IRIAF | News and Discussions

[PeeD]

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.

My fuel is at other, better places to allow for one large central weaponbay.

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 wanted to say that if Iran manages to produce a cheap turbofan and a cheap 120km max. track range AESA, it can significantly push down the price, it was not meant for comparison with those two trainers.

I can just tell you that the budget of Irans AIO is given by the state. In contrast to embraer its a non-profit company for Iran. Iran don't by its equipment from private companies.
Hence its a complete different thing.
Why do you think the price difference of a tucano compared to the Yak is just $1m? Does this makes any sense? Now Russia was forces to privatize parts of its aerospace industry. In Iran all is selfmade with no profit margin in the chain.
This is the key to get such prices.

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.

No. Its main radar evasive asset would be terrain masking. LO would be just secondary for the pop-up and if something try to hunt it. Infact if designed correctly the 20° aspect to the top aspect RCS could be low enough, remember that the huge underside of the B-2 also has a very low RCS.

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

Well if the U.S fleet can shot the AMRAAM with passive data via link-16, good for the Americans, could help. As said the AEW position would be certainly known to Irans IADS and they would operate at stand-off ranges. I have grave doubts about tracking the LO F-313 from 200km+ range with their AEW radars.

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.

To complex for such a judgment.

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.

I don't follow you: So you have seen that a non-afterburning low power turbofan is about half the length than the F-135. You also know that there is no intake that act as a barrier nor a landing gear. So whats the problem?

 

[AmirPatriot]

My fuel is at other, better places to allow for one large central weaponbay.

But wouldn't having sizeable fuel in the wings require sturdier wing construction, which increases weight, cost, and complexity?

Why do you think the price difference of a tucano compared to the Yak is just $1m? Does this makes any sense? Now Russia was forces to privatize parts of its aerospace industry. In Iran all is selfmade with no profit margin in the chain.
This is the key to get such prices.

Good point, but even if the Yak-130 was half the price at $8 million for domestic purchases (actually more like $9 million because of inflation), your estimates of $8 million for a stealthy combat aircraft are optimistic.

No. Its main radar evasive asset would be terrain masking.

But what if it is deployed in Iran's flatter southern and eastern areas, or even over the Persian Gulf or Gulf of Oman?

I have grave doubts about tracking the LO F-313 from 200km+ range with their AEW radars.

Well an E-3 can detect a "small" fighter size target from up to 270 km away. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/2300/Articles/PG/PGSA.htm

Other sources give a 320 km range for low flying targets without giving RCS figures.

Assuming a small fighter is something like an F-16 with an RCS of 1.2 m^2, a LO aircraft with an RCS similar to the F/A-18E/F/G's 0.5 m^2 could be detected from outside the AIM-54's rmax, and certainly outside its NEZ.

You also know that there is no intake that act as a barrier nor a landing gear

Well if you look at the F-313 design, you can see that the intake and the canards do not overlap. The intake is before the canard.

I personally think that cockpit would have to be moved forward, a bit further away from the intake, to allow for more room for life support systems and to make the cockpit big enough for proper HUDs and controls. There is also the issue of having enough space for a second seat in conversion trainers.

 

[VEVAK]

My fuel is at other, better places to allow for one large central weaponbay.



I wanted to say that if Iran manages to produce a cheap turbofan and a cheap 120km max. track range AESA, it can significantly push down the price, it was not meant for comparison with those two trainers.

I can just tell you that the budget of Irans AIO is given by the state. In contrast to embraer its a non-profit company for Iran. Iran don't by its equipment from private companies.
Hence its a complete different thing.
Why do you think the price difference of a tucano compared to the Yak is just $1m? Does this makes any sense? Now Russia was forces to privatize parts of its aerospace industry. In Iran all is selfmade with no profit margin in the chain.
This is the key to get such prices.



No. Its main radar evasive asset would be terrain masking. LO would be just secondary for the pop-up and if something try to hunt it. Infact if designed correctly the 20° aspect to the top aspect RCS could be low enough, remember that the huge underside of the B-2 also has a very low RCS.



Well if the U.S fleet can shot the AMRAAM with passive data via link-16, good for the Americans, could help. As said the AEW position would be certainly known to Irans IADS and they would operate at stand-off ranges. I have grave doubts about tracking the LO F-313 from 200km+ range with their AEW radars.



To complex for such a judgment.



I don't follow you: So you have seen that a non-afterburning low power turbofan is about half the length than the F-135. You also know that there is no intake that act as a barrier nor a landing gear. So whats the problem?

Regardless of it's purchasing price the Q-313 is NOT a fighter worth producing! And yes you can pack the Aircraft up with fuel to be used as a short range Air Refueling tanker BUT you CAN NOT pack it with Fuel & Weapons because the aircraft's max payload with those small engines will prevent you from doing so!

Putting a weapons bay on an Aircraft is not just about reducing RCS!
A properly designed fighter with a weapons bay allows the platform to reduce drag while loaded with weapons that allows you to increase speed, maneuverability & range
Q-313 lacks both speed, maneuverability & range due to it's poor design features

An Aircraft built to fly at low altitudes needs to be heavily armored & capable of withstanding multiple hits & Q-313 is not such an Aircraft
An Aircraft built to fly at low altitudes needs to have it's IRST & optical sensors located at a position that it can detect threats from above which means putting the IRST underneath the aircraft doesn't make sense & the reason the US puts it underneath F-35 is because they are trained to fly at high altitudes to take advantage of max range

NOTHING about the Q-313 makes any type of sense and it doesn't matter what excuses you keep giving at the end of the day the Aircraft is poorly designed & the Airframe is just not worth the engines on the Aircraft!

Your too fixated on the initial price of the Aircraft & you don't seem to understand the long term implication of Iran producing such a poorly designed Air Frame

There is no reason why Iran should waist it's human resources, tools and facilities on such a poorly unconventional wing design when they can easily redesign the wings to a simpler more conventional delta wing design.....

 

[AmirPatriot]

@PeeD I've been thinking a bit on your assertion that in any war Iran might face, there is no point in having an air force because we are so inferior to our enemies.

I can foresee 3 possible wars we may have to fight:

1. War with the US. Because of things like conflict escalation and things, I think the only possible war we would have with the US would be a big one. The Big One. The US, while aggressive and a leviathan, is not stupid. It will not start a war over something small in the Persian Gulf with a regional power like Iran, or try to strike Iran's nuclear program thinking it will not be retaliated against. Iran will respond with full force because that is part of our deterrence.

Therefore, any war between the US and Iran would be a huge clash on par with the Vietnam or Korean wars. In such a case, yes, there is no point having a proper air force, but I'd argue there is no point having any air force at all. We must remember the US has a monumental air force and navy that if it deployed it with full force, would overwhelm our air defence and air force easily. With sheer force of numbers and quality. Think F-22s, B-2s, their stockpile of 3,500 Tomahawks, as well as enough JSOW and HARM for anyone to be fearful of.

In such a case, we would have no choice but to rely on powerful allies like Russia or China to provide heavy armament support, and draft millions upon millions of our men. A total war that would dwarf the Sacred Defence.

Thankfully, such a thing is very unlikely to happen.

2. War with Israel. Likely over our nuclear program. Now, Israel may be less powerful than the US, but they are more por roo. They may attempt to strike our nuclear program. In such a case they would obviously use combat aircraft, but because of sheer distance they would only be able to field a small number of albeit advanced aircraft, like the F-35.

In such a case, the quality, not the quantity, is what Iran needs. Even a small-medium number of advanced fighters coupled with the IADS could be very useful.

3. War with Saudi Arabia. In my opinion, the most likely out of the 3. For sure Saudi Arabia has a big air force. But that doesn't mean we cannot have the same. We are after a regional power and need to be able to protect this status. Any war with Saudi Arabia would probably be a short lived one, fought on the seas and in the air. There will be no ground war, for geographical reasons. Yes, I want us to go against them in the air with similar forces. It worked well for us in the 1980s against a similarly symmetrical foe.

 

[raptor22]

@PeeD I've been thinking a bit on your assertion that in any war Iran might face, there is no point in having an air force because we are so inferior to our enemies.

I can foresee 3 possible wars we may have to fight:

1. War with the US. Because of things like conflict escalation and things, I think the only possible war we would have with the US would be a big one. The Big One. The US, while aggressive and a leviathan, is not stupid. It will not start a war over something small in the Persian Gulf with a regional power like Iran, or try to strike Iran's nuclear program thinking it will not be retaliated against. Iran will respond with full force because that is part of our deterrence.

Therefore, any war between the US and Iran would be a huge clash on par with the Vietnam or Korean wars. In such a case, yes, there is no point having a proper air force, but I'd argue there is no point having any air force at all. We must remember the US has a monumental air force and navy that if it deployed it with full force, would overwhelm our air defence and air force easily. With sheer force of numbers and quality. Think F-22s, B-2s, their stockpile of 3,500 Tomahawks, as well as enough JSOW and HARM for anyone to be fearful of.

In such a case, we would have no choice but to rely on powerful allies like Russia or China to provide heavy armament support, and draft millions upon millions of our men. A total war that would dwarf the Sacred Defence.

Thankfully, such a thing is very unlikely to happen.

2. War with Israel. Likely over our nuclear program. Now, Israel may be less powerful than the US, but they are more por roo. They may attempt to strike our nuclear program. In such a case they would obviously use combat aircraft, but because of sheer distance they would only be able to field a small number of albeit advanced aircraft, like the F-35.

In such a case, the quality, not the quantity, is what Iran needs. Even a small-medium number of advanced fighters coupled with the IADS could be very useful.

3. War with Saudi Arabia. In my opinion, the most likely out of the 3. For sure Saudi Arabia has a big air force. But that doesn't mean we cannot have the same. We are after a regional power and need to be able to protect this status. Any war with Saudi Arabia would probably be a short lived one, fought on the seas and in the air. There will be no ground war, for geographical reasons. Yes, I want us to go against them in the air with similar forces. It worked well for us in the 1980s against a similarly symmetrical foe.

I think if case 2 occurs American would be dragged into war eventually and vice versa ... and if it gets more complicated Saudis, the UAE would get involved too ... But I think Saudis would not start war without American green light, and American would not give green light without being sure of security of israel ... so as far as you could keep isreal in check .. nothing would happen ...

 

[AmirPatriot]

I think if case 2 occurs American would be dragged into war eventually and vice versa ... and if it gets more complicated Saudis, the UAE would get involved too ... But I think Saudis would not start war without American green light, and American would not give green light without being sure of security of israel ... so as far as you could keep isreal in check .. nothing would happen ...

It really depends on the type of conflict. If Israel succeeds, Iran would seek revenge very forcefully and this may mean American involvement. Personally I think this "Israel will not exist in 20 years" talk as propaganda. Iran will not go for the destruction of Israel at our current level of power.

If they fail, Iran would still retaliate because it has been attacked, but hostilities would end before the Americans get involved.

 

[Arminkh]

It really depends on the type of conflict. If Israel succeeds, Iran would seek revenge very forcefully and this may mean American involvement. Personally I think this "Israel will not exist in 20 years" talk as propaganda. Iran will not go for the destruction of Israel at our current level of power.

If they fail, Iran would still retaliate because it has been attacked, but hostilities would end before the Americans get involved.

That statement refers to the school of thought that Israel represents. I don't think any of Iranian leaders mean physical destruction when they talk about existence of Israel. All this animosity will disappear over night if they either give Palestinians Citizen rights or accept them as an independent, internationally recognized nation with all the rights that it brings.

 

[PeeD]

But wouldn't having sizeable fuel in the wings require sturdier wing construction, which increases weight, cost, and complexity?

Tanks in wings is a must for Iran due to its size. Generally I want to see novel airframing methods, vast use of composites, large access-less panels etc. Maybe methods of the RQ-170 can be applied. The airframe needs to be cheap, that's the key element beside engine and radar cost.

Good point, but even if the Yak-130 was half the price at $8 million for domestic purchases (actually more like $9 million because of inflation), your estimates of $8 million for a stealthy combat aircraft are optimistic.

What does stealthy means to you? I can use a special cheap outer airframe panel made from a composite that incorporates RAM, a RAS and still end up cheaper then machined aluminium, even polymers could be employed for a subsonic fighter.
There are many ways to achieve that.
The Yak-130 might have private companies involved, making the engines (Ukraine) and avionics. Irans defense industry for the F-313 on the other hand is fully state controlled, similar to that of the Soviet Union. This would push the price down to those levels I suggested.

But what if it is deployed in Iran's flatter southern and eastern areas, or even over the Persian Gulf or Gulf of Oman?

Look at your map. Iran is one of the few countries in the world with such a mountain topology. We better make best use of this and operate the F-313 in terrain masking. It's a must to remain survivable against a huge overpower.
The F-313 better avoids operating away from the mountain chains. The reach two LRAAMs would provide is there to make up for that fact. The F-313 would be a strike and airdefense fighter operating exclusively inside Irans IADS for the duration of the high intensity phase.

Well an E-3 can detect a "small" fighter size target from up to 270 km away. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/2300/Articles/PG/PGSA.htm

Other sources give a 320 km range for low flying targets without giving RCS figures.

Assuming a small fighter is something like an F-16 with an RCS of 1.2 m^2, a LO aircraft with an RCS similar to the F/A-18E/F/G's 0.5 m^2 could be detected from outside the AIM-54's rmax, and certainly outside its NEZ.

AEW operate at safe stand-off stations, they keep >100km away from threat zones. 270km against a Mig-21/F-16 is not enough to detect a 0,1m² S-band F-313.

Well if you look at the F-313 design, you can see that the intake and the canards do not overlap. The intake is before the canard.

I don't follow you. Whats the problem with a top intake and duct and that canard?

I personally think that cockpit would have to be moved forward, a bit further away from the intake, to allow for more room for life support systems and to make the cockpit big enough for proper HUDs and controls.

You think there is not sufficient space for a HUD?

As for you 3 scenarios: Why do you want to fight the Saudis with a proper airforce? Why do you want a airforce of the size of the Saudis to compete with them? Because it worked in the 80's you want it now too?

Bro, war is something professional. Iran is professional. We kill the Saudis as quick and as decisively as anyhow possible with the best, most effective AND efficient means available. No games, no mercy, this is serious stuff.
If we can stop the U.S airpower, we can break the neck of Saudi airpower. If the means for that is the BM/CM force, then because it is the most effective/efficient one.
Iran prepares for the worst, Saudis and Israelis are in between.
I'm slowly fed up with such reactionary views and can only hope Iranian decision makers don't fall for this.

@VEVAK

You already expressed you view about the F-313. Our views are too different to make another try for discussion. Until you believe it is powered by upgraded Toloue-4, I'm out.

 

[Muhammed45]

You already expressed you view about the F-313. Our views are too different to make another try for discussion. Until you believe it is powered by upgraded Toloue-4, I'm out.

I'm wondering how can VEVAK believe that a three stage axial designed engine can power up a fighters jet?!!! Let alone the required thrust for a take off.

It really depends on the type of conflict. If Israel succeeds, Iran would seek revenge very forcefully and this may mean American involvement. Personally I think this "Israel will not exist in 20 years" talk as propaganda. Iran will not go for the destruction of Israel at our current level of power.

If they fail, Iran would still retaliate because it has been attacked, but hostilities would end before the Americans get involved.

Israel is an apartheid regime Amir!
That regime will collapse internally, you don't need to attack it.
Look at it's population, it is full of traitor Arabs of Palestine who have accepted the conquer of Israel. You should guess how would Israelis treat them. How long a humiliated human can stay humiliated? Israeli society is more like a cobweb!!!
Evenif you forget about the Arabs inside Israeli society, you cannot ignore the racism between Zionist-Jews. AshkeNAZI Zions treat other Jews like a rubbish.

In medias, you won't see these! only a make up of it's wormy nature is on the front of our eyes.

 

[Draco.IMF]

you guys forget one important factor -> The downing of RQ-170 drone
asfaik, because Iran gets access to its engine technology, it boosted the iranian jet engine industry ~ 30 years ahead.
I dont understand some guys here why Iran should rely on some old Touloue engines when Iran has access to much better engines.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Tanks in wings is a must for Iran due to its size. Generally I want to see novel airframing methods, vast use of composites, large access-less panels etc.

I know, but having very large tanks in wings mean more weight, which would also mean more reinforcement needed to keep those wings structurally stable.

What does stealthy means to you?

RAM and stealth shaping. RAM isn't cheap, and it is costly to maintain as well. Shaping requires expensive development and special production techniques, especially if they are for sensitive parts like wing box which will require Titanium.

The Yak-130 might have private companies involved, making the engines (Ukraine) and avionics.

Might.

The engines are produced in Russia.

And I really must insist that you get this $8 million range out of your equations. Someone of your stature should not be dealing in such fantasies. It is a dream number. However many private companies get involved in a prop driven Super Tucano, a twin jet stealth combat aircraft is NOT going to be cheaper to design, build or maintain than it in ANY circumstances. Especially considering Iran's inexperience in building combat aircraft will mean we will have to spend more money for R&D, since we don't have the off the shelf components that many other countries can use, nor do we have the industrial capacity built up yet.

I think the F-313 you envision is likely to cost in the $20-30 million range, because of the inherent costs required in setting up an entirely new production line (rather than re-tooling an existing one) because we don't have any for fighter aircraft, designing and producing turbofans, a 120 km ranged radar, which is AESA by the way. Sensor fusion and considerable amounts of electronics. An airframe with stealth shaping and coated in RAM, that has to withstand high subsonic at very low altitude (where there is high air density and pressure). At such altitude strenuous manoeuvres may be required since you envision the F-313 operating in mountain ranges. And considerable effort would have to be made to make the aircraft as reliable as possible (first time turbofan, making it reliable...) since at very low altitude there is no margin for error or malfunction. Consider for a moment the high fatality rate from accidents because of such a low altitude flight regime.

At such a price level the concept is not feasible. Having 600 $25 million aircraft costing $15 billion is not going to work better than, say, 200 advanced aircraft costing $70 million each, $14 billion total.

The F-313 better avoids operating away from the mountain chains.

So what will protect the flat areas? Khuzestan, home to most of our oil and therefore our biggest source of hard cash, is a flat area.

AEW operate at safe stand-off stations, they keep >100km away from threat zones. 270km against a Mig-21/F-16 is not enough to detect a 0,1m² S-band F-313.

>100 km should be enough to detect a 0.1 m^2 F-313.

I don't follow you. Whats the problem with a top intake and duct and that canard?

For your operating regime, nothing. But that doesn't mean they do not take up space.

You think there is not sufficient space for a HUD?

My mistake. I meant displays, specifically MFDs.

Why do you want to fight the Saudis with a proper airforce? Why do you want a airforce of the size of the Saudis to compete with them? Because it worked in the 80's you want it now too?

Because I don't think your model is financially or operationally feasible. Air forces remain the most cost effective offence in terms of bang for buck. And advanced combat aircraft remain a strong tool for the IADS. They are also more flexible, which your model of the F-313 is not.

Iran is professional. We kill the Saudis as quick and as decisively as anyhow possible with the best, most effective AND efficient means available.

Exactly. We deal with them efficiently. That is, with a highly capable and fierce high intensity warfare doctrine combining vast numbers of BMs and CMs, with advanced tactical aircraft that can survive in an impermissible environment to provide additional firepower and precision. Defensively, a modern IADS using SAMs for point defence (this doesn't mean short range, it just means highly capable systems guarding HVTs) and the long range and mobility of fighter aircraft for area and forward defence. These fighter aircraft can also aid SAMs in defending against large attacks on HVTs.

If we can stop the U.S airpower

We cannot, for reasons I have already explained.

 

[Sina-1]

And I really must insist that you get this $8 million range out of your equations.

Amir jan there is a difference between price and cost. The aircraft you are pointing to are listed price, while PEED is referring to manufacturing cost.
It is not a secret that Aircraft manufacturers hike the aircraft price by several orders.
Another fact is certification. Every single part used in an fighter jet needs to be certified in the west which can take anything from 1-2 year (now imagine the cost in both man and calendar hours!). China for example does not have as rigorous certification processes and thus they are able to develop and produce (by looks of it) state of the art fighter jets much more quickly.

In conclusion if you remove the "profit" and the extremely expensive certification processes then IMO PEEDs numbers are not far off.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Amir jan there is a difference between price and cost. The aircraft you are pointing to are listed price, while PEED is referring to manufacturing cost.

I tried to find the manufacturing costs for the Super Tucano and the domestic purchase price for the Yak-130 but couldn't.

It is not a secret that Aircraft manufacturers hike the aircraft price by several orders.
Another fact is certification. Every single part used in an fighter jet needs to be certified in the west which can take anything from 1-2 year (now imagine the cost in both man and calendar hours!). China for example does not have as rigorous certification processes and thus they are able to develop and produce (by looks of it) state of the art fighter jets much more quickly.

Actually China's J-20 had its first flight over 6 years ago and is still not in serial production so I don't think that is correct.

In conclusion if you remove the "profit" and the extremely expensive certification processes then IMO PEEDs numbers are not far off.

I don't think any sane businessman will charge someone more for a prop driven trainer/COIN plane than a twin jet stealth tactical aircraft.

 

[PeeD]

I know, but having very large tanks in wings mean more weight, which would also mean more reinforcement needed to keep those wings structurally stable.

Of course everything needs to be reinforced up to the requirements and it costs more.

RAM and stealth shaping. RAM isn't cheap, and it is costly to maintain as well. Shaping requires expensive development and special production techniques, especially if they are for sensitive parts like wing box which will require Titanium.

What about no use of RAM or one that is already built in into the composite suface? What about a cheap RAM?
What about carbonfiber loads structures instead of titanium due to lower G limits and lower airframe lifetime?

And I really must insist that you get this $8 million range out of your equations. Someone of your stature should not be dealing in such fantasies. It is a dream number. However many private companies get involved in a prop driven Super Tucano, a twin jet stealth combat aircraft is NOT going to be cheaper to design, build or maintain than it in ANY circumstances.

You misunderstand how Irans defense industry works. Its not a market driven capitalist system.
State orders a certain subsystem to be built and pays for it's R&D and production line. Be it the turbofan, the airborne AESA, or down to a radio data-link.
They start development of those systems and subsystems until they get that capability. If almost all of those systems and subsystems are ready, the time has come for the F-313 production. A F-313-version of all those systems and subsystems is developed and provided.

Hence the R&D costs for the system and subsystems are not part of the F-313 cost.

For some systems this gets more tricky. Possible that the 2013 F-313 was planned to use a locally made J-85 or a non-afterburning RD-33. This would mean that the F-313 project was forced to change because one of its main systems had changed, the engines. Why had it changed? Because now the IRGC-ASF had the RQ-170 engine available and wanted the engine industry to copy that instead of a e.g RD-33 (because their S-171 project needs it).
So if this story would have been like that and this created the J90 small turbofan, the F-313 would be forced to use it. This is why R&D costs of systems and subsystems are not directly in the F-313 project.

Its rather so that the F-313 team has mostly to check which systems and subsystems are available/projected in Irans state defense companies and develop their project based on whats available. Of course some less "strategic", cheaper subsystems would be developed specially for the F-313 only.

My $8m number even excludes R&D cost, just the pure cost for one airframe.

I would do a cost break down plus a CAD model if I had any confidence that the F-313 is not a fake disinformation project and really is close to my interpretation. Which I don't have atm.

Sensor fusion and considerable amounts of electronics.

One of the fields where huge savings can be done due to the jump in modern solid state technologies. Miniaturization and best use of high computing power, memory tech. etc.
No need for bulky stuff from a "proven company/team" = old, influential and not progressive.
As Sina said, no need for certification process, just state testes.

An airframe with stealth shaping and coated in RAM, that has to withstand high subsonic at very low altitude (where there is high air density and pressure).

Gust winds needs to be taken care of, but I would opt for a 5G max. loadlimit. This is not a fighter but a BVR carrier that would not be able to doge a missile anyway. Just benefit from the cost benefits of the 5G limit.

And considerable effort would have to be made to make the aircraft as reliable as possible (first time turbofan, making it reliable...)

I want its J90 engines to have just 500 hours TBO instead of 4000. Again a huge cost benefit and due to very low training requirements and short duration of a modern conflict, a sober decision. Ground testing will make sure it's working and two of them make sure that a failure of one is not catastrophic. It's better not a clean sheet design and hopefully heavily based on the RQ-170 engine.

since at very low altitude there is no margin for error or malfunction. Consider for a moment the high fatality rate from accidents because of such a low altitude flight regime.

I would use unmanned variants for low level tests until its proven sufficiently.

So what will protect the flat areas? Khuzestan, home to most of our oil and therefore our biggest source of hard cash, is a flat area.

The F-313 would add flexibility to the IADS to make up for a local enemy spearhead. Those 10% of the country without mountains close enough for the pop-up of the 100km shot, would need a high SAM concentration if they house high value targets.
Take this as another restriction, but its again absolutely no deal breaker.

>100 km should be enough to detect a 0.1 m^2 F-313.

Radar equation says its not.

My mistake. I meant displays, specifically MFDs.

Iran makes MFDs which I find too bulky for our age of time. We need a innovative company that stops the use of this 30 year old technology. There is no capitalist company lobby in Iran that pushed for the purchase of their old, bulky but proven technologies. They better use their youth and dynamics/innovation to develop a miniaturized MFD. Again: Iran is not the U.S or Russia with a ancient traditional and capable aerospace industry. We need to make best use of the dynamics this provides to go for new and better solutions.
The 5G load rating contributes contributes such fields immensely.



As for airpower: If you think its a better idea to fight Saudis with 200 Su-30, good for you.

 

[VEVAK]

@VEVAK

You already expressed you view about the F-313. Our views are too different to make another try for discussion. Until you believe it is powered by upgraded Toloue-4, I'm out.

I said if the Kowsar is going to be powered by a J-90 then that would likely be powered by an engine based on the Toloue-4! That's not the same as saying the Kowsar is powered by the Toloue 4! And has nothing to do with the Q-313!

The Q-313 even if you redesign the engines & intakes to carry 2 RD-33 engines it wouldn't make a difference because the Aircraft is poorly designed starting with it's wing's

And yes the Q-313 looks very cool & it would make a nice concept Aircraft BUT it will never be a good combat aircraft!

And nonsense excuses like it can takeoff from a small runway are nothing but BS! It would be far simpler and it would make far more sense in every way to build a bunch of ground equipment to quickly cleanup and repair a runway then it would be to sacrifice the combat capability of your aircraft just so you can takeoff quicker with weaker engines! It's not like Iran is some backward country that can't even build it's own roads!

Iran should have stuck with or tried to make adjustments to it's Sofrh Mahi designs for a combat aircraft rather than this absurdly ridicules Q-313 design