IRIAF | News and Discussions

[raptor22]

Shooting the archer is good but high capability enemies can just use CMs with ranges of a JASSM-ER and there, not even a Mig-31 interceptor can do much. This is the deadly access denial nature of CMs.
You can try to send a Mig-31BM or F-14D to intercept the archer, but considering your chances to catch it in time and fend-off their escorting fighters is low. Do you have early warning capabilities against a 3000 feet AGL flying archer?

CMs will always try to circumvent S2A threats and saturate where necessary. You might be able to shoot an archer with high speed specialized interceptors with a good OTH early warning capability against Black Shahin class CM equipped enemy. Without hypersonic fighters and missiles, it's a lost game to intercept an archer with JASSM-ER class CM. Loitering drones with BVR AAMs could be a tool, I don't know, a near impossible task. A calculation on speeds + ranges --> timings will determine whats possible and what not.



An archer just needs to fly at 3000 feet AGL and a S-300 will be only able to target it at maybe 80km. So its not a protection out to 200km, but can be if the archer for some reason needs to fly at 30k feet AGL.

Nor can an AIM-54A intercept a fighter at 200km, maybe one closing at mach 2. But yes I'm for long range BVR missiles on any future Iranian fighter.



As said I want many F-313 close the possible threat zones and just equipped with two Fakkur-90 variants. High low-altitude speed, high endurance, highway operation and low price. I want the missile to do the main job and the carrier to be far away from a direct encounter.



I'm not a friend to compete in a field where the enemy has overwhelming superiority. This approach has seldom good results.
Hence manned Iranian airpower must be very asymmetric to be effective. Hence I hope the F-313 is the asymmetric asset speculate it to be. Its geo-flexibility is the best trait.

@VEVAK





So you seriously want to power the Kowsar with 2 x 3,5kn mini jets?

For comparison the Yak-130 trainer has a take-off weight of ~7t (Kowsar ~6t) and is powered by 2 x 24kn engine.

Does these numbers make any sense? The Kowsar should use ~7 times less thrust because its 0,15 x lighter than the Yak-130?
Even the midget 4t Indian HJT-36 has more than 17kn....
Incredible...

F-313 can carry 2 two Fakkur-90 or you just assume it?

 

[Muhammed45]

Why not try the Chinese? J-10B or C?

The most important thing, regardless of any deal, would have to be ToT and production in Iran.

J-10 series is good at huge numbers.
Due to it's properties , we need more than 350 fighters for complete support for our airspace.
J-10 will require almost 70-80 of an other class of interceptor for compensation.
But due to the budget problems, we are waiting on SU-30's SM variant. It is the only fighter that currently could fulfill our need to a long range Bomber-AirsuperiorityFighter-Interceptor.

If China agrees with FC-31 expo version, undoubtedly we will go for it otherwise i would say No thanks to Chinese companies. However i am sure that Chinese products are good in world class fighters.

We are hardly working on heavy engines, 5th gen properties, drones and 3rd gen fighters. A big lack in 4th gen fighters which only FC-31 and SU-30SM can fulfill. We will catch the tech edge in aviation industries, but in time pass and the only Chinese option for us remains FC31.

 

[Navigator]

BTW J-10 still produced with Russian engines and therefore contract in any case, will require some agreements with Russian side for export of engines and future supplies of spare parts and new engines.
As for FC-31, while it's only prototypes that is developed on own funds of AVIC, that obviously slows down the process. And prototypes also flying with Russian engines.

 

[PeeD]

F-313 can carry 2 two Fakkur-90 or you just assume it?

No. We know so little about the F-313 that almost everything is uncertain. I created an asymmetric operation regime that could be applied by it from what is known (outlined in the Daher thread).

I hope that's whats the plan, as anything less would be useless.

 

[AmirPatriot]

As said I want many F-313 close the possible threat zones and just equipped with two Fakkur-90 variants. High low-altitude speed, high endurance, highway operation and low price. I want the missile to do the main job and the carrier to be far away from a direct encounter.

There are a couple of problems with this concept:

1. The operating regime. Low altitude, subsonic speed SEVERELY inhibit the effectiveness of the Fakour-90. Range, energy, everything is worse, by a significant margin. So much so that effective range would be rather short, definitely less than 100 km. Whereas for the enemy effective range would be closer to the maximum range. So, if they have an AMRAAM D with 160 km range, and you have a Fakour-90 with 300 km range (being generous), you are toast. Because your opponent is launching from what, 30k, 40k feet above you, maybe even at supersonic speed, whereas you are launching at what, 3k? 5k AGL? They just have so, so much more energy than you. The AMRAAM will end up having a longer EFFECTIVE range than the Fakour-90 with this operating regime.

2. The aircraft and it's payload. Remember the Fakour-90 is based on the AIM-54 which weighs 1000 lb, is longer than a Mk-84 bomb, and TWICE as wide (because of the "wingspan"). Now even if you implement folding wings bringing the diameter down to about 400 mm (the Mk-84 is about 450 mm), there is no way you can fit 2 of these missiles inside the small, cheap aircraft you envisage. The aircraft would have to be similar in size to an F-35. At which point it's not really cheap anymore.

Low altitude flying for combat aircraft is almost exclusively for penetration aircraft like the Su-24, F-111 etc. Not fighter aircraft. Speed is life, and altitude is life insurance. It was like that in WW2 and it's still like that today.

 

[PeeD]

1. The operating regime. Low altitude, subsonic speed SEVERELY inhibit the effectiveness of the Fakour-90. Range, energy, everything is worse, by a significant margin. So much so that effective range would be rather short, definitely less than 100 km.

Right and that's why the F-313 would gain altitude for a shot in a short pop-up maneuver. Speed would still be subsonic but altitude would make up for that in kinematics.

Whereas for the enemy effective range would be closer to the maximum range. So, if they have an AMRAAM D with 160 km range, and you have a Fakour-90 with 300 km range (being generous), you are toast.

Dream values. AMRAAM will never do 160km, they should be thankful if 50km is achieved in operational conditions.
300km for AIM-54 is impossible too.

Because your opponent is launching from what, 30k, 40k feet above you, maybe even at supersonic speed, whereas you are launching at what, 3k? 5k AGL? They just have so, so much more energy than you.

I said already about the pop-up. About the speed: F-16 will maybe do mach 1,3 in good conditions, a difference of mach 0,4 if the F-313 is at mach 0,9.
The F-15 might do mach 1,6 at the shot, a delta of mach 0,7.
All others are around the same. The kinematic advantage of a larger missile will easily make up for a speed difference of mach 0,4 - 0,7.

Remember the Fakour-90 is based on the AIM-54 which weighs 1000 lb, is longer than a Mk-84 bomb, and TWICE as wide (because of the "wingspan"). Now even if you implement folding wings bringing the diameter down to about 400 mm (the Mk-84 is about 450 mm),

Of course a internal bay variant of the F-90 would need to be developed.

there is no way you can fit 2 of these missiles inside the small, cheap aircraft you envisage.

... I guarantee you that there would be enough space for two 450mm dia. weapons in the bays, if its designend for that. Size is enough, fuel is enough, landing gear accordingly designed and price is not the issue.

Low altitude flying for combat aircraft is almost exclusively for penetration aircraft like the Su-24, F-111 etc. Not fighter aircraft. Speed is life, and altitude is life insurance. It was like that in WW2 and it's still like that today.

Interdictors fly low with terrain masking to evade the enemy and the IADS, the F-313 does the same. Speed is done by the missile, altitude by pop-up.
We are just entering real BVR age, throw away those dogfight rules, the F-313 must not enter dogfights or even air combat maneuvering. Its just now that technology is far enough to have guided BVR weapons with sufficiently high PK and low cost. Let the missile do the job, its not the 60's where atolls and sidewinders performed so low and forced to move back to dogfights and guns...

The only grave impact would be on situational awareness --> for which the IADS is available. And, if you would use small size AAMs like the AMRAAM for a subsonic carrier.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Right and that's why the F-313 would gain altitude for a shot in a short pop-up maneuver. Speed would still be subsonic but altitude would make up for that in kinematics.

A pop up manoeuvre which would light up on a radar screen. And which wouldn't be particularly quick, because you envisage the F-313 as a subsonic aircraft without even an afterburner. The popup cannot be quick otherwise you would stall.

And besides, how high is this popup? Maybe to 10k AGL? 15k at a push? That's still 2 or 3 times lower than your opponent, who is going much faster than you because they haven't had to do a popup manoeuvre.

Dream values. AMRAAM will never do 160km, they should be thankful if 50km is achieved in operational conditions.
300km for AIM-54 is impossible too.

160 km is the rmax (maximum range), just like the rmax of 190 km for the AIM-54. I didn't say either was the effective range.

50 km is extremely optimistic. I think 50 km would probably be within the AIM-120D's NEZ.

You are underestimating what a 35k altitude advantage (enemy aircraft at 45k AGL) means. Firstly, at that altitude air density is 0.24 kg/m^3, whereas at 10k AGL it is more like 0.9 kg/m^3. That's nearly 4 times more drag being exerted on the AIM-54.

But most importantly there is a massive kinematic advantage for the opponent at 45k AGL. How you expect an AIM-54 like missile climb 90k feet from 10k AGL up to 100k AGL (which is how the AIM-54 works, going to high altitude and then diving down), and have a longer range than the AIM-120D which has a massive headstart, I don't know, but you need to give some proof. Facts and figures please.

Of course a internal bay variant of the F-90 would need to be developed.

I guarantee you that there would be enough space for two 450mm dia. weapons in the bays, if its designend for that. Size is enough, fuel is enough, landing gear accordingly designed and price is not the issue.

The AIM-54's missile body diameter is 380 mm. Its still going to be too big for such a small aircraft.

And remember to guide these LRAAMs you need a big enough radar. More weight, more size, more thrust, the more this operating regime becomes unfeasible.

 

[PeeD]

A pop up manoeuvre which would light up on a radar screen.

Airpower has no VHF-band radars, at best UHF-band AEW. So how do you want to detect a GCI directed F-313 at ranges that would occur? LO/VLO is a main design aspect of the F-313 and a main enabler.

The popup cannot be quick otherwise you would stall.

It would reach 12km in less then 3 minutes at 65m/s rate of climb (Prowler).

And besides, how high is this popup? Maybe to 10k AGL? 15k at a push? That's still 2 or 3 times lower than your opponent, who is going much faster than you because they haven't had to do a popup manoeuvre.

About 40k feet AGL for the pop-up. The speed of the opponent would be of low relevance because the F-313 would work as a ambush tool guided by the IADS --> Pop-up at the right/safe position determined by the IADS --> acquire the already via IADS detected target --> shot its two 100km class AAMs --> dive down to low level --> make a quick re-acquisition for mid course update when necessary or just via IADS data and omni-directional data link.

The concept is to be at safe distance from the high speed enemy and quick enough gone to evade a possible counter attack.

50 km is extremely optimistic. I think 50 km would probably be within the AIM-120D's NEZ.

Yes

You are underestimating what a 35k altitude advantage (enemy aircraft at 45k AGL) means. Firstly, at that altitude air density is 0.24 kg/m^3, whereas at 10k AGL it is more like 0.9 kg/m^3. That's nearly 4 times more drag being exerted on the AIM-54.

I'm aware of this and the pop-up maneuver is a integral element of my F-313 operation concept.

But most importantly there is a massive kinematic advantage for the opponent at 45k AGL. How you expect an AIM-54 like missile climb 90k feet from 10k AGL up to 100k AGL (which is how the AIM-54 works, going to high altitude and then diving down), and have a longer range than the AIM-120D which has a massive headstart, I don't know, but you need to give some proof. Facts and figures please.

The AIM-54 or a more advanced F-90 has a massively stronger booster. At 12km AGL pop-up, only a AMRAAM launched from space could have a longer range. The concept is to make up the kinematic disadvantage of the carrier F-313 with a much more advanced missile. Fortunately, Iran is strong on missiles to do that. By carrier I mean carrier, going for a air superiority fighter will go nowhere.

The AIM-54's missile body diameter is 380 mm. Its still going to be too big for such a small aircraft.

Who says this? Because US stealth fighters are not designed for it? The whole layout of the F-313 is for massive fuel reserves and a weaponbay-fightersize ratio bigger than any other fighter out there.
I recommend you to open your mind. Asymmetric approach doesn't stick to rules like F-313<F-35=F-313_wbay<F-35_wbay. Its all requirements and design.

And remember to guide these LRAAMs you need a big enough radar. More weight, more size, more thrust, the more this operating regime becomes unfeasible.

The same as above: Things have changes. You could use IADS target coordinates for the ARH-AAM shot or new generation AESAs that with high gain to scan a small portion of airspace with higher power where something was detected by the IADS. The key enabler is the IADS, its data-link capability, anti-stealth capability and sensor fusion. Only this enables something relatively low performing like the F-313 to accomplish its mission in friendly airspace. My concept would make the F-313 the emergency firefighter asset to soften the spearhead of the enemy airpower concentrated/directed at a less defended or saturated IADS sector. It's a tool of the IADS, not a fighter of western airpower doctrine.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Airpower has no VHF-band radars, at best UHF-band AEW. So how do you want to detect a GCI directed F-313 at ranges that would occur? LO/VLO is a main design aspect of the F-313 and a main enabler.

The thing is, you are making your model extremely optimistic.

An aircraft that needs 2 engines (I'll get to those later), a LOT of avionics and electronics (since you want to make it highly automated), sensor fusion with robust enough communication equipment that it won't be jammed otherwise the aircraft will be basically blind (unless you want that AESA), a ton of fuel, and needs to be big enough to carry 2 huge AIM-54 class missiles internally, have a long range, be able to land on small runways and even roads. And it needs to be VLO?

All of this. For $8 million.

I'm sorry bro, but it is just not happening. At all.

Look how big an AIM-54 is. It is a 4 metre long monster. The F-14 was designed to carry this missile externally. And we know how big the F-14 is.

You also compare the climb rate of your F-313 with a Prowler, which has 2 J52 engines producing 10,400 lb thrust each. But you also say your F-313 would be powered by 2 Al-222 class engines, bearing in mind the Al-222 produces about 5,500 lb thrust dry (and you said your F-313 is non-afterburning).

This is what I think your concept would look like if put into an F-313 shaped airframe.

A bad sketch, I know, but whatever. I based it on the actual F-313, and the size of the F-35 relative to the full aircraft.

What I'm trying to say is that this "cheap", "small", "light" aircraft would actually be around the same size as an F-35. Unless the body is made of plywood it cannot fly with just those 2 low powered engines.

We could save ourselves a lot of risk and add a lot of capability if we went for a proper air force.

Airpower has no VHF-band radars, at best UHF-band AEW. So how do you want to detect a GCI directed F-313 at ranges that would occur? LO/VLO is a main design aspect of the F-313 and a main enabler.

Airpower doesn't need VHF when you are making an $8 million LO aircraft. Even if your $8 million aircraft is designed just to fly and do nothing else (assuming it is the same size as the aircraft you describe), it would not be enough money to incorporate sufficient LO features. It would, at best, be as LO as an F/A-18E/F, which is very, very detectable with modern AESA radars. Probably a bigger RCS though, with those top mounted intakes.

But an actual combat aircraft?

That just doesn't add up. Nothing in this hypothetical aircraft add up.

That little thrust, the massive amount of fuel that you say (where will it all fit I wonder), a climb to not quite 40k feet AGL with all that fuel and weapons on board.

I'm not sure it would even fly with 2 Al-222s, and if it did, it would take quite a bit longer than 3 minutes to get up to launch altitude.

It would reach 12km in less then 3 minutes at 65m/s rate of climb (Prowler).

About 40k feet AGL for the pop-up. The speed of the opponent would be of low relevance because the F-313 would work as a ambush tool guided by the IADS --> Pop-up at the right/safe position determined by the IADS --> acquire the already via IADS detected target --> shot its two 100km class AAMs --> dive down to low level --> make a quick re-acquisition for mid course update when necessary or just via IADS data and omni-directional data link.

The concept is to be at safe distance from the high speed enemy and quick enough gone to evade a possible counter attack.

The Prowler has twice the thrust that this does. And that cannot even reach 40k feet AGL. It's like trying to take a Paykan up Damavand at 70 km/h... just not going to happen.

Who says this? Because US stealth fighters are not designed for it? The whole layout of the F-313 is for massive fuel reserves and a weaponbay-fightersize ratio bigger than any other fighter out there.
I recommend you to open your mind. Asymmetric approach doesn't stick to rules like F-313<F-35=F-313_wbay<F-35_wbay. Its all requirements and design.

Scale says this. You want to make a small aircraft that fits these gigantic missiles internally. It doesn't work geometrically. The F-14 was only able to carry 2 behind each other under its belly because the F-14 was equally gigantic and therefore had the engines mounted on the side of the fuselage, not inside it as in small stealth aircraft like the F-35, J-31 and F-313.

By limiting a 16 metre long aircraft to such a strange operating regime all you are doing is building a house and only living in one of the rooms.

By the way, exactly how light on logistics are 600 aircraft and their assorted crew, weapons and fuel, all being landed on dozens of small airfields and roads? Road landings are designed to be a last resort, in order to be able to land aircraft in case there is no other location available within its range. Roads are roads, not airbases.

 

[PeeD]

I know about western airpower and its high capabilities that I don't even come to the idea to fight it symmetrically.
This is why my model for operation is restricted, you restrict something if there is no other solution... You become an allrounder if you have excess capabilities.

Then you make comparisons that are wrong: e.g you compare a full length afterburning high-power turbofan in a F-35 fuselage, with two low power short length non-afterburing turbofans in F-313 fuselage. Your conclusion and the picture then is that there is not sufficient space for a large weapon bay.
No. One huge benefit of two smaller engines is the shorter length in fuselage. The other huge benefit for non-afterburning engines is again the shorter length.
The F-313 has all those benefits which the F-35 does not.

Your illustration shows this quite well. The placement of ducts and intake is another clear indicator that a large weaponbay is the design goal. The F-313 is just 12-13m long and could accomplish to house two 4m long missiles in its bays. Just because this or something similar was the design goal and the layout from engines, landing gear, intakes to ducts is done for that purpose.

a LOT of avionics and electronics (since you want to make it highly automated), sensor fusion with robust enough communication equipment that it won't be jammed otherwise the aircraft will be basically blind (unless you want that AESA), a ton of fuel, and needs to be big enough to carry 2 huge AIM-54 class missiles internally, have a long range, be able to land on small runways and even roads. And it needs to be VLO?

All of this. For $8 million.

I'm sorry bro, but it is just not happening. At all.

It needs to happen to make any sense and win production against alternative weapon systems.

For avionics we have miniaturization due to technology and placement where space its available. Everything is possible. Maybe not for $8m but it needs to be in that range to be competitive to alternatives.

You also compare the climb rate of your F-313 with a Prowler, which has 2 J52 engines producing 10,400 lb thrust each. But you also say your F-313 would be powered by 2 Al-222 class engines, bearing in mind the Al-222 produces about 5,500 lb thrust dry (and you said your F-313 is non-afterburning).

Please take weight,if not even lift into consideration. The Prowler is representative for a normal rate of climb of a non-afterburning fighter/bomber/aircraft. The F-313 would be similar, even with its ~ one third of the empty weight.

What I'm trying to say is that this "cheap", "small", "light" aircraft would actually be around the same size as an F-35. Unless the body is made of plywood it cannot fly with just those 2 low powered engines.

Ok, so far in this post I described some additional details. So tell me what exactly, preferably with numbers is impossible? ~50kn dry thrust is not sufficient for a 10t loaded weight class sub-sonic fighter?

We could save ourselves a lot of risk and add a lot of capability if we went for a proper air force.

A proper airforce does not fulfill the requirements Iran has. If designed correctly, with operation restrictions, speed-class restrictions, G-load restrictions etc., it has the chance to achieve the goals. But well that's my opinion.

Airpower doesn't need VHF when you are making an $8 million LO aircraft. Even if your $8 million aircraft is designed just to fly and do nothing else (assuming it is the same size as the aircraft you describe), it would not be enough money to incorporate sufficient LO features.

What are LO features? What kind of subsonic-rated composite materials and production methods are today available? What automatic benefits do all the selected design features such as intakes and exhaust have, as well as the overall shape?
Point is: western airpower must first detect the LO F-313 doing the pop-up maneuver for the 100km LRAAM shot with their X-band fighter radars.

it would not be enough money to incorporate sufficient LO features. It would, at best, be as LO as an F/A-18E/F, which is very, very detectable with modern AESA radars. Probably a bigger RCS though, with those top mounted intakes.

Come on bro, I can't work with such "facts", give me something solid.
Top mounted intakes are ideal for a aircraft that needs to evade ground based airdefense and above fighters searching for it, a very telling feature.

That little thrust, the massive amount of fuel that you say (where will it all fit I wonder)

Take a good look of the volume of the rear main wings, very telling too.

a climb to not quite 40k feet AGL with all that fuel and weapons on board.

<1000kg weapons in dragless internal weaponbays are now a argument for high weight?

I'm not sure it would even fly with 2 Al-222s, and if it did, it would take quite a bit longer than 3 minutes to get up to launch altitude.

Again, I can't work with such arguments. Get more precise. Is a max. loaded thrust to weight ratio of 1:2 more than the max. loaded thrust to weight ratio of the Prowler of 1:3?

Scale says this. You want to make a small aircraft that fits these gigantic missiles internally. It doesn't work geometrically.

Very simple: We have a lets say for the calculation 12m long aircraft that needs to fit a 4m long missile. You say this is impossible geometrically. I say its possible if 4m missile + 4m engines + 4m nose section and rest.
Now prove me again that its impossible.

not inside it as in small stealth aircraft like the F-35, J-31 and F-313.

The F-313 is anything then a conventional design. Please don't make such comparisons anymore..

 

[pin gu]

https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1396/06/07/1504778/مکلف-به-افزایش-توان-موشکی-هستیم-آغاز-مطالعات-برای-تولید-جنگنده-سنگین-بزودی-باور373-در-کنار-s300-مستقر-می-شود

وی خاطر نشان کرد: ما برای تولید جنگنده سنگین برنامه داریم و در این زمینه مقدمات کار و مطالعات اولیه انجام شده است‌؛ ما حتما باید به سمت یک قدرت هوایی راهبردی حرکت کنیم.

MOD: We have plan to produce heavy fighters and we started to research on this field ...

 

[VEVAK]

https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1396/06/07/1504778/مکلف-به-افزایش-توان-موشکی-هستیم-آغاز-مطالعات-برای-تولید-جنگنده-سنگین-بزودی-باور373-در-کنار-s300-مستقر-می-شود

وی خاطر نشان کرد: ما برای تولید جنگنده سنگین برنامه داریم و در این زمینه مقدمات کار و مطالعات اولیه انجام شده است‌؛ ما حتما باید به سمت یک قدرت هوایی راهبردی حرکت کنیم.

MOD: We have plan to produce heavy fighters and we started to research on this field ...

Yes it's good to hear but I wish they had done it the day after the Saegheh finished it's test flights!

We need MOD leaders that are thinking 10-20 years down the line! So if you want to have a real fighter in production 20 years from now you need to start working on it today!

 

[AmirPatriot]

Then you make comparisons that are wrong: e.g you compare a full length afterburning high-power turbofan in a F-35 fuselage, with two low power short length non-afterburing turbofans in F-313 fuselage. Your conclusion and the picture then is that there is not sufficient space for a large weapon bay.
No. One huge benefit of two smaller engines is the shorter length in fuselage. The other huge benefit for non-afterburning engines is again the shorter length.

Diameter is also important. Unless your engines are narrow enough and are placed close enough together to be placed between the weapons bays housing these huge missiles in this small aircraft, the two engines must be placed behind the bay.

The F-35, with its single engine, has the front portion of its engine between the two weapons bays.

Maybe not for $8m but it needs to be in that range to be competitive to alternatives.

An Embraer Super Tucano costs up to $14 million.

A Yak-130, around $15 million.

Both of these are small aircraft derived from trainers. They have no stealth. No radar. No sensor fusion. One of them is even propeller powered.

$8 million is optimistic by several times.

Point is: western airpower must first detect the LO F-313 doing the pop-up maneuver for the 100km LRAAM shot with their X-band fighter radars.

Not just fighter radars. Their significant AWACS capability also plays a part.

Take a good look of the volume of the rear main wings, very telling too.

The MiG-29 also had fuel tanks in its wings, but was infamous for its notoriously short range. Of course, it was a substantially more thirsty aircraft, but it was bigger as well.

<1000kg weapons in dragless internal weaponbays are now a argument for high weight?

Not so much the weapons, but you describe the F-313 as having a very long range with a lot of fuel load so I was under the impression the fuel would be a significant dampener on performance.

if not even lift into consideration.

An EA-6B would probably have more lift. It has longer wings with less of a sweep.

The F-313 would be similar, even with its ~ one third of the empty weight.

Ok, so far in this post I described some additional details. So tell me what exactly, preferably with numbers is impossible? ~50kn dry thrust is not sufficient for a 10t loaded weight class sub-sonic fighter?

That seems like a very optimistic weight.

The empty weight of a Yak-130 is also around the 5,000 kg mark. Although it has an extra pilot, it is likely to be smaller than your F-313 because it lacks an internal weapons bay. It also does not have the copious fuel volume you want, nor the radar, nor the advanced avionics designed to reduce the need for highly trained pilots.

Now prove me again that its impossible.

You are asking me to prove a negative.

I ask you instead to prove to me how one can fit all the components of such an aircraft into something the same length of a Yak-130, which by the way is designed to be small and light to be easier controlled by inexperienced pilots. It is not designed to carry enormous LRAAMs internally.

The F-313 is anything then a conventional design. Please don't make such comparisons anymore..

Of course it is an unconventional design, but even these require engines and somewhere to put them. To maintain stealth, placing them inside the fuselage is advantageous.

 

[PeeD]

Diameter is also important. Unless your engines are narrow enough and are placed close enough together to be placed between the weapons bays housing these huge missiles in this small aircraft, the two engines must be placed behind the bay.

The diameter is not a deal breaker obviously. More so with an internal weaponbay variant of the F-90.

Honestly said, I don't expect them to be so competent and innovative to even think about such a capability as two LRAAMs in weaponays. But as the design allows it, its my wish as LRAAMs are the only way to counter the overall airpower superiority of the enemy.

The F-35, with its single engine, has the front portion of its engine between the two weapons bays.

As said, the F-35 is not representative. Look at that illustration: take away the inlet ducts, the liftfan, shorten the engine length by half and then see whether you can fit a 6-8m missile in that fuselage space (I just need 4m for the F-313).

An Embraer Super Tucano costs up to $14 million.

Ok, like with the Karrar I see things different and find such comparisons useless. Most costly elements are engines and then radar and in both the F-313 takes the lowest end but selfmade.

Not just fighter radars. Their significant AWACS capability also plays a part.

... I mentioned AEW in the post before my last one. If S- and UHF-band AEW assets could detect the F-313 at 200km we could start a debate about its survivability at it's pop-up. As my F-313 is infact an asset of the IADS, GCI would guide it to a optimal position with max distance to the UHF-band E-2 via passive ELINT. An S-band E-3 should have no capability against a LO target at beyond 100km AAM launch range of the F-313.

Even if. Sensor fusion and data-link capability is necessary to shot a AMRAAM with outside AEW data. Lets say not all current U.S assets have that.

The MiG-29 also had fuel tanks in its wings, but was infamous for its notoriously short range. Of course, it was a substantially more thirsty aircraft, but it was bigger as well.

Again, unrepresentative. Look again at the wing thickness of the F-313 rear wings. Due to its subsonic nature, it benefits from such thick wings for its fuel reserves. All modern fighters have tanks in their wings, but none is to the level of the F-313 (at its size class). Even its canards have tanks...
The F-313 has less fuel consumption than a dry single RD-33 Mig-29, it is something completely different.

Not so much the weapons, but you describe the F-313 as having a very long range with a lot of fuel load so I was under the impression the fuel would be a significant dampener on performance.

Fuel yes. it would enter combat at 50% fuel and this will be its biggest mass. But performance is a function of wight, thrust, drag and lift. So its not an argument that due to its large fuel reserves, it cant achieve the rate of climb of the Prowler.

An EA-6B would probably have more lift. It has longer wings with less of a sweep.

Maybe... I listed the main parameters for flight performance, its more complex than that. All I can say is that the rate of climb of the Prowler should be in the range of the F-313.

That seems like a very optimistic weight.

The empty weight of a Yak-130 is also around the 5,000 kg mark. Although it has an extra pilot, it is likely to be smaller than your F-313 because it lacks an internal weapons bay. It also does not have the copious fuel volume you want, nor the radar, nor the advanced avionics designed to reduce the need for highly trained pilots.

Yes, who knows. Maybe its 4000kg due to RQ-170 derived new gen. composites. Maybe its 7000kg due to its width/volume and fuel reserves. None is a deal breaker on rate of climb for pop-up.

ou are asking me to prove a negative.

I ask you instead to prove to me how one can fit all the components of such an aircraft into something the same length of a Yak-130, which by the way is designed to be small and light to be easier controlled by inexperienced pilots. It is not designed to carry enormous LRAAMs internally.

I wont draw a CAD model of the Q-313 layout. What I can do is a flashover bill of 3x4m = engine + weaponbay + nosesection = 12m.
Now If you have problems with that, draw it in scale and prove that my flashover bill is false.

Of course it is an unconventional design, but even these require engines and somewhere to put them. To maintain stealth, placing them inside the fuselage is advantageous.

Bro, nobody would be stupid to design auch a inconvenient intake-duct design or auch a complicated landing gear design if the aim would not be to have a huge weaponbay in the fuselage. As simple as that. This is a indirect proof for a large weaponbay. Maybe they are stupid, yes, but to me it looks good so far.

 

[AmirPatriot]

The diameter is not a deal breaker obviously. More so with an internal weaponbay variant of the F-90.

Honestly said, I don't expect them to be so competent and innovative to even think about such a capability as two LRAAMs in weaponays. But as the design allows it, its my wish as LRAAMs are the only way to counter the overall airpower superiority of the enemy.

It really depends what Iran envisions for the F-313.

As said, the F-35 is not representative. Look at that illustration: take away the inlet ducts, the liftfan, shorten the engine length by half and then see whether you can fit a 6-8m missile in that fuselage space (I just need 4m for the F-313).

The F-35B depicted in the picture mostly sacrifices fuel load. 1/3 less than the F-35A, in fact. And you want to have a lot of fuel.

Ok, like with the Karrar I see things different and find such comparisons useless. Most costly elements are engines and then radar and in both the F-313 takes the lowest end but selfmade.

My friend, neither the Yak-130 nor the Super Tucano have radars. The Super Tucano doesn't even have a jet engine, its a turboprop. You want the F-313 to have 2 turbofan engines, a radar, stealth, and sophisticated communications gear, but cost about the same as a Super Tucano?

... I mentioned AEW in the post before my last one. If S- and UHF-band AEW assets could detect the F-313 at 200km we could start a debate about its survivability at it's pop-up.

Except because the F-313 will be operating at a low altitude for most of its time, it won't be facing the AWACS frontally, where the RCS is lowest. It will be showing its top, which has a much larger surface area.

Even if. Sensor fusion and data-link capability is necessary to shot a AMRAAM with outside AEW data. Lets say not all current U.S assets have that.

Link 16 is standard across all US combat aircraft that have radars, and even in some that don't.

Again, unrepresentative. Look again at the wing thickness of the F-313 rear wings. Due to its subsonic nature, it benefits from such thick wings for its fuel reserves. All modern fighters have tanks in their wings, but none is to the level of the F-313 (at its size class). Even its canards have tanks...
The F-313 has less fuel consumption than a dry single RD-33 Mig-29, it is something completely different.

Fair enough.

But performance is a function of wight, thrust, drag and lift.

The F-313 has less of all of those. Sure, the weight and drag may help, but I think the low thrust especially is a big problem. And the margin of weight is still a matter of discussion because of the size.

Yes, who knows. Maybe its 4000kg due to RQ-170 derived new gen. composites. Maybe its 7000kg due to its width/volume and fuel reserves. None is a deal breaker on rate of climb for pop-up.

I wont draw a CAD model of the Q-313 layout. What I can do is a flashover bill of 3x4m = engine + weaponbay + nosesection = 12m.
Now If you have problems with that, draw it in scale and prove that my flashover bill is false.

The Al-222 is 3.1 metres long and the F-135 is 5.6 metres long. Considering some of the F-135 pokes in between the weapons bays, their length behind the weapons bays is about the same.

Though the front fuselage needs to be a bit longer than conventional aircraft since the intake, canard, nose and cockpit are all in that section.