed at, say, Bushehr AB. Enemy aircraft with missiles could take out Iranian UAVs.

Airpower for Iran means CAS and the destruction of mobile and low priority targets (high intensity missile phase is already over). 80% of the missions would hence be flown in the frontline area and there long range SAMs can provide a umbrella for UAV operations.

Those UAVs, by the way, with 35 kg bombs, cannot do significant damage to strategic or heavy infrastructure or industry.

If counter-value missions are necessary, it's mainly the task of battlefield rockets such as the Zelzal-2. They are quite cost effective for value targets outside the frontline area.

1. It would have to be much bigger than a RQ-170, which was an unarmed reconnaissance drone.
2. This is a long way off.
3. The fact that you say a RQ-170 type UAV with stealth features shows your scenario does not envision permissible airspace.

Yes it is long way off, I said the low intensity swarm UACV force structure would be a future capability.
I think the RQ-170 size is sufficient for payloads like 1-2 Mk84. It is a high lift flying wing, only its range and altitude performance should be decreased.
In that sense: The RQ-170 airframe is good for the UACV task because of its high lift capability. The stealth, whether fully deployed in the design or not, is just a secondary feature.

And what are these 70% of targets? I can only think of terrorist technicals or lightly built buildings. Not many strategic targets in a nation state can be destroyed by 35 kg bombs (with even less actual explosive mass).

There would be no strategic targets left in the enemy country due to BM/CM attacks. I talk about the low intensity phase of the conflict with the UACV swarm deployed and there the 35kg Sadid is sufficient for 70% of the (mainly CAS) targets.
The only problem would be created by systems that are mobile and here the upper tier of the UACV fleet, like RQ-170 bombers would be deployed. The radar and communication portion of those mobile targets left, could be even taken out by Hormuz BM's and EM-wave suicide drones.

 

[raptor22]

Qased?

 

[Fafnir]

1st Due to Iran's terrain UAV's, UCAV's & Cruise Missiles can be tested without anyone knowing not even the U.S.

Iran has 320 Airports & 1000's of smaller airfield where they can be launched from & the U.S. can't keep sat's over every Iranian Airport 24/7 just because Iran might at some point test a UAV at one of them plus some Iranian UAV's don't even require an Airfield like the Karrar

Iran has been building Mini Jet Engines for over a decade now and by the most part you have no idea what these engines power



View attachment 417582


View attachment 417583


Germany's 2 Tone V-1 flying bomb was powered by 660 lbf pulse jet engine and carried 1800lb payload!
The U.S. 5000lb JB-2 was also powered by a 660lbf pulsejet engine & carried 2000lb payload
The U.S. Tomahawk under 700lbf

Iran's Tolue-4 mini jet engine has 775 lbf & only weighs 56kg (less than Tomahawk engine) which mean in terms of thrust it's lighter & more powerful than a Tomahawk cruise missile engine so even if it's rate of consumption was double that of a tomahawk it's range would only be half in the same airframe but could potentially carry more fuel due to higher thrust so ~1500km easy on a land attack cruise missile configuration
1000km or more for a UCAV with 1000lb payload (4 250lb or 2 500lb)


A more expensive & powerful design can also be achieved using Iran's OWJ (J-85) Engines

So for jet powered UCAV's it's not a matter of Thrust but you can almost double your range by developing Turbofan engines with the same thrust which is something Iran will eventually get to it's just a matter of time!

The pic you posted actually has a turbofan in it,its on the left hand side with the inlet almost facing the camera,this is the soumar cruise missiles powerplant

 

[Stryker1982]

1st Due to Iran's terrain UAV's, UCAV's & Cruise Missiles can be tested without anyone knowing not even the U.S.

Iran has 320 Airports & 1000's of smaller airfield where they can be launched from & the U.S. can't keep sat's over every Iranian Airport 24/7 just because Iran might at some point test a UAV at one of them plus some Iranian UAV's don't even require an Airfield like the Karrar

Iran has been building Mini Jet Engines for over a decade now and by the most part you have no idea what these engines power



View attachment 417582


View attachment 417583


Germany's 2 Tone V-1 flying bomb was powered by 660 lbf pulse jet engine and carried 1800lb payload!
The U.S. 5000lb JB-2 was also powered by a 660lbf pulsejet engine & carried 2000lb payload
The U.S. Tomahawk under 700lbf

Iran's Tolue-4 mini jet engine has 775 lbf & only weighs 56kg (less than Tomahawk engine) which mean in terms of thrust it's lighter & more powerful than a Tomahawk cruise missile engine so even if it's rate of consumption was double that of a tomahawk it's range would only be half in the same airframe but could potentially carry more fuel due to higher thrust so ~1500km easy on a land attack cruise missile configuration
1000km or more for a UCAV with 1000lb payload (4 250lb or 2 500lb)


A more expensive & powerful design can also be achieved using Iran's OWJ (J-85) Engines

So for jet powered UCAV's it's not a matter of Thrust but you can almost double your range by developing Turbofan engines with the same thrust which is something Iran will eventually get to it's just a matter of time!

Thanks for the info!. I'm a bit new to Iran so I'm still not 100% familiar with all Irans military developments.

Do you think its more of a financial issue as to why a heavy UCAV production is not being done. Irans budget is 14 billion and I'm pretty sure half of it goes to sepah. Theirs not much cash left for production and procurement. I don't doubt Iranians technological capabailities, its far beyond regional countries, but with a weak economy, it will not be possible to field the kind of firepower in all sectors of the military that we know Iran has the potential for in a reasonable amount of time

 

[pin gu]

It seems we are moving towards arms race . with new DM nominate future plans we are going to
invest at least 5% of our GDP on military plus new credit line for possible huge contracts that means for every 1$ for our Russian friends there is possible 5$ for Americans .
its not good for us not good for SA not even good for Russians . there is only 1 winner in this race

I know its reactionary behavior from us but will it really make our armed forces stronger ? I don't think so

 

[Stryker1982]

It seems we are moving towards arms race . with new DM nominate future plans we are going to
invest at least 5% of our GDP on military plus new credit line for possible huge contracts that means for every 1$ for our Russian friends there is possible 5$ for Americans .
its not good for us not good for SA not even good for Russians . there is only 1 winner in this race

I know its reactionary behavior from us but will it really make our armed forces stronger ? I don't think so

We don't have the economy to compete in an Arms race, we are too poor, especially compared to our regional competitors.

 

[VEVAK]

@VEVAK



Right, now three problems:
Iran won't be able to build a 6th gen fighter for decades (mainly due to engine tech.).

How likely is that the airbase from which those fighters want to operate from remains intact after the first missile saturation attack and keeps on operating with its airstrip intact? You are right that Iran has many airfields, which could be used but this is a fundamental flaw of airpower. The US might not be able to launch a CM saturation attack that could hit sufficient targets in Iran to stop airfield based airpower to be operated. However in a decade they may decide to make their B-1, -2, -52, -21 Tomahawk capable to fly massive CM saturation attacks.
We are just fortunate that they haven't done that yet and their new turbofan JASSM will certainly give them that capability (even to their fighter fleet).
Then you have to protect against, lets say more than 10.000 cruise missiles in the first day of the conflict (60.000 within the first week) or to put a simple name for it: Your airbases and all unhardened static targets must survive the high intensity missile phase of a conflict.
Iran would need a enormously huge IADS to offer sufficient protection against future threats, in order to operate runway based airpower.
In my Mig-31 scenario, you would store them in mountain tunnel bases and bring them out after the high intensity phase was won, repair the runways and send them for UACV protection deep into the enemy country...

Last but not least: The also stored UACV swarm which might not need runways, would have a LOS MW swarm communication. No ASAT prone SATCOM communication and range limited ground based LOS MW communication but a many times redundant and expandable swarm communication with members of the swarm acting as flying relays.



As described, if it is vertical start and landing, plus long range mach 3 capable plus low on X-band RCS, we can have a talk. However the combination of these capabilities is probably 50 years away, 20 for the US.



@AmirPatriot


.

1st I never said Iran needs a 6th Gen fighter right now! I was pointing out the fact that the U.S. is already thinking about building UCAV's that can go up against countries capable of taking out their SATCOM...!

2ndly Once you have a large enough twin seat high payload low RCS platform then through time you can upgrade your engine, you electronics, sensors,.....

For now, building a strong twin seat air frame that in design is equivalent to a 5th Generation fighter will suffice! And for a country like Iran with limited facilities, tools and human resources in fighter production it's better to pay 10x more for materials & stick with Fighter Airframes that have the potential to be force multipliers rather than wasting that talent on lighter Aircraft that will be less useful than UAV's!
And when designing a fighter platform today you have to take into account & plan for where the countries technological capabilities will be 20-30 years from now not where we are at today!

Also, the notion that Fighters Jets are some how easer to take out than Air Defense systems or large armed UCAV that relies on relaying info back and forth via another system is just NOT TRUE! And it doesn't matter if your using 1 UAV to relay info or 10 out of 100 for a country like Iran the fixed location whether it be on the ground or in space will be the prime target not the individual UAV's

Iranian precision guided ballistic missiles give Iran ~600km cushion, cruise missiles 1000km & current UCAV's if programed to attack autonomously against fixed targets at best ~600km effective range varies depending on altitude Cruise Missiles & UAV's can't be sent on a fixed trajectory because they'll be easy targets & they can't take defensive countermeasures witch makes them easy targets for cheaper algorithm based Air Defense systems because they won't be changing speed or trajectory between the time it takes to lock, fire and hit so you can use a cheaper missile to counter swarm attacks

Also I don't see how a J402 turbojet engine will allow a country that's 10,000km away to fire 10,000 missiles at Iran in the 1st wave. In terms of fuel consumption it's only a little more energy efficient than Iran's Tolue-4 & since it has less thrust you can compact it in a smaller system and make it Air Launched for 1000km version.
At max they'll get 1200 fired from Fighters & Bombers + ~ 1000 Ship based tomahawks + another 1000 from land based system (Worst Case)
That's 3000 cruise missiles coming in the 1st wave & if Iran can't detect that many missiles and take appropriate measures before they travel 200km into Iranian Air Space (like scramble it's fighters) then we are doomed anyways!

Also, if Iran was to buy or start mass production of a fighter today in a best case scenario it would take Iran a decade to build up a fleet of 250-300 fighter jets so if Iran choses to invest and design an advanced fighter today it would take over a decade to build a production model and start serial production and another decade to build up a fleet so your looking at what you want your countries security situation to look like 30 years from now and before you go down that path for next decade Iran's major focus should be mass production of various types of missiles & increase the number of missile bases & Air Defense equipment to give yourself enough deterrence power....


As for runways, they can be repaired quickly enough if your prepared for them & naturally more expensive Aircraft will require more expensive shelters Iran would just have to make sure that no conventional warhead under 4000lb would be able to penetrate the bunkers

 

[PeeD]

@VEVAK

1: Aircrafts are concentrated at airbases while ground based air defense can be anywhere and stored in tunnel bunkers. So yes, aircrafts are easier to take out than SAMs. The communication lines can have very small footprints for SAMs, mobile troposcatter systems for higher tier and LOS MW for lower are very difficult to detect. Plus aircraft also need data-links these days.

2: If you agree to use soft fighting elements, you have to defend against saturation attacks of JASSM like CMs. Or you don't agree to that game and secure you systems with passive defense, mountain bunkers.
If you add passive defense, the burden on the ground based IADS gets much lower. 80% interception rate is sufficient to protect the systems. For a airbase, even with HASes with all the other soft elements around, you better built up a defense with 99% interception rate.
Irans mountain missile bases offer up to nuclear warhead protection of the systems and even 30% interception capability would be sufficient to enable employment of the arsenal.
One reason why Qaher-313 uses up position intakes is most likely that they don't expect intact runways in a war. So I hope the landing gear is sufficiently hardened to enable take of from dirtstrips/roads with massive FOD objects around. In Soviet frontline concept for the MiG-29, nobody believed that intact runways would be available too.

3: Iran does resource management. Only the most cost effective weapon systems are taken into consideration. If you want the development of a heavy 5 gen. fighter, I will say let's skip that luxury and use that money for missiles. My argument will win, at least the wisdom of Iranian military till now suggests that.

4: We talk about the future, a 5th gen. fighter program would be something of the future. In future a fleet of 100 B-1 (JASSM-ER wired), 20 B-2 (JASSM-ER wired), 75 B-52, 100 B-21 would launch a enormous first wave of 1000-1500km range VLO CM's. Calculate for yourself that kind of numbers they would be able to haul...
Iran prepares and has to prepare itself for such a massive force in near future.
How many TOR-M1 class systems you wan to build and deploy to protect you vital assets without the massive use of passive defense/hardening? You would be doomed in such a saturation scenario... Plus, nuclear weapon warfare remains on the table.



I really hope you all realize what kind of performance Iran has to deliver to counter such a massive superiority. Such a performance won't be delivered with a 5th gen. fighter program. It's the systems the IRGC-ASF is showing that can counter and deter the Americans in non-nuclear ways.
Expect 100.000 cruise missiles in the first days of a conflict, just to soften the situation for airpower deployment. This is our future scenario which Iran has to outperform with 1% of the enemies budget.

 

[pin gu]

فرمانده پایگاه هوایی شهید بابایی اصفهان از تست موفق تسلیحات جدید روی جنگنده

F-۷ خبر داد
به گزارش خبرگزاری تسنیم، امیر مسعود روزخوش فرمانده پایگاه هوایی شهید بابایی اصفهان از آزمایش موفق موشک‌ها و تسلیحات جدید روی جنگنده‌ F-7 خبر داد و افزود: بمب‌های مختلفی در حال آزمایش است.

فرمانده پایگاه هوایی شهید بابایی ادامه داد: قابلیت عملیات رزمی با هواپیماهای PC-7 ایجاد شده و مسلسل روی آن نصب و با موفقیت آزمایش شده است.

منبع: فارس

 

[VEVAK]

@VEVAK

1: Aircrafts are concentrated at airbases while ground based air defense can be anywhere and stored in tunnel bunkers. So yes, aircrafts are easier to take out than SAMs. The communication lines can have very small footprints for SAMs, mobile troposcatter systems for higher tier and LOS MW for lower are very difficult to detect. Plus aircraft also need data-links these days.

2: If you agree to use soft fighting elements, you have to defend against saturation attacks of JASSM like CMs. Or you don't agree to that game and secure you systems with passive defense, mountain bunkers.
If you add passive defense, the burden on the ground based IADS gets much lower. 80% interception rate is sufficient to protect the systems. For a airbase, even with HASes with all the other soft elements around, you better built up a defense with 99% interception rate.
Irans mountain missile bases offer up to nuclear warhead protection of the systems and even 30% interception capability would be sufficient to enable employment of the arsenal.
One reason why Qaher-313 uses up position intakes is most likely that they don't expect intact runways in a war. So I hope the landing gear is sufficiently hardened to enable take of from dirtstrips/roads with massive FOD objects around. In Soviet frontline concept for the MiG-29, nobody believed that intact runways would be available too.

3: Iran does resource management. Only the most cost effective weapon systems are taken into consideration. If you want the development of a heavy 5 gen. fighter, I will say let's skip that luxury and use that money for missiles. My argument will win, at least the wisdom of Iranian military till now suggests that.

4: We talk about the future, a 5th gen. fighter program would be something of the future. In future a fleet of 100 B-1 (JASSM-ER wired), 20 B-2 (JASSM-ER wired), 75 B-52, 100 B-21 would launch a enormous first wave of 1000-1500km range VLO CM's. Calculate for yourself that kind of numbers they would be able to haul...
Iran prepares and has to prepare itself for such a massive force in near future.
How many TOR-M1 class systems you wan to build and deploy to protect you vital assets without the massive use of passive defense/hardening? You would be doomed in such a saturation scenario... Plus, nuclear weapon warfare remains on the table.



I really hope you all realize what kind of performance Iran has to deliver to counter such a massive superiority. Such a performance won't be delivered with a 5th gen. fighter program. It's the systems the IRGC-ASF is showing that can counter and deter the Americans in non-nuclear ways.
Expect 100.000 cruise missiles in the first days of a conflict, just to soften the situation for airpower deployment. This is our future scenario which Iran has to outperform with 1% of the enemies budget.

1. Do you think Iran can't detect(Not target) Stealth Aircraft & Cruise missiles using Early Warning Systems before they can fly 100's of km into Iranian Air Space? If so & if you believe in Swarm attacks then the idea that SAM's are harder to destroy is a miss conception because a ready Air Force will scramble it's jet.
2. Any fixed (radar) based Sam like the Hawk, Sayad-1, SA-1, SA-2, SA-5 systems will have it's radars taken out. And long before they send in an Air Force they'll have cheap armed UAV's flying at high altitudes to clear a path searching for mobile radar systems & SAM's and in both cases finding Aircrafts with Air refueling capability that have scrambled into the Air is much harder to find
3. Would a country build a stronger & more protective bunker for a $100 Million USD Aircraft or a $5Million-$20 Million USD SAM Tel's? & Iran has such a limited number of S-300 that they'll likely be prime target number 1 in a US attack.
4.Any Aircraft or SAM Iran buys or builds HAS to be EMP shielded because even the US is not stupid enough to attack Iran without their use!

5.And this is the MOST important part requiring the Air Force to have R&D program that's required to design & build the most advanced fighter jet prototype within their capabilities every 2 years should be a minimum requirement. And the government just needs to provide or help them build the tools(like Vacuumed ovens of all sizes....) and materials (at least 40 tones of titanium every 2 years,...) and require their R&D team to design & build the most advanced Air Frame & Engine within their capabilities until they have something worth producing 10 years down the line. AND the most important part is the fact that this is NOT just about having an Air Force in fact the most important part is creating an intelligent & experience workforce that will later contribute to Iran's civilian sector or defense industry in various fields!

This is why the to 10 most advanced countries, who are the top 10 largest producers of the world also have the top 10 largest defense budgets (Except for Saudi Arabia that buy's it's weapons) Because there is a direct coloration between a countries defense budget & it's technological & production capability because most new technologies and achievements get either directly transferred to the civilian sector or indirectly via an experienced work force so it's NOT just about the Air Force having a bunch of new fighter Jets it's about advancing you countries capabilities and high tech workforce in various fields that will later contribute to the civilian sector

Providing the Air Force with 20tones of titanium a year & a few tools & requiring them to build the most advanced prototype within their capabilities every 2 years is not going to stop Iran from mass producing Missiles & UAVs

And honestly I would put 90% of the blame on Air Force commanders because they should have pushed the country towards Titanium production 20 years ago!

Iran's Air Force has not even built an Air Frame sufficient enough for there to be a real discussion about Missiles vs Fighter jets!

Look at what IRGC Aerospace Forces have done when it comes to Missiles and how Iran civilian Space Industry is starting to boom...
Look at what Iran's Navy has done in the past 2 decades and now Iran's Civilian Naval industry is starting to boom
All you have to do to truly comprehend it is look at the growth of facilities off Busher, Bandar Abbas, ISOICO, Bandar Anzali,... in the past 20 years!
Iran's Navy may not have the funding to build whatever it wants but the R&D they did and creating experience for their conscripts & full time personal in design & R&D created an experienced workforce who turned around and contributed to Iran's Civilian Sector which in many ways is still at it's infancy.

And this happened due to proper leadership! Iran's Navy & IRGC Aerospace forces understood and reacted to sanction as if they were at war & they understood that it may be a different type of war that they are fighting today but it is a war none the less and they responded accordingly same with Iran's Air Defense Force once they separated from the Air Force they didn't just site back and wait to be handed something

While Iran's Air Force stood back and complained about being handed equipment! Today the IRGC is more capable of building UAV's than Iran's Air Force so this is not about funding it's about proper leadership and lack of proper planning

U.S. built the F-14 in the late 60's at a time when industrial robots, computer aided precision guided cutting equipment, composite materials, 3D printers,.... didn't exist! So when Iran's Air Force was faced with sanctions they should have responded to that threat accordingly but they didn't and IRIAF hasn't built a prototype where I can sit here and argue for additional funding in fighter production over Iranian Built Missiles & UCAV

فرمانده پایگاه هوایی شهید بابایی اصفهان از تست موفق تسلیحات جدید روی جنگنده

F-۷ خبر داد
به گزارش خبرگزاری تسنیم، امیر مسعود روزخوش فرمانده پایگاه هوایی شهید بابایی اصفهان از آزمایش موفق موشک‌ها و تسلیحات جدید روی جنگنده‌ F-7 خبر داد و افزود: بمب‌های مختلفی در حال آزمایش است.

فرمانده پایگاه هوایی شهید بابایی ادامه داد: قابلیت عملیات رزمی با هواپیماهای PC-7 ایجاد شده و مسلسل روی آن نصب و با موفقیت آزمایش شده است.

منبع: فارس

This is a PC-7

So did they install weapons on both?

He also said Iran is building a new combat aircraft by upgrading the Saegheh which is absurd and nothing but a waist of TIME and Resources!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He should be fired or they should have someone like Shamkhani come in and start up a real R&D program

IRIAF clearly took no lesson from their experience in the Iran-Iraq war which clearly showed light fighters with no Air Refueling capabilities to be quite useless!!!!!!

F-5's small radars is less capable in range than IRST, Their engines and Air Frames are just too small & weak for Air-Air refueling
And I understand building the Azarakhsh & Saegheh for R&D purposes but not to move on to a bigger and better Airframe & engine and to spend funding & resources to produce that fighter is like shooting yourself in the foot because it terms of range it wont be able to fly 300km outside Iranian Airspace with a sufficient payload so your better off using Fatteh Class Missiles, UAV's, UCAV's & cheaper cruise missiles for attack missions!

In terms of Air to Air capabilities It's lack of IRST, sufficient thrust, maneuverability, sensor & targeting capability makes it useless in Air to Air operation!

And reducing the F-5's RCS by adding V shaped stabilizers doesn't make much sense when they are required to carry their weapons externally & the reason it makes sense on the F/A-18 is 1st you need 2 stabilizers for increased yaw to get precision landing on a moving Aircraft Carrier 2ndly it reduces the height of the stabilizers without loosing yaw power.
(Other reasons include lower RCS upon returning to the carrier reduces the chances for the enemy to approximate the location of the carrier group, increase drag & control at the tail helps with better control upon decent on a carrier also gives the aircraft higher angle of attack capability
So on a carrier the benefits out way cost of increased drag which leads to higher fuel consumption, reduced payload & reduced speeds.

But aside from R&D to put V shaped stabilizers on a F-5 that already has problems with Thrust, Speed, Range & Payload is absurd!
For a country the size of Iran to produce a fighter without Air refueling capability is absurd enough!

I think any IRIAF commander that doesn't develop a new fighter prototype & a new Jet engine prototype every 2 years should be fired!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And this guy wants a medal for putting a weapon on 50's era fighter! Even China started producing the J-7 in the 60's

SOMEONE FIRE THIS GUY!

 

[VEVAK]

The pic you posted actually has a turbofan in it,its on the left hand side with the inlet almost facing the camera,this is the soumar cruise missiles powerplant

It really isn't that much more difficult to build a Turbofan even if you wanna design your own but in Iran's case, Iran has had X-55 cruise missiles for years so reverse engineering them was just a matter of time but the cost to produce them will be higher because you'll need 2 axils with 2 turbines and you'll need stronger more expensive materials
Where as Iran's Tolue-4 only uses a single axil & a single turbine which makes it not only cheaper in terms of materials but also the time it take to assemble is shorter & they can get 770lbf out of it that's over 10% more power than a Tomahawk engine which should be able to carry more fuel with the same size warhead

OR you can go with a more innovative unconventional design which is what I think the U.S. has done with it's F-107 tomahawks engines!

Regardless, Iran's Tolue-4 should be very easy to mass produce for a more cost effective ~20ft long +1500km cruise missile for targets within ~1000km of Iranian boarders & the Soumar powered by a more powerful more expensive turbofan engine for longer ranged targets beyond 1000km of Iranian boarders.

You have to realize compared to the 80's, technology in battery power and consumption, memory storage, computer processing, INS, Avionic sensors, optics,.... have drastically reduced in size & increased in capability. Also, the use of composite materials allows you to use lighter & stronger airframes, fuel tanks,.... all this allows for more fuel to be carried

Iran has had the Russians X-55 R-95 turbofan engines to reverse engineer for decades so if anyone thinks Iran hasn't been able reverse engineer that engine is only fooling themselves but unless they make some major changes to Iran's version compared to the Russian version they have I don't believe Iran would want to advertise it and risk upsetting their Russian partners!

 

[PeeD]

@VEVAK

Some additional points:

- Most potent weapons in the world are ballistic missiles and submarines. The reason the Navy is now supportent is because Iran is ready to start a submarine program.

- The IRIAF gets no support and resources because they could convince nobody that they could actually build a fighter on their own. It's not due to titanium (one can do can everything titanium can with high strength super steel alloy for structural airframe elements), but because they can't build the most vital part of a aircraft, the engine. Nobody would believe them claiming that they could build a 2017 state of the art engine in 20 years from now. OTOH IRGC missile division and Navy build every bit of the vital parts on their own.

- Iran is just lucky that the US is a believer in airpower and hence would use JASSM-ER and CMs in future (against which economic interception is possible to some extent). The situation for Iran would be much worse if they would field an Iskander-M like TBM or better...

- Some countries built mountain tunnel air bases. Iran has not and it would be too expensive. There is not HAS in the world with protection levels even near to mountain tunnels. Chinese and North Koreans did it at times when their missile arsenal was not potent enough. A SAM truck can be just stored in a minimal wide mountain tunnel...


Now just one more: conventional airpower requires static bases, there is no room for static elements in high intensity saturation warfare. Irans missile bases are not bases with runways, outdoor maintain hangars, munition bunkers and fuel depots. They are just tunnels in massive rock in which the valuable missile arsenal is stored until a preemptive strike (nuclear or not) is fend off and its mobile low footprint missiles assets can be employed. This is very different from an airbase, and you can store everything in them, from mobile SAMs with radars to mobile BM and CM launchers etc.
There is just one thing that is static in Irans doctrine and this is the OTH radar. It is only expected to remain operational for the first hours of the conflict and provide the necessary early warning for that phase. So I would give my blessings if the at one time decide to build a mountain tunnel airbase close to that OTH radar, with several steel super concrete runways. If then a large portion of available defense systems would be located at that central point, it could remain operational for a few hours together with the OTH radar, after a few volleys of 1000+ simultaneous JASSM-ER and Tomahawk strikes are launched against them.
For a OTH radar, such central defense tactic might be worth it, but the mountain airbase would be much more expansive than a similar missile solution.