IRIAF | News and Discussions

[drmeson]

Can anyone really believe that all these countries like Israel, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi, India etc are building up their airforces because they are stupid ? Half of the countries I named have have large missile arsenals of variety as well still they are getting TOT's and 4++ jets purchased.

Anyone who believes that lack of AF can be compensated by BM's is a fool. We recently saw that even accurate (30-50 m CEP is considered accurate for BMs) 6 x BMs couldn't do much damage with their 500-750 kg conventional warheads against unhardened, undefended targets. A single MRCA can deliver a packed punch of around 6-7 tons of PGM with far better accuracy and as i said before, same craft can come back and fly again with 8 AAM's to guard the airspace. A large country like Iran at-least needs 16 squadrons of 4+ MRCA under ideal conditions. Iran most probably would not fight against US in future but against regional alliances. All of the enemies have large air forces which can take out our Surface fleet and cause massive damage to our without air cover infrastructure. Yes we can respond to them with Missiles but what would stop them from doing same ? We don't have ABM shield guarding us either. AF is such a weapon that its deadly yet it doesn't make a nation a political villain globally. A potent AF of 20 squadrons of 4+ generation is far more deadly than an arsenal of few fueled S/MRBM even if they are moderate to fair accurate (~50 m CEP).

I am not saying Missiles are useless. They have their place esp with unconventional CBRN's warheads. They are a strategic deterrent but they cant defend the airspace of Iran, only a potent AF can. Its a dynamic force that can attack, defend, assist land and sea forces. AD can only fight to an extent and can be taken out as well.

We should not forget that iran dominated 80s war in duration when IRIAF was active to its optimum best.

Iranians planners have landed on faces with all these projects of Azarakhsh, Saeghe, Shafagh and now Qaher. I feel hopeful for Kowsar that at-least an indigenous design will probably fly and get into service. Its no rebuilt aged up air-frame with welded tails and failed air intakes innovation like Saeghe, its no mock-up of a miniature utopian design like Qaher either.

I personally feel amused when people talk about a local fighter jet. Its such a complex combination of different machines. Where would the turbofan come from ? the radar the avionics the combat suite ... who would design the FBW ? the ECM, ECCM ... lost goes on and on. Best we can locally achieve probably is a barely 4.0 generation platform with almost everything else Russian or Chinese fitted in it. It will come into service in 2025 at earliest and would be obsolete at its birth ... so whats the point then ? Best option for mullahs is to some how negotiate a TOT with Russia and China for a 4++ MRCA which can number up-to 10-12 squadrons at least along with 4 AWACS for support. Rest of the talk is just BS. We have spent years discussing the super technology hidden in glorious airframes of Saeghe and rest and what did they turn out to be ... literally the generals do not even talk about these projects anymore. I think they themselves are ashamed.

 

[PeeD]

Israel, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi, India etc

None of them has any serious missile arsenal. Some have a few for nukes.

AF is such a weapon that its deadly yet it doesn't make a nation a political villain globally

What do you think, why is having BMs = "political villain"???
Because its the single deadliest and in any terms most effective weapon system that is known to mankind.
Iran has more political will and is smarter then the countries you listed.
Russians and Americans want no country on this planet to have a missile arsenal like Iran.

Indians develop a conventional BM force? = no love anymore from Russia and the U.S
If you look close enough, the others try to somehow develop BMs, but only with restricted payloads and ranges.
I'm quite sure that Israelis threaten Americans to develop a conventional BM arsenal, but they persuade them with cheap F-35. Americans do everything to stop any country to take Iran as a role model, no need for a Israeli role model. Israel will soon reach the threshold at which their small country and airbases in it, have no chance to win a conventional conflict against Iran, they either go for BMs or have their BM based nukes as deterrence.

As for the Zolfaghar, you as a soft target was not there, close to the impact, to feel the mach 3 caused shockwave.
Nor did they use the Zolfaghar in numbers required for killing hardened targets. Either it was a display on single round performance to the world, or they really wanted to kill soft targets in those buildings.

We should not forget that iran dominated 80s war in duration when IRIAF was active to its optimum best.

A respected past.

Best we can locally achieve probably is a barely 4.0 generation platform with almost everything else Russian or Chinese fitted in it. It will come into service in 2025 at earliest and would be obsolete at its birth ... so whats the point then ?

Agreed, true for conventional fighter design.

Hopefully and it looks very well like it, Iran will not play to the rules set by U.S and Russians --> use conventional airpower. Just never play to the game rules set by the enemy. No one can catch up to Russiand and American aeronautics... Its lost.

Russians are sneaky, want to export their expensive toys/fighters to backward countries. But themselves know that their strategic bomber delivered sub- and supersonic CM arsenal (they agreed with the US not to use ground launched CMs, MRBMs, IRBMs) and their nuclear and non-nuclear BM force is what really breaks the neck of a peer enemy state.

PS: none of the neighboring countries is what Iran prepares against, those are magnitudes weaker than what Iran faces.

 

[AmirPatriot]

@drmeson please don't call @PeeD a fool. You and I may disagree with him but he is making his arguments with facts and logic.

 

[raptor22]

 

[drmeson]

@drmeson please don't call @PeeD a fool. You and I may disagree with him but he is making his arguments with facts and logic.

It was not directed at anyone in particular.

I respect every good member very much here including @PeeD.

 

[Parsipride]

Can anyone really believe that all these countries like Israel, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi, India etc are building up their airforces because they are stupid ? Half of the countries I named have have large missile arsenals of variety as well still they are getting TOT's and 4++ jets purchased.

Anyone who believes that lack of AF can be compensated by BM's is a fool. We recently saw that even accurate (30-50 m CEP is considered accurate for BMs) 6 x BMs couldn't do much damage with their 500-750 kg conventional warheads against unhardened, undefended targets. A single MRCA can deliver a packed punch of around 6-7 tons of PGM with far better accuracy and as i said before, same craft can come back and fly again with 8 AAM's to guard the airspace. A large country like Iran at-least needs 16 squadrons of 4+ MRCA under ideal conditions. Iran most probably would not fight against US in future but against regional alliances. All of the enemies have large air forces which can take out our Surface fleet and cause massive damage to our without air cover infrastructure. Yes we can respond to them with Missiles but what would stop them from doing same ? We don't have ABM shield guarding us either. AF is such a weapon that its deadly yet it doesn't make a nation a political villain globally. A potent AF of 20 squadrons of 4+ generation is far more deadly than an arsenal of few fueled S/MRBM even if they are moderate to fair accurate (~50 m CEP).

I am not saying Missiles are useless. They have their place esp with unconventional CBRN's warheads. They are a strategic deterrent but they cant defend the airspace of Iran, only a potent AF can. Its a dynamic force that can attack, defend, assist land and sea forces. AD can only fight to an extent and can be taken out as well.

We should not forget that iran dominated 80s war in duration when IRIAF was active to its optimum best.

Iranians planners have landed on faces with all these projects of Azarakhsh, Saeghe, Shafagh and now Qaher. I feel hopeful for Kowsar that at-least an indigenous design will probably fly and get into service. Its no rebuilt aged up air-frame with welded tails and failed air intakes innovation like Saeghe, its no mock-up of a miniature utopian design like Qaher either.

I personally feel amused when people talk about a local fighter jet. Its such a complex combination of different machines. Where would the turbofan come from ? the radar the avionics the combat suite ... who would design the FBW ? the ECM, ECCM ... lost goes on and on. Best we can locally achieve probably is a barely 4.0 generation platform with almost everything else Russian or Chinese fitted in it. It will come into service in 2025 at earliest and would be obsolete at its birth ... so whats the point then ? Best option for mullahs is to some how negotiate a TOT with Russia and China for a 4++ MRCA which can number up-to 10-12 squadrons at least along with 4 AWACS for support. Rest of the talk is just BS. We have spent years discussing the super technology hidden in glorious airframes of Saeghe and rest and what did they turn out to be ... literally the generals do not even talk about these projects anymore. I think they themselves are ashamed.

I said the same thing. He has been rambling on for pages with his wet dream analysis. How are the BMS going to be launched when Iran will lose control of her air space in a full on conflict against the US in a matter of weeks?

With an antiquated air force ( most of which are 5 decades old) and no access to modern aircraft, the establishment's investment in BMS is the only viable option.

Iran is years away from posing any challenge to US air power with home made AD systems and a few Russian S300 batteries( which their effectiveness has yet to be proven in Syria or any other conflict).

You are talking about the current maritime empire ( you control the seas, you control the world and win wars), which spends almost 700 billion dollars on defense annually and has a base in over 100 countries. You really think they are not able to disrupt BM missile launches in a skirmish with Iran or anyone else? We are not talking about a Hezbollah IDF war launching katyusha rockets from donkeys hidden behind trees that do not need to travel more than a few kilometers.

If and when Iran builds Iron dome over Iranian sky, and has thousands of Fateh type missiles ready and spread across the country in a given notice, then you can say that Iran will make US or any regional force pay a heavy price for an armed conflict.

Iran's defense doctrine has been built towards local hostile countries( SA,UAE,Pakistan, Azarbayejon,Turkey) most of which have incompetent armed forces wholly dependent on outside forces.

I am not trying to be disrespectful to anyone on this forum.

 

[Draco.IMF]

Iran should stay with the soviet/russian doctrine -> putting most resources/money into missiles and subs...
fancy jets dont win wars BUT! they have theyr purpose

View attachment 419682

any infos about this missile?
Ah, its an C802, an chinese anti ship missile (export version)..

 

[Fafnir]

View attachment 419682

Wow!,these must be really old pics,especially when we see one of the original old chinese supplied c802s,altho I had thought that the chinese had only supplied iran with the rocket powered short ranged version of the c802 not the longer ranged turbojet powered version that we see here,so when were these acquired?

 

[yavar]

any infos about this missile?
Ah, its an C802, an chinese anti ship missile (export version)..

airborn Nasr is does same

 

[Avicenna]

Not sure that its wise to neglect and potentially lose the ability to have a potent Air Force.

Not a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket and go the missile route whether it is SAMS or SSMS.

I hope Iran locally produces either a Russian or Chinese fighter soon.

 

[VEVAK]

@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.

Sorry if I sound like a broken record but again I have to mention that "IF you treat the IRIAF as tool to be used only when needed then it will act as such & If you treat it as center for growth and progress in aviation technology then it will also act as such" So saying that IRIAF shouldn't be building fighter prototypes is like saying that they should remain a tool to be used if and when needed which is short sighted!
In terms of cost If one breaks down an R&D program into 4 main parts it would
1.Human Resources
2.Facilities
3.Tools & Equipment
4.Matirials
IRIAF already has the top 2 major components that would make it harder for MOD companies & Privet companies to compete with!
R&D needs to be conducted in fields & tech's that don't already exist so if a company in Iran has already started developing an alloy, composite, Navigation system,... Your job in R&D is to either improve on it or develop something better for example something with the same characteristics but cheaper & easier to produce.
As for the IRGC I would say they should have an R&D program too but I believe they already do in various fields just not in larger Fighter Air Frames so they should either be competitive programs or joint programs!

And you keep saying J-90, J-90 but the J-90 is just a Tolue-4 Engine it's life span is 50 flight hours vs the Turbofan of the RD-33 that has a lifespan of 4,000 hours so you would need 80 J-90's to last as long as a single RD-33 engines and an Aircraft powered by 2 J-90's would required 160 engines to last as long as a single RD-33 that would have a far greater thrust! The J-85 also has a low lifespan compared to the RD-33
So If a single RD-33 costs $3 Million USD the cost of building 160 J-90's at only $20,000 USD would be more by the end of a single RD-33's lifespan

So NO! The J-90 & J-85 are not sufficient not in thrust nor in cost for a manned fighter! And just because an engine is cheaper upon purchase doesn't make it cost effective

And what's worse is production capacity of the J-90 powering a single Kowsar Trainers reduces Iran's ability to power a cruise missile or a UCAV using a Tolue-4 engine at a rate of 160 for every Kowsar Trainer

So for a manned Aircraft of any kind Iran is far better off building far more expensive Turbofan engine at much lower rates (~50 -100 per year or 1-2 per week) that are bigger, made with stronger and more expensive materials and would last longer over a cheaper and smaller engine produced in the 1000's

An upgraded supersonic variant of the F-313(Would mean a total redesign) powered by 2 Iranian versions of the RD-33 equipped with the most advanced sensors and electronics available inside Iran would mean Iran wouldn't need to produce them at a rate of 100 per year because 12-24 a year will be more than enough

The ONLY thing I can potentially see that the F-313 would be good for (In it's current design powered by 2 J-85's) is to be used as a LOW RCS Air Refueling Tanker!!!! I would fill the wings and airframe up with as much fuel as possible & I would turn it into a short range Air Refueling Tanker! NOTHING MORE!
But as an Air Refueling Tanker it would make sense instead of buying or building 3-4 large tankers that will be easy targets you can instead build a total of 50-100 Q-313 probably at a lower price! NOTHING MORE!

 

[PeeD]

@VEVAK

The J90 is not a Tolue-4 based engine.
It is expected to be a something in the thrust class the Al-222, the next step after the J85 copy Owj.
Two J90 are the likely engines of the F-313.

About lifespan: the RD-33 at the time it went into production was to some extend beyond the capabilities of its production plant. Its TBO was something around 500 hours. Now after 35 years it may has reached 4000 (but I doubt that's TBO, but whole lifespan as you said).
The good news for you is that there seems to be a RD-33 copy project in Iran. I regard it as too expensive.
I want a high degree of automation for the F-313 with lower pilot skill and training requirements, hence less complex/high quality engine.

An upgraded supersonic variant of the F-313(Would mean a total redesign) powered by 2 Iranian versions of the RD-33 equipped with the most advanced sensors and electronics available inside Iran would mean Iran wouldn't need to produce them at a rate of 100 per year because 12-24 a year will be more than enough

Enough for that? You want to play a well choreographed game with someone who is the uncontested king in conventional airpower, with 100 times higher resources for it?
What do you expect the outcome would be in that symmetric approach?
For serious decision making, the warfighting potential of the system is determined and a cost threshold calculated in respect with available alternative systems. So if the F-313 with those cheap engines and its size would cost 8m $ a piece, it might would be considered to be acquired as a weapon system, otherwise alternative systems would be selected.

I'm in total not against 60 Su-30SM for the IRIAF, mainly as saber rattling tool, base them somewhere to deliver the threat message. What I talk about is a cold calculation for a country with very limited resources on what will give it the biggest bang for the buck against a massively superior enemy. A life or death decision. There the calculated cost-performance ranking for any fighter would allays be lower than alternatives.

The ONLY thing I can potentially see that the F-313 would be good for (In it's current design powered by 2 J-85's) is to be used as a LOW RCS Air Refueling Tanker!!!! I would fill the wings and airframe up with as much fuel as possible & I would turn it into a short range Air Refueling Tanker!

I see. You have realized the high fuel reserve design aspect of the F-313 (although not for a tanker for my taste). The designers seems to know of what importance range is.
Many people are not aware that payloads for a fighter that has to fly 600-800km (needed against Iran) to the target seldom exceeds 1-2 tons on average and any threat on the way could let to jettisoning the weaponload and a mission kill.

 

[AmirPatriot]

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

How do you design an unguided, light projectile released at 200 km to hit the target?

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

So these ballistic missiles in the high intensity phase are expected to take out multiple major airbases, air defence sites, command centres, communication... how many missiles do you want to use against, say, a regional adversary?

I hope the IRIAF knows that such operation is the only way it can survive a high intensity war.

Also actually fighting in the war would be nice. I remind you of the shoot the archer concept.

With parachute retardation its possible.

Parachute retarded ballistic missiles. Next we'll be dropping paratroopers from Shahab-3s...

In total, Russians are using a maintenance heavy swing wing low level interdictor to bomb enemies without +5km alt airdefense capability.

Being replaced by the Su-34.

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.

Great. But that doesn't mean you don't need multirole fighter aircraft that can do both defensive and offensive roles.

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

Over 300 of them.

 

[PeeD]

@AmirPatriot

How do you design an unguided, light projectile released at 200 km to hit the target?

First I use a missile that has a 1km CEP, an old Shahab-3. The submunitions will increase that CEP to 2km suitable for a airbase-like area target.
Instead of a 1,2 ton warhead with 1km CEP, 100 10kg submunitions hit with a CEP of 2km.

The release timing and the dispersion acceleration must be correctly designed and a suitable cheap ablative heatshield used.

So these ballistic missiles in the high intensity phase are expected to take out multiple major airbases, air defence sites, command centres, communication... how many missiles do you want to use against, say, a regional adversary?

Figure out how many hardened superbases are around and how many normal ones. As example 300 1t cluster warheads for unhardened and double the number for hardened for two days.
My number for the Safir jeep war 7k, lets say 10k$. My number on Karrar was 200k$, lets say 600k$. What would Iranian made missiles cost then? What if the claim that there is no hardened space to store them with their production rate true? I don't really want to go into details on that topic, I can only recommend you to leave "conventional missile numbers" behind.

Also actually fighting in the war would be nice. I remind you of the shoot the archer concept.

Forget about shooting the archer if he intends to use 300km+ range stand-off weapons. They will do it and escape if necessary.

Parachute retarded ballistic missiles. Next we'll be dropping paratroopers from Shahab-3s...

Parachute retarding bombs are/were something completely normal. But that irrelevant. Iran will not use a durandal like BM-submunition but cluster warheads for runways. Just wanted to say its technically feasible.

Being replaced by the Su-34.

That is even a higher overkill. Too high performance/cost/numbers to be used as a bomber for low intensity warfare and to be honest not sufficiently surviveable to attack high value targets deep inside europe, considering all the fighter airpower in west europe. Su-35 need to take out the Typhoons first and then Su-34 have to take part in a SEAD/DEAD campaign to then finally attack the high value target. Ballistic missile up to today do not need such a degradation phase to attack any high value target.

Great. But that doesn't mean you don't need multirole fighter aircraft that can do both defensive and offensive roles.

As said above: "For serious decision making, the warfighting potential of the system is determined and a cost threshold calculated in respect with available alternative systems. So if the F-313 with those cheap engines and its size would cost 8m $ a piece, it might would be considered to be acquired as a weapon system, otherwise alternative systems would be selected.

I'm in total not against 60 Su-30SM for the IRIAF, mainly as saber rattling tool, base them somewhere to deliver the threat message. What I talk about is a cold calculation for a country with very limited resources on what will give it the biggest bang for the buck against a massively superior enemy. A life or death decision. There the calculated cost-performance ranking for any fighter would allays be lower than alternatives."

Over 300 of them.

Without ABC warhead as irrelevant for a conflict as their DF-3 and -21 arsenal. Iran has and is working on an IADS to deal with those threats, with numbers low enough not to saturate the IADS (Americans have the numbers to saturate it).

 

[Draco.IMF]

real news or fake news?

https://twitter.com/x/status/893938685338669057