IRIAF | News and Discussions

[scimitar19]

if you want strong base for aviation and aeronautics industry you need one of these

 

[PeeD]

@VEVAK

Seem you post was lost, you just quoted last my post.

 

[VEVAK]

@VEVAK

More points:

- IRIAF needs a high budget to do R&D in critical subsystems, and if it is not given to them they can just do what they have done til today: R&D on less critical systems, radios, altimeter, pumps, PGMs, AAMs, landing gears etc.
Making a copy of the J79 as prototype is such a hard task that they just can't do it with the budget they have (nor would it make sense, the only engine in Iran that would be worth it is the RD-33 and the small RQ-170 engine).

- Chinese did not buy the Al-31 because it was cheaper but because their own WS-10 had a much lower TBO.
You said:
"Lets say a Q-313 at the end of the day comes out to only $10 Million USD (Airframe, Engine, Sensors... but not including spare parts, maintenance costs, pilot gear, weapons,...) will 8 of them be able to take on a single $80 Million USD Su-35?
NO!
Will it be cheaper to fuel 8 $10 Million USD fighter or 1 Su-35?
Well right, the Su-35 would be cheaper to fuel. But if the Q-313 could be operated from small airfields, highways and so on where the Su-35 could not with a similar support footprint, then that benefit get smaller.

Will it be cheaper to build bunkers for 8 Q-313 or 1 Su-35?
There is no aircraft bunker that could survive multiple hits by penetration payloads of CM's. The Q-313 could be simple and rugged (+ short take off capabilities) enough to operate from the many airfields and highways with a very small ground support footprint. So if you don't have mountain tunnel airbases, dispersing Q-313 with no physical protection but just camouflage would be the most survivable concept for them.

Will it be easier to train pilots on 8 Q-313's or 1 Su-35?
The Q-313 could have a very high degree of automation. Actually in my idea of a very low ground effect land operation of it would require it to fly most of the flight via autopilot, avoid dogfights and mainly use two long range AAM's. It would act like a flying SAM and the bombing operations would also be highly automatized. Even automatic take off and landing could be implemented. My concept for the Q-313 might be wrong but if not, training pilots for it would be very low cost.

Will it be cheaper and faster to maintain 8 Q-313 or 1 Su-35?
Possibly the 8 Q-313. You might know that a F-5 needed something like 4-5 times less man hours for maintenance and I think for the F-14 it was something like 8 times. Now the Q-313 does not use a after burner and operates closer to a nominal regime because it does no dogfights in my concept of it.
The Su-35 is not comparable to the over-complex F-14 but the Q-313 could also be much easier to maintain than the F-5. The rugged, simple concept I foresee for the Q-313 would require very low maintenance requirements so that it would have to be designed for that goal.

And most important will Iran be able to produce at such a high rate?
If it is designed to be simple and low cost with a restricted operation regime, they could produce it in quantities. This is not a JF-17 which is small and cheap, but want to compete and operate like a F-16. No. The Q-313 team would not be foolish enough to compete with eastern and westerns, well established conventional airpower concept. Something asymmetrical is the only possible answer. I'm happy that the Q-313 makes sense for such a novel operation doctrine. If Iran would build something like the JF-17, I would agree production numbers would never reach necessary levels.

And I can keep going on an on
You are welcome. I'm not a friend of conventional manned airpower for a country with the boundary conditions like Iran, but the Q-313 looks promising.




I think at the time of the Azarashkh the IRIAF still had a powerful lobbying power. However as a conventional concept would lead Iran nowhere, those supporters of it were retired and further fighter R&D was stopped. A very positive thing if you ask me.
Now the Q-313 is a mod initiative that might lead the IRIAF to be re-equipped with a fighter, a possibly very unconventional one.
We know that the old IRIAF cadre wanted next after the Ararashkh and the Saeqhe, a JF-17 like light fighter. If they would have been successful with it and if it would have entered production due to the IRIAF veterans influence, it would have negative impact on Irans warfighting capability.
We all respect the IRIAF and it's veterans, but doctrinal development is the job of scientists and engineers. Well possible that Iran would have been attacked long ago, if those science based decision making for a missile force instead of re-equipping the IRIAF after the war was not made.

Something else VEVAK:

Titanium is a good thing to have. However you can do EVERYTHING titanium does with super steel alloys.
Titanium has high tensile strength for its weight and super steel alloys have higher MPa ratings but at higher weight.
What you say was true for the 70's/80's and if available its still state of the art today. However it is absolutely no show stopper for IRIAF R&D.

I give you and example: Due to its properties, Soviets decided to build titanium hull submarines in the 70's and 80's at immense costs. Alfa class submarines and other "titaniums" are today seen as one of the reasons Soviet defense expenses exploded and ultimately lead to its bankruptcy.
Today Russians have moved back to use super steel alloys for the best submarines, because it meanwhile has similar mechanical properties as titanium for it higher weight. The same is true for airframe structural elements. If Iran has not mastered such super steel alloys (very likely), those airframe structural parts would weight 50-25% more than a comparable titanium structural part. This is certainly something but certainly not a show stopper for R&D.
Today going for steel superalloys with +1500MPa ratings is a way to skip titanium and make easier use of 3D production methods. Mastering it is equally difficult as mastering titanium.

Your views on the Air Force is extremely bleak & short sighted you see the Air Force as a burden the country has to endure because of the foreign oppressors while in reality a countries Air Force should be a beacon of innovation and progress whos workforce whether they be conscripts or full time personal get properly trained & get the experience required to contribute to various industries inside Iran
An aeronautical engineer that gets conscripted into the military should head straight into the Air forces R&D program & from there he gains limited experience to be recruited into civil or military (MOD) aerospace companies.

As for the J-79 today with computer aided designs capability & precision cutting capability & what is known about jet engines to reverse engineer & produce the J-79 would be absurd!
This is why if the IRIAF had a proper R&D program they could have upgraded various characteristics of the J-79 for at the least a better consumption ratio & greater air flow and at best added dry thrust
But yes reverse engineering the J-79 as oppose to the RD-33 wouldn't make much sense because the RD-33 not only has greater thrust and at the same time it's fuel consumption is ~15% better (Dry thrust)

2ndly when it comes to engines if you don't have access to materials you need your ability to play around with various designs especially when it comes to high heat resistant materials or compressors or fan blades that require a big chunk of titanium or other supper alloys is limited

And tensile strength is not the only characteristic in titanium's that makes it a requirement in Jet engines & Air Frames titanium also has high corrosion & high fatigue resistance characteristics & it's capable of keeping those characteristics while under heat created by fiction all at the same time and that's what makes it a super alloy or else tensile strength on it's own is just NOT enough
And for R&D purposes there is only so far you can go using other alloys and composites for an engine but for an Airframe and a concept design it is not a necessity

As for why the Chinese choose a Russian engines the MAIN reason is cost & by cost it's not just about what the engine costs it's about maintenance hours per flight hour, life expectancy, fuel consumption,.... you have to take into account all the costs not simply what the engine costs upon purchase which is the same mistake you & frankly Iran is doing with it's Q-313 & it's complete miss calculation in terms of cost vs benefit Iranian F-14 Airframes went through an 8 year long war and are still flying after 40 years which would not have been possible without titanium!

Finally when you wanna buy fighter for your Air force (whether they be foreign or domestic purchases) you have to analyze why it is that you need those fighters!
For a country like Iran we need Fighters in our Air Force to do specific things that can't be done with Missiles & UCAV's! And one of the MAIN things Fighters can do that UCAV's & Missiles can't do is carry a large +2000lb PGM & Air Launched Cruise Missiles which would be required to take out various heavily fortified bunkers, command centers, facilities,... to ships parked in the Indian Ocean

Do you think Iran is the only country that has thought about putting it's vital facilities both civilian & military under ground with reinforced concrete?
Do you think the U.S. would be deluded enough to start a war with Iran while their ships are in the Persian Gulf?

We also need Air Superiority fighters to do escort missions, interceptions & to work with Iran's Air Defense Force to counter incoming Aircrafts & due to the proliferation of low RCS aircraft having IRST & Aircrafts with radars that can differentiate a bird from a high moving aircraft at an optimal range should be a requirement

Also, due to Iran's size any fighter we purchase should have Air Refueling capability this is another thing that separates fighters from UAV's

Lack of situational awareness made Iranian F-5's easy targets in the Iran-Iraq war and it doesn't matter if a fighter is meant for a ground attack role or an Air Superiority role because even on a ground attack role you need to know what's out there so you know when to run

So my question is what exactly do think a Q-313 can accomplish that a UAV or a Fatteh class missile can't?

 

[PeeD]

@VEVAK

I try to be progressive and not bound to old concepts. In some sense your pro manned-airpower position is reflected in materials with you titanium argumentation. It's obsolete.. there are alternatives.

The Russians are now playing with the idea to introduce just small number of PAK-FA/Su-57 into service until their economical situation improves. However there are no limitations for S-400 and Yars missiles.
Russia represents eastern airpower tradition and wants to keep it but they know about its limited role in a high intensity conflict. Now Russsia has the worlds most potent strategic nuclear forces, what about Iran? How should Iran go for conventional airpower when Russia pays low attention?
The cost-effect calculation just doesn't fit.

Next, you have a simplistic view on how incredibly difficult it is to copy an turbine engine. Iran now seems to have managed to copy the J85, a incredibly simple design. To get a J79 copy working with all computer support would still be a huge task. The RD-33 is generations more advanced than the J79 and still competitive. Thats why there are rumors about a heavily upgraded J85, as J90 next and a RD-33 copy for a larger fighter than the Q-313. However because it would be a monumental task to copy the RD-33 with any useful TBO rating, I would stop such a project and put the huge professional workforce necessary into missile or UCAV projects. As a reminder, for the Chinese the lifetime of the WS-10 was too low and hence its TBO to replace the Al-31:
Engine building is the highest discipline in material science and among the top in engineering. Iran is doing it, but for more useful things like cruise missiles and in future for ~2ton payload jet UCAV (S-171).

Regarding titanium: the most advanced engines would neither use it for the compressors (Al hybrid alloys) nor for the fans (carbon fiber/Al), even not at all. Iran could try to go for those technologies superior to Ti. Those, plus super steel alloys with high yield strength would be one way to skip titanium for engines and structural parts of the airframe (rest of the airframe should be composites anyway).
Fatigue and corrosion resistance properties for such super alloys pose no obstacle.
Catching up is done by Chinese with their huge resources. For Iran catching up to Ti or F-14 is no option, only novel new an unconventional approaches have chances to beat the leaders.
Your insistence on manned airpower and is the same as on Ti: There are alternatives.

The job of the Q-313 would be the following:
- Operate in friendly or at best contested airspace (not even the F-22 is survivable in an opposing advanced IADS environment)
- Operate inside IADS to have GCI provided situational awareness via continuous data-link connection.
- Use GCI to act like a fast, flexible SAM site with BVR Fakkur-90 like long range AAMs. Fill up holes and after the high intensity phase, enter enemy airspace for bombing missions.
- Employ miniaturized sensor electronics to achieve own situational awareness, much higher than the crude F-5 sensors/electronics.
- Be located anywhere except the home airbases in order to survive the first attack and remain operable.
- Never fly too far, as there is no tanker support that has survived the high intensity phase.
- A fleet of 600-800 built in 5 years is needed

All that can also be done by a swarm UAV/UACV fleet, which also includes jet powered ones like a S-171 bomber for heavy hauls. The single benefit is the anti-air BVR engagements, where a manned aircraft is a good benefit.

The missile/UACV combination can hardy be beaten in the cost-effect calculation. The king in costs is just a missile force that has such a devastating capability, that no low intensity phase with ground warfare etc. is necessary because the enemy is ready to come to the table.

 

[AmirPatriot]

How should Iran go for conventional airpower when Russia pays low attention?

Unlike Russia, our missiles do not have thermonuclear warheads. They basically cannot use their ballistic missile force, even in a high intensity conflict, unless it is an existential threat. That's why their air force has thousands and thousands of aircraft.

 

[PeeD]

I said Russians are ready to limit procurement of the PAK-FA/Su-57, but make no compromises on S-400, Iskander-M, Kh-101, Yars, Bulava. The reason is that the Su-57 and hence conventional airpower has lower priority for them than those other weapon categories. The lesson is that Iran should spend its resources on similar missile weapons instead of Q-313 or even a F-14 copy.
Irans benefit is that through Israeli and U.S tech input on UAVs, it has made a jump start on those fields and can now also employ them. So UAVs come after the missile weapons and then a manned fighter like the Q-313 and only if it is really the revolutionary asymmetric concept which I think it may be.

Our BMs are available in thousands to be used against area targets, first and foremost enemy airbases.

Its our equivalent to Russians strategic nuclear forces. At a much smaller scale but sufficient to do the job.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Our BMs are available in thousands to be used against area targets, first and foremost enemy airbases.

But many countries use special runway penetrating bombs to make sure repairing is not a fast process. And hardened aircraft shelters are smaller, harder to hit targets.

 

[PDF]

Has Iran evaluated JF-17 Thunder? What are the disadvantages/advantages of it for IRIAF? Anybody with details? PS image:

 

[PeeD]

@AmirPatriot

Some time ago I did a numbers calculation on BMs vs. airbase here.
Airbases are so critical for enemy war efforts that literally spending hundreds of BMs is cost effective to be launched against them. There is no airbase 2000km around Iran that could survive a mach 3-4 impacting Qiam or Shahab-3 warhead, the overpressure/shockwave alone would do enormous damage, no ordinary bunkerbuster bomb can compete here.
A combination of cluster warheads and HE, possibly even airburst would cripple the base and its operations if lets say 500 missiles are launched against it. Statistically there would be penetrating hits on HAS too. There is also no anti-runway weapon that could compete with a BM HE/penetrating warhead.

This vulnerability, that exists at a lower level for aircraft carriers, is the reason why I'm not a friend of fighter based manned airpower. In the league of near-peer adversaries, conventional airbases are just too fragile.

I want to see the Q-313 with hardened landing gear, mobile support team (fuel/ammo), high no-maintenance-hours tolerance, its top-side air intake, possibly even jet-assisted take-off, operating from highways and countryside small airfields. This is the only feasible strategy for survivable manned airpower and in total not even a good solution.
A mountain superairbase... too expensive. Overall any conventional airpower solution has low bang-for-the-buck ratio.

 

[VEVAK]

@VEVAK

I try to be progressive and not bound to old concepts. In some sense your pro manned-airpower position is reflected in materials with you titanium argumentation. It's obsolete.. there are alternatives.

The Russians are now playing with the idea to introduce just small number of PAK-FA/Su-57 into service until their economical situation improves. However there are no limitations for S-400 and Yars missiles.
Russia represents eastern airpower tradition and wants to keep it but they know about its limited role in a high intensity conflict. Now Russsia has the worlds most potent strategic nuclear forces, what about Iran? How should Iran go for conventional airpower when Russia pays low attention?
The cost-effect calculation just doesn't fit.

Next, you have a simplistic view on how incredibly difficult it is to copy an turbine engine. Iran now seems to have managed to copy the J85, a incredibly simple design. To get a J79 copy working with all computer support would still be a huge task. The RD-33 is generations more advanced than the J79 and still competitive. Thats why there are rumors about a heavily upgraded J85, as J90 next and a RD-33 copy for a larger fighter than the Q-313. However because it would be a monumental task to copy the RD-33 with any useful TBO rating, I would stop such a project and put the huge professional workforce necessary into missile or UCAV projects. As a reminder, for the Chinese the lifetime of the WS-10 was too low and hence its TBO to replace the Al-31:
Engine building is the highest discipline in material science and among the top in engineering. Iran is doing it, but for more useful things like cruise missiles and in future for ~2ton payload jet UCAV (S-171).

Regarding titanium: the most advanced engines would neither use it for the compressors (Al hybrid alloys) nor for the fans (carbon fiber/Al), even not at all. Iran could try to go for those technologies superior to Ti. Those, plus super steel alloys with high yield strength would be one way to skip titanium for engines and structural parts of the airframe (rest of the airframe should be composites anyway).
Fatigue and corrosion resistance properties for such super alloys pose no obstacle.
Catching up is done by Chinese with their huge resources. For Iran catching up to Ti or F-14 is no option, only novel new an unconventional approaches have chances to beat the leaders.
Your insistence on manned airpower and is the same as on Ti: There are alternatives.

The job of the Q-313 would be the following:
- Operate in friendly or at best contested airspace (not even the F-22 is survivable in an opposing advanced IADS environment)
- Operate inside IADS to have GCI provided situational awareness via continuous data-link connection.
- Use GCI to act like a fast, flexible SAM site with BVR Fakkur-90 like long range AAMs. Fill up holes and after the high intensity phase, enter enemy airspace for bombing missions.
- Employ miniaturized sensor electronics to achieve own situational awareness, much higher than the crude F-5 sensors/electronics.
- Be located anywhere except the home airbases in order to survive the first attack and remain operable.
- Never fly too far, as there is no tanker support that has survived the high intensity phase.
- A fleet of 600-800 built in 5 years is needed

All that can also be done by a swarm UAV/UACV fleet, which also includes jet powered ones like a S-171 bomber for heavy hauls. The single benefit is the anti-air BVR engagements, where a manned aircraft is a good benefit.

The missile/UACV combination can hardy be beaten in the cost-effect calculation. The king in costs is just a missile force that has such a devastating capability, that no low intensity phase with ground warfare etc. is necessary because the enemy is ready to come to the table.

The Notion that Titanium is obsolete is absurd and today Aircraft Manufacturers may have reduced Titanium use compared to before on Subsonic Civilian Aircrafts to reduce weight & production cost but at the same time the structure of their aircraft is far weaker than before & for them that doesn't matter but for military applications it does!
And today you may be able to replace various parts and large parts of the outer surface with Kevlar, High Grade Fiberglass & Carbon Fibers but to completely replace titanium in a supersonic Aircraft is just not in the realms of reality & NO 5th Generation fighter has been able to accomplish this not the F-22 (which uses a lot of titanium) or the F-35 or the Su-Pak (25% of the entire Aircraft is titanium)
So countries far more advanced than Iran haven't been able to accomplish what your suggesting so your talking nonsense!

And your assumptions about Russian Aircraft Production would have made sense if the Russians weren't producing other Fighters for their Air Force but they are ! And the reasons why the Russians don't wanna take the Su-pak into mass production (25% titanium & 20% composites) is because:

1.Su-35's & MiG-35 in their own test have shown to be quite capable of taking on & surpassing F-35's & the Russians don't put much stock in reduced RCS via Radar deflection
2. U.S. has started working on 6th Generation fighters so starting mass production of the Pak-Fa is a bit premature until u have more intel on what is to come and for all we know the Russians have chosen to move on to a better design covertly or more likely are waiting on intel to improve on the PaK-Fa so it can compete with a 6th gen fighter before production.
Force multipliers are key in modern fighter jets & 6th Gen fighters will have 3 key characteristics that increases that capability 1.They'll be twin seat with the rear pilot controlling UCAV's 2.They will have advanced Laser Countermeasures that will be able to destroy incoming Air-Air missiles & SAM's of all kinds. 3. Greater payload capacity then 5th Gen fighters.
3.The U.S. only has 187 operational F-22's

As for Russian Fighter Purchases this is what's been going on in the past 3-4 years:
Russian Air Force has 3 Su-30s and 20 Su-30M2 (all delivered)[65] and 74 Su-30SM fighters as of July 2017 with 8 delivered to Russian Knights aerobatic team.[66][67][68][69][70][71][72] An order for 28 Su-30SM fighters in April 2016 is to increase the total to 88 of the variant, with deliveries to be completed by 2018.[73]
Russian Naval Aviation - 28 Su-30SMs on order,[74] with 50 planned. 17 aircraft were delivered as of late May 2017.[75]

Russian Air Force — 58 Su-35S fighters in inventory as of December 2016.[2][132] 50 ordered in January 2016.[65]
Russian Air Force – 30 MiG-35's on order, 170 planned.
16 MiG-29SMT delivered in 2016
As for the MiG-31 they are modernizing them 152-190 (MiG-31/B/BM) active,[26][89] +18 BMs in 2014,[90] 80 totally (2016) and 6 more in 2017,[91][92] 100 units in mod. BM on 2018[93] 110+ modernized MiG-31BM and MiG-31BSM as of August 2017. Modernization of another MiG-31B/BS/DZ will be continued

100 Su-34 have been built for their Air Force in the past decade


So I would suggest you 1st research what it is your talking about before making deluded statements & the Russian have added far more Aircrafts then S-400 systems & don't confuse an entire system with Launchers

FYI Air Defense systems loose over 50% of their effectiveness & survivability when they are not backed by and working along side an Air Force!

As for the reason why Iran is building the J-85 it's because it requires a much smaller chunk of Titanium to cut from

Iran has already made the decision for Titanium Production & If Ti was so easily replaceable they wouldn't have made that decision
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/09/17/485086/Iran-minerals-titanium-production-investment

whether you wanna accept it or not Ti is irreplaceable that's why Iran is investing in it's production now one of the MAJOR problems with titanium is waist & Aircraft Airframe and engine manufactures are the largest producers of titanium scraps for example if a Pak-Fa uses only 25% Ti using conventional cutting methods they would still need at a minimum 20tonnes of Ti or more to build 18,000kg Aircraft so the biggest problem with Ti is waist so the real way to go around that is by Titanium 3D printing + Titanium Casting (F-22 except for specific areas of the Airframe, most of the Ti used in the F-22 was done though Ti casting which wont be as strong as conventional methods but good enough especially when combined with composites)

This is Ti casting

FYI if Ti was so easily replaceable no one would have bothered with creating new Ti 3D printing & new Casting methods

So once Ti production is in full scale mode Iran could potentially build 50 Fighters a year using 1000-2000 tonnes of Ti with engine and all

As for the F-14 the F-14 Ti was forged with cutting methods & I have no doubt that if Iran had a proper R&D program they could potentially building something more similar to the F-22 in terms Airframe using more economical & much faster casting methods! So no I wouldn't pick the F-14 to reverse engineer


I'll get to the Q-313 a later gtg

 

[PeeD]

@VEVAK


With obsolete I didn't mean titanium but this argumentation of you that Ti is without alternatives.
You claim again and again that the lack of Ti is one main reason the IRIAF was not able to do R&D...

I'm not saying that Ti is bad, I just say the lack of it is no show stopper.

Your information is outdated. I told you about the alternatives available today.

Now, if you have a already existing Ti supply line, tools and vast experience, industry/companies you will keep it and use it. No need to go for steel super alloys or carbon fiber, as Ti is still competitive. I just told you that meanwhile there are alternatives which would potentially have only a acceptable performance penalty.
So no, the lack of Ti is not the reason why the IRIAF R&D didn't go beyond the Saeghe, that's the point.

Let me repeat myself: Today it is possible to develop state of the art fighters and engines without any use of Ti.


Your idea that Russians not want to start high number production of the Pak Fa because they await U.S 6th gen fighter is wrong.
Agreed the Su-35 is potent enough for F-22/35. But why should the Russians not acquire as much Pak Fa they can? If 5th gen. fighter are so detrimental for war fighting capability, they should reduce production of Iskander-M and S-400, put the resources on Pak Fa production.
They don't because neither Su-35 nor Su-57 has a higher priority for them as Iskander and S-400. Irans stance to weapon class priority should be going in the same direction and it does.

FYI Air Defense systems loose over 50% of their effectiveness & survivability when they are not backed by and working along side an Air Force!

How so?

 

[drmeson]

1st IRIAF having an R&D program has nothing to do with fighter production! Now how large your R&D program is can be debated but IRIAF having an R&D programs in various fields is a necessity not a luxury

I am sorry but where is that R&D program supposed to come from when budget itself would not even allow it to pickup. Military generals and engineers working in workshops are not supposed to invent something. This job is for designated scientists, a team which is paid for research, they have leverages, labs, resources, money. Are we supposed to believe that abominations like Saeghe and Qaher came from such teams ? obviously no. I would go on and say that R&D culture never actually got developed in IRIAF because big wigs from govt. never allowed it.

Besides, even for sake of argument if I accept that IRIAF should have had an IRIAF program despite its midget budgets ... then what was Shafagh for ? a credible project with indigenous design, foreign collaboration, actual procurement plans for engines and radars. Why did it never fly ? instead of tail re-welded F-5E/F and mockups of Qaher.

2ndly Your talking about production of avionics, radars,.... and the parts required in a 4th gen fighter while I'm strictly talking about R&D. For the IRIAF to allocate ~2% of if human resources towards R&D should be the minimum requirement so if you have 25,000 personal at least 500 should be for R&D broken down into 10 teams of 50 personal
1.Team on Air Frame
2.Propulsion
3.Electronics Sensors, INS & cockpit electronics & displays
4.Metelergy, Composites....
5.Weapons & Weapons systems.
6.Radar & IRST
7.Flight control & Avionics (Fly by wire, Throttle, Hydraulics, electric pumps.....)
8.Pilot Gear & Survival
9.Communication Data link,....
10. Tools,.... cutting, welding, titanium casting, 3D printing, mass production concepts, vacuums,....
I would also have separate teams working on Lasers, Optics, Countermeasures, RCS & a few other things

IRIAF is not going to break if 500-700 of it's current personal strictly do R&D & IRIAF has more facilities than they know what to do with that just leaves materials & a limited number of tools & that's not too much to ask for an Air Force that hasn't purchased a fighter in 30 years

Now Titanium is one of the top 10 most abundant minerals in the world but to turn it into an alloy is expensive and you require a more rare mineral called magnesium which by the way the top producers of this alloy today are China, U.S., Russia, Israel,... & 2 years ago Iran started magnesium production & it seems we have such an abundance that they starting exporting it
And very soon titanium production facilities will also go operational

So overall it's absurd to think that Iran can't afford to give IRIAF enough raw martials to develop a new fighter prototype every 2 years

the problem with your post is that you are somehow avoiding the fact that IRIAF engineering teams have zero exposure to the modern technology, they dont go out to some fighter producing country for training, there may be minor level visits etc but they get no proper foreign education, there is zero collaboration with anyone. Even if IRIAF gets its own 200-300 engineers, scientists dedicated to work on some project I believe they will not be able to yield out anything above a 3rd generation light fighter like F-5II ... as a matter of fact we already have Saeghe example, if you read about where this program started from, they initially wanted a domestically made 4.0 F-5 II derivative with Russian armaments and avionics, basically a russian F-20 Tigershark and they ended up 12 years later welding additional tails on retired F-5E and F air-frames. Even the minimal changes they did on air-intakes of earliest prototype was proven to be a technical failure because of shock specification, they had to revert back to D shaped traditional design.... and we expect them to build turbofans and AESA radars, Maws, RWR, jamming pods ?

These people can not do anything because they are not getting exposure, education and money. I personally believe that if Iran ever gets a domestic fighter jet and it needs to be an indigenous design, they will have to have massive foreign involvement. Either choose Russian or Chinese turbofans, radars, avionics and armaments suite and design a light fighter jet based upon it which is not practical and risky ... or... pickup a cancelled project from these countries (Mig LFI-MATF or original Mig-33) and start investing in it to adapt the design into domestic production. Problem with such approaches is that the day such 4th generation fighter jet will roll out of factories ... it will already be obsolete. Thats the dilemma that our decision makers never realized.

Only way out of this mess for IRIAF is to somehow buy 7-8 squadrons of a 4+ MRCA from Russia or China to put some level fight even against regional foes in air. Our current Shahi AF cant do that. In 3-4 years they will just be rust buckets. Meanwhile, somehow start focusing on 4++ or early 5th generation. Start sending teams for training outside, get ppl educated, technicians trained, work on projects, then you will get a generation ready to start such projects at home. Only if diplomatic front doesnt fail ... and there is proper will in govt.

Has Iran evaluated JF-17 Thunder? What are the disadvantages/advantages of it for IRIAF? Anybody with details? PS image:

It could have been replacement for F-5E/F fleet.

May be if a TOT on a very modernized version is offered then it can be a good option for IRIAF. AESA+HMS and armed with RVV-MD and SD will pack a good punch if supported by AWACS.

If rumors are to be believed than China may offer FC-20C and JH-7 to IRIAF (Hope its TOT for FC-20).

IRIAF actually needs larger MRCA in higher numbers, we have a large area to cover.

 

[Blue In Green]

@VEVAK


With obsolete I didn't mean titanium but this argumentation of you that Ti is without alternatives.
You claim again and again that the lack of Ti is one main reason the IRIAF was not able to do R&D...

I'm not saying that Ti is bad, I just say the lack of it is no show stopper.

Your information is outdated. I told you about the alternatives available today.

Now, if you have a already existing Ti supply line, tools and vast experience, industry/companies you will keep it and use it. No need to go for steel super alloys or carbon fiber, as Ti is still competitive. I just told you that meanwhile there are alternatives which would potentially have only a acceptable performance penalty.
So no, the lack of Ti is not the reason why the IRIAF R&D didn't go beyond the Saeghe, that's the point.

Let me repeat myself: Today it is possible to develop state of the art fighters and engines without any use of Ti.


Your idea that Russians not want to start high number production of the Pak Fa because they await U.S 6th gen fighter is wrong.
Agreed the Su-35 is potent enough for F-22/35. But why should the Russians not acquire as much Pak Fa they can? If 5th gen. fighter are so detrimental for war fighting capability, they should reduce production of Iskander-M and S-400, put the resources on Pak Fa production.
They don't because neither Su-35 nor Su-57 has a higher priority for them as Iskander and S-400. Irans stance to weapon class priority should be going in the same direction and it does.



How so?

How bad is the situation for Iran currently?

Can Iran truly rely on missiles alone in a war time scenario?

 

[drmeson]

How bad is the situation for Iran currently?

Can Iran truly rely on missiles alone in a war time scenario?

It should be a combination of both.

Accuracy and payload favors air power massively. We saw that recently when 6 BM strikes with a fairly accurate CEP of 30-50 m probably achieved what single sortie by 2-3 attack MRCA's would have achieved far more destructively. Same fighters can also defend your airspace, BMs cant do that.

Future wars that Iran will fight wont be massive air battles or dogfights, IRIAF would need long range MRCA's to launch attacks inside Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and also fly armed petrols over Persian Gulf. All that with a very credible interception capability.

One BM can provide you a warhead of 750-1000 kgs ... Iranian SRBM's and MRBMs can achieve a practical CEP of 30-150 m. A single 4+ MRCA can lift as much as 8 times of that warhead which can be dropped with far more accuracy and at multiple targets, same vehicle can come back and fly again with 8 AAM's to provide aircover.

I am not biased towards any one kind of weapon, Iran should build up IRIAF with MRCAs and keep developing MRBM GRV's with CBRN warheads. Remember we are responsible for our allies too now.

 

[PDF]

It could have been replacement for F-5E/F fleet.

May be if a TOT on a very modernized version is offered then it can be a good option for IRIAF. AESA+HMS and armed with RVV-MD and SD will pack a good punch if supported by AWACS.

If rumors are to be believed than China may offer FC-20C and JH-7 to IRIAF (Hope its TOT for FC-20).

IRIAF actually needs larger MRCA in higher numbers, we have a large area to cover.

If the requirement is in high numbers, we are open for ToT negotiation. FC-1,FC-20 or JH-7 all are capable aircraft And with good relations with China, you can hope to get trouble free fighter jet from sanctions etc with good supply chain management. Block III of JF-17 is reported to have all the above said specifications along with in flight air fueling capability. JF-17 along with the aerial threat also brings destruction to terrorists. It has successfully participated and even now continuing to target terrorists under Pakistan operations to wipe out terrorism.

Can anybody give a detail prospects of the fighter jets that should be looked into for IRIAF?