IRIAF | News and Discussions

[Stryker1982]

Ramjet. Iran hasn't developed a reliable ramjet yet.

all irans anti-ship missiles are subsonic, which is kind of a problem in terms of probability of defeating enemy systems

 

[Parsipride]

@BlueInGreen2

Iran knows that no Su-30 would be able to enter contested airspace or even enemy IADS and take out a defended high value target (and come back). The only thing that could carry out such a operation without being killed on its way are BMs and below it CMs.

All possible enemies have selected manned airpower as main warfare tool. Good for us because all their airbases (area targets) will be such high priority targets which will be instantly neutralized.

The cultural influence of American airpower (VEVAK) and Russian airpower (drmeson), built up from childhood have created a distorted mindset for them. I was also a fan of manned airpower before I recently realized, due to sober thinking and listening to some experts, that it is overrated.

Irans BM and CM deterrence is capable to create such devastating effect on enemy warfighting capability, not to talk about industry and cities, that they will come to the negotiation table very fast.
In the case they don't, airpower becomes useful, not manned conventional but unmanned asymmetric one. Combined with armored ground forces, it is the most cost effective way to force a enemy to submission.

I talk about novel warfare methods; a fleet of small cheap/expandable unmanned UACVs with 4 Sadid bombs and 24 hours loitering time. Any enemy that pops up would get a Sadid PGM because a UACV would be just 5km away on loitering station (the rest is done by the ground forces).
I also would like to see a RQ-170 bomber variant with 6x Mk82 dumb bombs, launched from 20k feet alt, unguided, but via a SVP-24 gefest like automatic ballistic system. In that way even the low numbers of hardened static targets would be neutralized without the cost of PGM use.
For all that we need prices in the following range:

-Expandable flying-wing propeller UACV (24 hours endurance with 4 Sadid) = 100k $ (3000 necessary)

- RQ-170 bomber with reduced stealth capability for better cost and wide field optics/SAR/MTI (8 hours/1500km operation radius, 6 unguided Mk.82) = 3m $ (200 necessary)

- Karrar MBT = 200k $ (3000 neccessary)

These are roughly the prices necessary to win against a much superior force if it is stubborn enough to not agree for a ceasefire to our conditions after the BM/CM phase.

Now everyone is free to judge what added value a 8m $ Qaher could provide or a 60m$ Su-30SM.
There is no space for a 60m $ conventional heavy fighter in a asymmetric force structure we see developing in Iran.

Your whole analysis is a wet dream. What makes you think that the Americans going to sit idle? They have already shown they can sabotage NK missile launches.

We had plenty of opportunities to neutralize the Wahabis in Syria . That did not happen. The tide of the war changed when the Russian Air power started to decimate ISIS.

 

[PeeD]

@AmirPatriot

1. The same principle follows. How many BMs do you need to be sure of getting a direct hit on a HAS? 3? 4? 5? Assuming 30/50 metre CEP, At least 3 and probably 4 would be a good number. But then you have to fire 1200 missiles just for HAS.

Basically the oldest Shahab series are fired continuously and randomly on the base. If the numbers are high enough, they reach a level that statistically also hardened objects will be hit. Whether all HASes are neutralized or not is then not the question anymore, they may or may not. You could try to target each HAS individually with a more advanced BM, but if your goal is really to destroy all HASes, send several CM's with penetration warheads against them.
The real goal of BMs is to suppress the airpower capability sufficiently that it can be handled, sufficiently that CMs can be used with higher survivebility, sufficiently that a RQ-170 bomber can take over that tast.
However at the moment it seems Iran wants to move to a more efficient point target approach instead of area target and upgrade its missile arsenal accordingly.

2. And since you advocate basically no offensive air force capability, you still need thousands more missiles to hit actual runways, command posts, air defence sites, EW radars, ports, oil production/refinery... I'd love it for Iran to have a million missiles but unfortunately, unlike aircraft, using BMs to hit absolutely everything is not financially feasible.

As said, its currently not about HAS or runway, but airbase, a area target. Air defense and EW radars as point targets that first need reconnaissance and then are either targeted by Hormuz like BMs or CMs or an expensive new Sedjil/Zolfaghar variant with terminal radar/IIR guidance. For communication and radars that are closer, Iran uses suicide drones.
Once the intensity of the conflict reduces, so that airpower can be employed for those targets --> UACV.

3. The accurate missiles that Iran would use against a regional enemy are the Fateh class of missiles, with 650 kg or 750 kg warheads. Iran's liquid fuelled missiles with the 1 ton payload are nowhere near accurate enough.

Iran has area target weapons: Shahab and Ghadr series and very small area targets like Fateh and Zolfaghar. Once they get some sort of terminal guidance like the Khalij e Fars ASBM, they can try to hit point targets.

Which would be really bad against runways. Cluster bombs are small and the holes are easy to patch.

The numbers do it, many small craters. Cluster warheads are today the main anti-runway weapon, the U.S uses it too.
In Irans case we talk about one cluster warhead BM every 20-30 minutes or less. Figure what a mess it would create in that airbase and the ongoing repair operations. It has a terror effect on the morale.
This is the price you have to pay for operating a static area target.
I would even equip all legacy Shahabs with cluster warheads and stop the use of HE warheads, in that way the intervals of cluster warhead attacks could be reduced significantly. HASes would then survive probably but air operations would be suppressed to a high degree and none of their ABM systems would have any effect.

The question remains. Will they just create a big hole that can be filled with asphalt, or will they cause damage that is difficult to fix, like dislodging concrete slabs?

Should the damage of a mach 3 impact be insufficient, they could develop a durandal submunition. But seems to be sufficient because they haven't.

Moreover, since you don't want an offensive air force capability, you do realise that you will have to keep sending hundreds of BMs to keep those runways down? 1 strike is not enough. It can be repaired. You need persistence.

Once the enemy airbase operations --> its airpower, are suppressed, the high intensity phase is over. In low intensity phase, the existing IRIAF fleet and a future UACV fleet would do what you called persistence.

So $1.13 million. With no export. Now unless Uralvagonzavod, which is a public limited company, is charging a nearly 600% profit margin... a Karrar is going to cost Iran more than $200 k. Certainly it will cost more than what Russia is making.

Those T-90's had a French TI sight system which probably costed several 100k $. Even the T-90SM shown in 2012 had some subsystems that were very expensive. With matured technology of 2017, many costs can be decreased in the electronics/computer and sensor field.
Iran is quite smart on that, it always starts a production line of something if all subsystems have reached a matured price. Russians back in the 2000s had all, except for a potent cost-effective TI sight, but still started production.
I did a cost breakdown, if it is not reasonable, criticize it.

PS: 4m for Leo2 A5.
Plus another info: A safir jeep costs 6-7$ while a unarmored humvee costs at least 60-70k$. Price differences of magnitudes are possible and the only solution against a massive overpower.

 

[AmirPatriot]

if your goal is really to destroy all HASes, send several CM's with penetration warheads against them.

You already said this:

Iran would not use CMs for HASes

So would Iran use CMs for HASes or not?

As said, its currently not about HAS or runway, but airbase, a area target

And an airbase has critical parts. Namely the Runway, hardened aircraft shelters, and support buildings.

The HASes are small, the runway is narrow, and the support buildings are quite small too.

If you hit an empty patch of sand within the perimeter of the airbase, yes you've attacked the area of the airbase but you haven't actually achieved anything.

In Irans case we talk about one cluster warhead BM every 20-30 minutes or less.

So that's 48+ BMs per minute, nearly 1500 per month. Just on runways. And you have to replace them.

You are advocating using missiles for both the opening high intensity phase, and the ensuing lower intensity phase. This does not make financial or logistical sense.

It's like comparing rocket artillery with gun artillery - rocket artillery will give you a short, powerful barrage. But gun artillery will grant constant firepower. You need both. Rockets to first paralyse an enemy, then keep them down.

I don't even think within your limited air force idea of flying wing tactical bombers there is sufficient return. 2 ton payload like with the F-117 is for limited strikes of high value targets. A bigger aircraft with at least double the payload is required for heavier bombardment, IMHO.

Should the damage of a mach 3 impact be insufficient, they could develop a durandal submunition.

And what to drop it from?

But seems to be sufficient because they haven't.

Or Iran has a gap in its capability.

Those T-90's had a French TI sight system which probably costed several 100k $

I can't find the price of the Thales sight so for now I'll leave it, but really, "probably" isn't enough. We need a better estimation.

A safir jeep costs 6-7$

What?

 

[PeeD]

@AmirPatriot

You already said this:

So would Iran use CMs for HASes or not?

I would not waste my time on HASes and only destroy them when airbase operations are suppressed when the low intensity phase has started. But should it be necessary, CMs are the tools for it.

And an airbase has critical parts. Namely the Runway, hardened aircraft shelters, and support buildings.

The HASes are small, the runway is narrow, and the support buildings are quite small too.

If you hit an empty patch of sand within the perimeter of the airbase, yes you've attacked the area of the airbase but you haven't actually achieved anything.

In such an area target attack you don't attack specific objects like runways etc. your CEP gives you a "somewhere around the base" accuracy. 100 submunitions are released at 200km altitude, outside the atmosphere and just randomly impact the airbase, no ABM defense possible.
I advocate a cluster-only BM attack every 5 minutes for two days (60.000 submunitions total..)... the results on runways and everything else would be devastating and the base operations suppressed. After that any S-171 bomber with just 4 Mk.82 (on the same spot) would be able to cripple any known HAS in the region and whats inside it.

You are advocating using missiles for both the opening high intensity phase, and the ensuing lower intensity phase. This does not make financial or logistical sense.

I want missile warfare in the high intensity phase and UAV airpower for the low intensity phase that would finish up whats remaining, HASes etc, at lower cost.

I don't even think within your limited air force idea of flying wing tactical bombers there is sufficient return. 2 ton payload like with the F-117 is for limited strikes of high value targets. A bigger aircraft with at least double the payload is required for heavier bombardment, IMHO.

If you really want heavy bombardment, use the old IRIAF fleet as bomb trucks if they survive the high intensity phase. When they face no opposition from enemy fighters, any old F-4 or Su-22 will do the job.
I want novel approaches, like Sadid airstrikes by loitering UACV swarms.

And what to drop it from?

BMs, submuntions of BMs..

Or Iran has a gap in its capability.

They are smarter than you and me combined, be sure about that.

I can't find the price of the Thales sight so for now I'll leave it, but really, "probably" isn't enough. We need a better estimation.

A worldclass MBT more expensive than 500k $ makes no sense for Iran. Turks are now waiting for the first 20 Altai MBT in 2022... Such approaches make no sense for Iran.

What?

I knew you would be shocked to hear that. Yes you get 10 7k$ Safir jeeps for one unarmored humvee, doing the same job effectively.
That's how it is and you would be probably shocked to if you knew how much Iranian BMs cost each.
Prices are a internal thing, if modern tanks cost 5m $ on the world market, it says absolutely nothing about Irans internal prices.

 

[AmirPatriot]

100 submunitions are released at 200km altitude, outside the atmosphere and just randomly impact the airbase, no ABM defense possible.

I doubt the number of submunitions hitting even the perimeter of the airbase would be in the double (if any) digits from that high of an altitude. That's space.

I advocate a cluster-only BM attack every 5 minutes for two days (60.000 submunitions total..)

So about 300 BMs per airbase, in 2 days. Using a month as a standard time-frame, the other 28 days would have missiles raining down at what you said earlier every 20-30 minutes.

If you really want heavy bombardment, use the old IRIAF fleet as bomb trucks if they survive the high intensity phase.

That is, if it is still flyable. And even then, it is vulnerable to lingering enemy AD/AF activity.

I really want to dispel this idea that air forces are useless in a high intensity environment.

First of all, our only enemy isn't the US. In fact, I'd wager we are more likely to have a war with the Saudis than the US. The Saudis do not have LACMs, resorting to air based CMs that have a shorter range than the Tomahawks. But, and this is critical, their Storm Shadows have a longer range than even our S-200s. We cannot allow even our regional adversaries to have such a great advantage over us. They are not the USA, and we should not allow them to have similar advantages over us. Funnily enough, the "shoot the archer" concept is what much of the F-14's capability was built around. A long term replacement with similar range is required. If we cannot shoot their archers from the ground, we must do it in the air.

Aircraft survivability improvement is not an impossible science. Obviously one would make sure aircraft are more active and in the air in high tension, so they cannot be grounded. Moreover, if the airbase is inoperable, there can be other landing areas used. One would be airfields further away from the combat area, which may not be affected if the enemy does not have sufficient ranged capability. Another one would be the use of roads and highways for landing and limited servicing. A technique made famous by the Fins and Swedes.

BMs, submuntions of BMs..

I don't think a Durandal like warhead can be fitted to a Mach 3 BM. The impact energy would likely inhibit such precise warhead mechanisms.

They are smarter than you and me combined, be sure about that.

That doesn't mean that Iran as a country doesn't have gaps in its technical, financial or logistical capabilities.

I knew you would be shocked to hear that. Yes you get 10 7k$ Safir jeeps for one unarmored humvee, doing the same job effectively.

I was shocked to hear $5-7, not $7,000.

 

[Sina-1]

Awsome discussion!

 

[Cthulhu]

I really want to dispel this idea that air forces are useless in a high intensity environment.

The idea that "Air force is bad, useless, and waste of money. We can do whatever we want with missiles." became popular thanks to mental diarrhea of sites like mashreghnews.ir & farsnews.ir and their "experts". After reading some of their articles (mental diarrhea), One will be convinced that missiles can do the role of air force with more efficiency and at a lesser cost.

 

[PeeD]

@AmirPatriot

I doubt the number of submunitions hitting even the perimeter of the airbase would be in the double (if any) digits from that high of an altitude. That's space.

If the submunition warhead is designed correctly for it that altitude and space environment, its no technical obstacle.

So about 300 BMs per airbase, in 2 days. Using a month as a standard time-frame, the other 28 days would have missiles raining down at what you said earlier every 20-30 minutes.

You misunderstand. The two days "orbital" bombardment should sufficiently degrade the airbase capability. The rest is low intensity warfare.

Aircraft survivability improvement is not an impossible science.

I described that in my last posts for the Qaher. It's possible, more so if you aircraft is specially designed for low footprint maintenance and supply chain.
If you want to operate Su-30 in such a way, it will be very inefficient and needs very well trained crews. I hope the IRIAF knows that such operation is the only way it can survive a high intensity war.

I don't think a Durandal like warhead can be fitted to a Mach 3 BM. The impact energy would likely inhibit such precise warhead mechanisms.

With parachute retardation its possible. But normal cluster warheads seems to be their solution.

In total, Russians are using a maintenance heavy swing wing low level interdictor to bomb enemies without +5km alt airdefense capability. They do this with heavy bombs.
People think this is the way to do it and Iran lacks it. The truth is; it is a quite inefficient, old way to project airpower.
A UACV concept with low maintenance, low airframe cost, low fuel consumption, miniaturized weapons and most importantly long loitering time over the target would be much superior and efficient.
I want this to be used against a BM crippled enemy, not something outdated and inefficient.

A fighter-bomber is designed to fight a high intensity war, the Su-24 is not designed for the bombtruck task in Syria, thats a waste. There is no need for that capability in Iran, we have better systems. What is needed is something that is designed for low intensity warfare-only and has max. efficiency while doing it.

PS: Saudi air launched CMs of their first wave are few enough for Irans IADS and they will just have that first wave.

 

[SubWater]

Thanks to @PeeD and @VEVAK for their constructive conversation.
hopefully our defense decision maker are smart enough to don't follow western and eastern doctrine of defense.
we should first know our grands and goals and then create air force base on that.
Peed is right about mobility and minimizity of new generation of weapons and we can not trust big and static weapons in wars more.

big airplanes like Su35 and F22 and ... need static infrastructure to support them and protecting these infrastructures is impossible, so the only choice is mobile and low maintenance air force and we are going already toward that direction with drones like Saeghe which use launchers to take off and parachutes for landing also our future manned jet should be able to take of and landing outside of airports and be low maintenance.

absolutely, at these situation we would have weaker air force in compare of our enemy but we would have more reliability and survivability in the air.
mobile cruise and ballistic launchers are very hard to target as well as our mobile air defense force which support our weaker air force.

at end I like remember you guys 1939 when weaker and smaller German army finished more modern and bigger French army and that happened b/c weaker and smaller German army could do what french army unable to do.

 

[VEVAK]

@VEVAK

Ti aside. The IRIAF could have gone for R&D on larger fighters after the Saeghe without Ti and something like a RD-33 copy also without Ti. They didn't and to me it looks like they were not given a go ahead from upper tiers. We even know their next project, a JF-17 like fighter, a step higher than the F-5.
Every fundamental technology was available to start that R&D project but from 2005 onward IRIAF R&D on such scale was stopped. Today they have, together with the MOD, created the Kowsar and many primary avionic subsystems that could be used in a future F-313. Gathering avionic subsystems is quite important. For me a good decision to not go for the next step, that JF-17 like fighter because it would likely have taken more than a decade for the IRIAF R&D to come up with a prototype.

You correctly said that nickel super alloys are the real critical material for any R&D on engines necessary for fighters. But I have a good news for you, MAPNA is the main force in that field for Iran, no need for IRIAF R&D.
They are so advanced in that field that without announcement, they certainly produce single crystal turbineblades.

So we have neither a problem when hot turbine parts are necessary for engine R&D, nor are we forced to use Ti in engines and airframes. On that I have another good news from another field: Irans uranium centrifuges use steel superalloys for some critical parts and high grade carbon fiber for the rotors.
Ti is available anyway via the Chinese.

Metallurgy and materials are incredibly important and hard to master, we need at least several hundred experts for that field. I bet, or rather hope that the IRGC-ASF would go directly to MAPNA for nickle base alloys and to the centrifuge department for marraging steels if they want to copy the RQ-170 powerplant.

On the Qaher:
If your airpower can survive the high intensity phase of a conflict and actively fight in it, then airpower has a degree of flexibility that is very much desired.
I painted a scenario in which the F-313 is such a low maintenance design, with such a small logistical footprint and rugged operation regime that it would have the necessary survivability, distributed around the country and camouflaged.
This is the basis for manned airpower in Iran and if Q-313 are operational within the high intensity phase their flexibility and situational awareness can be used. When is it superior to a similar UACV?
In air to air combat, foremost BVR. A unmanned S-171 bomber can always attack its target even without communication link on a pre-programmed course. A pilot can acquire the target, decide and shot with no communications working.
The mobility of a aircraft is uncontested, with two Fakkur-90 (pop-up --> shoot --> dive and run) the F-313 is a fast and flexible "SAM site" and with bombs it can attack targets of opportunity. If IADS has problems to do the task with SAMs, a F-313 is guided via a short communication contact to the coarse airspace where the enemy aircraft should roughly operate, and the F-313 will switch on its own small 100km range AESA to find the target and attack it with all its AAMs and disappear via terrain masking (maybe take a second look for mid course update in safe distance).

The F-313 needs to be extremely low maintenance (15% of that for a Su-30). I require it to fly 100 hours with just fueling and maybe new oil/filter. I want it's two engines to operate max. at just 60% duty cycle with no afterburner and still power it to mach 0,95 at sea level.
I require a huge amount of automation in order to reduce pilot training + advanced simulators.
I require all the other things already described on rugged/short take-off and landing on dirtfields.

1st mistake they did was stopping further R&D in larger Airframes because you never stop R&D regardless of what the Government MOD agrees on producing!
I believe the Air force made it clear to the MOD that if we want a bigger fighter then we need to mass produce our own Ti and have our own Titanium industry for any domestic fighter program to make sense because if we were to import them the cost of each F-5, Saegheh or Azarakhsh with under 1 tone Ti requirement (Aircraft, tools, equipment, spare parts...) Would come out to an average cost of $100 million USD per Aircraft & the simple fact that a larger Airframe like the F-14 requires 20tonnes of Ti scared the hell out of the MOD

The Air Force has to have a constant R&D program on Air Frames, Avionics, Engines, Metallurgy, Tools & equipment, Weapons & Weapons systems,...!
People keep saying R&D program cost too much but I'm not suggesting that the Air force should go and hire 700 new people to put towards R&D Yes that would cost too much & hiring that many people without selling anything would be a burden on any MOD company where as the Air Force just has to reallocate it's current human resources and facilities towards R&D and do a better job at recruiting it's conscripts from Universities
Whether the MOD chooses to produce an Aircraft matters NOT! What matters is that the Air Force comes out and tests a new Air Frame each more advanced than the other every two years so the youth currently in high schools & universities have something to aspire too
As long as you treat the Air force as if it's a burden imposed on the country & a tool to be used only when needed then it will act as such but if you treat it as the main center for progress & innovation in aviation technology then it will also behave as such!
And if and when your R&D program builds something worth producing then you can sell it to a MOD company in exchange for more equipment,....

FYI Buying or producing a single engine Aircraft like the F-16 or JF-17 for a country the size of Iran is a mistake! Unless you are capable of buying & or producing them at a rate of 50 per year every year without exception! Where as a larger twin engine force multipliers can produce more electrical power to carry more sensors for better situational awareness produced at rates of 14-24 per years every year will be more than sufficient for Iran and will be more cost effective for Iran in the long run when it comes to operations!

Iran’s Attempt to Procure Titanium Alloy Was Violation of Anti-Proliferation Resolution 1737 (2006), Sanctions Committee Tells Security Council
https://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc12163.doc.htm


Weak the hell up!!!!!!!!!!!! They don't even want Iran to produce Titanium!!!!!!!!! And you think China is going to hand military grade Ti Alloy to Iran and even if they do they will not sell it at a price so domestic fighter production would make any type of sense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So the only people that truly don't want Iran to produce Ti are the Western oppressors so any argument about Iran not needing that strategic alloy is an argument made by and for those who want to keep Iran in the dark and as a backward and dependent nation!

Ti may not be a requirement for continued R&D but it sure as hell is for production and higher stages of R&D that lead to production!!!

The 100 Q-313 even if they had the capability to carry & deploy the Fakour-90 (which they don't) will never be able to go up against 24 F-15's, Su-30's or Typhoons let alone anything more advanced!
J-85 is 17.7 inches in Diameter the AiM-54 is 15 inches

U.S. annalists are talking about 4 F-22's backed by 2 B-1 armed with BVR missiles taking on 40 Aircraft in BVR using sensor fuzzed tech before the F-22's even open their weapons bay's so that's the immediate future your looking at!

And the Q-313 will be a good unmanned future UCAV but it is NOT good enough to be a manned fighter at least not at it's current state

Also, Against the U.S. Iran has to be ready to deploy at least 100 upgraded version of Karrar-4 towards a squadron of F-22's backed by B1's before sending in more expensive UCAV & manned fighters all of whom have to be equipped with the capability to target an F-22 using IRST once they get within ~40-30km

 

[TheImmortal]

all irans anti-ship missiles are subsonic, which is kind of a problem in terms of probability of defeating enemy systems

That's not correct.

The Fatteh-110 antiship variants (Persian gulf missile, Hormuz missile, etc.) are supersonic during terminal phase as they are quasi-BMs

Ramjet. Iran hasn't developed a reliable ramjet yet.

Iran has said they are working on supersonic CMs.

The main issue would be range, at supersonic speeds range could be severely limited.

Can iran develop a supersonic CM with the range of zolfghar missile?

 

[Stryker1982]

That's not correct.

The Fatteh-110 antiship variants (Persian gulf missile, Hormuz missile, etc.) are supersonic during terminal phase as they are quasi-BMs



Iran has said they are working on supersonic CMs.

The main issue would be range, at supersonic speeds range could be severely limited.

Can iran develop a supersonic CM with the range of zolfghar missile?

Oh yes, thats right I forgot about the khalej fars missles, but what I was really referring to was the subsonic cruise missiles like Noor or Qader. Supersonic missiles are ideal, but expensive. It could take quite a bit of time to have a supersonic Anti-shipping cruise missile with the range that qader has. But it would be sooo deadly, no one would even think about attacking Iran.

 

[TheImmortal]

The problem with these war scenarios is that they are mostly in the realm of fantasy rather than realism.

Any Iran vs US conflict (if it ever occurred) would not be a US land invasion or occupation of Iran. Thus these all out war scenarios are kind of a mute point.

It would likely be a skirmish maybe a short war while Russia/China press for UN declared ceasefire.

The issue that will always lie on Iran's shoulders is to respond but not escalate the skirmish. Iran attacking and sinking a US warship will only escalate the conflict and invite an even greater counter response. No US president will back down and be seen as "weak" after a loss of a ship and its crew. It's not politically feasible.

Thus the real scenarios are how does Iran respond in event of US skirmish and what steps does it take to respond appropriately while not escalating the situation outside of either sides comfort zone.

It's similar to war scenarios of China vs US over the South China Sea.

The fact that Iran and US are fighting through proxy wars shows that neither side wants direct conflict with the other. Even in the case of direct conflict Iran may choose to attack US allies in the region while carefully calculating any response of US aggression.

 

[PeeD]

@VEVAK

Ok slowly we are reaching convergence.
Good, here the things I would do different:

- Fighter prototyping is not useful at the moment for the IRIAF. The Mig-29 is the most advanced design they could base up theirs upon (starting point). In total a too expensive and time consuming/complex. If we catch a F-35 like we catched the RQ-170, I would be open to talks about a serious fighter project, that starting point is sufficiently close to the enemy's. What is good and what IRIAF are doing is avionics R&D, yavar posted photos of one of their airborne radar R&D projects. If young people want innovative aviation expertise, they can join the IRGC-ASF with their drone projects up to S-171.

- Ti alloy production is good to have and would be welcome.

- Twin engine aircraft are welcome too and the F-313 has two.

- The J85 is a incredibly simple, small and cheap design, originally made for large CMs. However it is too outdated for the use in the F-313. Lets see if that J90 project does make it into production and another more advanced option would be the use of the unknown RQ-170 engine (although it should have a somewhat too high bypass ratio for the low flying F-313). The F-313 should be equipped with those engines, if the price is in the sufficient low range.
A engine as complex and expensive as a RD-33 copy would, for example, be too expensive for a up-sized F-313 variant. We would neither reach the price necessary, nor to production numbers.

- In my predicted concept for the F-313, it would take guerrilla warfare up in the air. Hit and run sorties with BVR LRAAM and do such sorties cyclic one after the other, like a flying 3rd Khordad SAM. The flexibility to be where needed when the enemy puts high pressure on one front section is what fighter (if able to survive and operate) are still very good for. Our real force multiplier will be that Iranian fighters, fight within a strong friendly IADS.