IRIAF | News and Discussions

[ashok321]

https://twitter.com/x/status/903978270667956224

 

[AmirPatriot]

What about no use of RAM or one that is already built in into the composite suface? What about a cheap RAM?

No use of RAM means you are just hampering yourself. As for the other two, examples? Details?

What about carbonfiber loads structures instead of titanium due to lower G limits and lower airframe lifetime?

If you want to pull 5 Gs while holding both wings which are full of fuel, you need something very strong like Titanium. Carbon fibre is mostly used in the aerospace industry because of it doesn't substitute much stiffness for lightness, but that doesn't mean its near Titanium.

Those wings, by the way, would also be carrying externally carried weapons and/or fuel if you are smart and make your aircraft capable of conducting non-stealth missions with greater firepower.

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

That's not a matter of cost savings, that's a matter of bad accounting. Just because you hide the procurement cost somewhere else doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

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.

So that means in peace time you will barely be able to fly your aircraft if at all otherwise you'd have to be constantly changing out the entire engine. This means poorly trained crews and whatever automation you have my friend, if there is a guy in there he needs to have lots of flight time in order to be properly trained. I hope we are not in the realm of the Arab monarchies who think you can compensate for bad soldiers with good equipment.

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

And it would have to be very sufficiently, because of the non-existent margin for error.

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.

I think its a very bad idea to leave your main cash generators protected with only ground based AD. One of my biggest criticisms of a purely ground based military is that if you have no air force the enemy has to only deal with 1 thing - your SAMs. If you have a good air force and SAMs, they have to fight 2 things at once, with is much harder in every respect.

Radar equation says its not.

I was looking for this radar equation when I was looking for E-3 stats. Can you explain/link me to this equation please?

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

Well I think of a different mix of aircraft but that is the general idea, a large advanced air force.

 

[PeeD]

No use of RAM means you are just hampering yourself. As for the other two, examples? Details?

No RAM could mean anything. It could mean LO rating instead of VLO which could be sufficient for its operation regime.
Then you want examples of integrated RAM? It falls under the therm RAS, search for yourself.

Look Amir: sometimes there are technologies which change the whole cost and performance numbers of established technologies. The Israelis did this with their Hermes drone family. It had a revolutionary design which kicked up the time of flight and pushed down the costs.
You think everything has to be conventional, like the Yak-130 is conventional.

No. Iran needs novel approaches to be able compete in airpower. A subsonic rated composite that includes RAM --> RAS would be one such ways.
So no RAM is not a cost driving deal breaker for the F-313, either they use a new technology or omit it totally (for the main structures, not the gaps).

If you want to pull 5 Gs while holding both wings which are full of fuel, you need something very strong like Titanium.

Who said that? First 5G might be allowed just at 50% fuel, a certain weight limit. Second, novel structural approached can do it with composites and carbon fiber. Third, a wing that had no hardpoints for weapons due to a w-bay, can carry the allowed weight in form of fuel.

Carbon fibre is mostly used in the aerospace industry because of it doesn't substitute much stiffness for lightness, but that doesn't mean its near Titanium.

Who said that? Are you and VEVAK airframe engineers? You must be because the engineering problem is very complex to be judged in such a certain way.

No. This is a subsonic rated, 5G limit rated (at 50% fuel, <1000kg weapon payload) concept with no tons of weapons underwing, just fuel. How do you or VEVAK want to determine that Ti is necessary instead of a load carrying hull + a carbon/composite load structure? You can't.

Maybe Ti is planned to be used because it is determined to be cost effective for load structures...

Those wings, by the way, would also be carrying externally carried weapons and/or fuel if you are smart and make your aircraft capable of conducting non-stealth missions with greater firepower.

I'm smarter and mount them at the fuselage instead of the wings. Even smarter would be to used cost-effective UACV for that kind of missions.

That's not a matter of cost savings, that's a matter of bad accounting. Just because you hide the procurement cost somewhere else doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

This is not an export item. For what do you want the accounting. Excluding R&D I want a cost of $8m per airframe.

So that means in peace time you will barely be able to fly your aircraft if at all otherwise you'd have to be constantly changing out the entire engine. This means poorly trained crews and whatever automation you have my friend, if there is a guy in there he needs to have lots of flight time in order to be properly trained. I hope we are not in the realm of the Arab monarchies who think you can compensate for bad soldiers with good equipment.

The F-313 would be an automated BVR missile carrier. So yes, I want as less as possible live training for it's pilots.
It has nothing to do with Arabs and bad soldiers. Saudis are stupid that they fly a hanger queen like the F-15 for training their pilots regularly ($40k per hour...). The Americans squeeze the dollars out of them and their contracted western ground crews make additional dollars. Utterly stupid.

Iran is better not so stupid to go for a 300 flight hours training per year fighter. Because one way to defeat a country is to drive it into bankruptcy with subtile methods and ideas just developed to do so.
The Soviets showed well how effective automation can be employed with their submarine force.

I think its a very bad idea to leave your main cash generators protected with only ground based AD. One of my biggest criticisms of a purely ground based military is that if you have no air force the enemy has to only deal with 1 thing - your SAMs. If you have a good air force and SAMs, they have to fight 2 things at once, with is much harder in every respect.

Our enemy ABSOLUTLY overpowers us in airpower. So what is conventional airpower worth against it? You want to compete with it in that field, or go for something they have problems to handle? They have problems to handle a ground based IADS, so we better go for what they are weaker in.

I was looking for this radar equation when I was looking for E-3 stats. Can you explain/link me to this equation please?

http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/The Radar equation in practice.en.html

It's math.

 

[AmirPatriot]

A subsonic rated composite that includes RAM --> RAS would be one such ways.

Examples?

Third, a wing that had no hardpoints for weapons due to a w-bay, can carry the allowed weight in form of fuel.

And that makes the aircraft incredibly limited in role and capable of next to no flexibility.

How do you or VEVAK want to determine that Ti is necessary instead of a load carrying hull + a carbon/composite load structure? You can't.

Can you give examples of aircraft that use carbon/composite wing boxes?

I'm smarter and mount them at the fuselage instead of the wings.

Not really possible when your small fuselage is taken up mostly by weapons bays. Out of all tactical stealth combat aircraft like the F-22, F-35, J-20, J-31 and T-50, only the T-50 has hard points on the fuselage (just 2, it has more on the wings), and those are on the engine nacelles that run the side of the aircraft, which won't happen with your F-313 since it is a much, much smaller design.

Even smarter would be to used cost-effective UACV for that kind of missions.

A cost effective UCAV would have to be pretty big to match the payload of, say, a Yak-130, therefore reducing that cost effectiveness. It's still a major project my friend. And in some cases it still isn't possible. It could do it in permissible airspace, but not really semi-permissible airspace. In short, you'd need aerial supremacy, aerial superiority isn't enough.

This is not an export item. For what do you want the accounting. Excluding R&D I want a cost of $8m per airframe.

Even if it isn't an export item, it still needs to be paid for. You can't pay a (arbitrary large number) billion dollars for R&D of an airframe for the F-313 and then just pretend it isn't relevant to the F-313. You have to include it.

The F-313 would be an automated BVR missile carrier. So yes, I want as less as possible live training for it's pilots.
It has nothing to do with Arabs and bad soldiers. Saudis are stupid that they fly a hanger queen like the F-15 for training their pilots regularly ($40k per hour...). The Americans squeeze the dollars out of them and their contracted western ground crews make additional dollars. Utterly stupid.

They don't use the F-15 for training, its for practice to retain and improve skills. Flight hours are a basic instrument of improving skill, @kollang will tell you that.

Iran is better not so stupid to go for a 300 flight hours training per year fighter.

The Americans didn't even do that in their peak of budget and relative aerial power, which was the 1980s/90s. They did 200 hours back then, about 150 now. Even if you do just 100 hours now, its only 5 years of life in that airframe, nevermind it will be flying much more than that in conflict.

Our enemy ABSOLUTLY overpowers us in airpower.

That's not because we've been trying our hardest to have a powerful air force and they've just beaten us at that because they're better. It's because Iran neglected the IRIAF for decades and now we have reached this. If Iran started putting the same sort of effort and resources it put into its ballistic missile force, into the IRIAF, we could envision a bright future for the IRIAF.

http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/The Radar equation in practice.en.html

We don't have the detailed figures of the E-3 radar to use the equation.



PS: I'm enjoying this discussion. They are difficult to come by.

 

[PeeD]

Examples?

The RQ-170 is rumored to use such a integrated RAM. But you can imagine it's hard to come by. Its certainly technically possible for low thermal stressed = subsonic airframes.

Can you give examples of aircraft that use carbon/composite wing boxes?

No, as I'm not so much informed on aircrafts anymore. But from engineering perspective, you can do anything you want, carbon composite, steel or even new aluminium alloys. The question is only what performs better for weight and which one is less expensive.
If titanium is too expensive for the set cost limit many different other materials can be used for a 5g rated missile carrier.

Not really possible when your small fuselage is taken up mostly by weapons bays. Out of all tactical stealth combat aircraft like the F-22, F-35, J-20, J-31 and T-50, only the T-50 has hard points on the fuselage (just 2, it has more on the wings), and those are on the engine nacelles that run the side of the aircraft, which won't happen with your F-313 since it is a much, much smaller design.

Look at the F-15E for a fuselage hardpoint arrangement applicable to the F-313 on a bomb truck mission.

A cost effective UCAV would have to be pretty big to match the payload of, say, a Yak-130, therefore reducing that cost effectiveness. It's still a major project my friend. And in some cases it still isn't possible. It could do it in permissible airspace, but not really semi-permissible airspace. In short, you'd need aerial supremacy, aerial superiority isn't enough.

We had that discussion here, no need to repeat it.

Even if it isn't an export item, it still needs to be paid for. You can't pay a (arbitrary large number) billion dollars for R&D of an airframe for the F-313 and then just pretend it isn't relevant to the F-313. You have to include it.

So include the R&D on my 600 airframes. But bear in mind that this is not a conventional decade long project like the 20billion Turkish program. But I told you about the state procurement concept of Iran.

They don't use the F-15 for training, its for practice to retain and improve skills. Flight hours are a basic instrument of improving skill, @kollang will tell you that.

The skill level of my F313 would be fortunately low because of its operation regime and high automation (due to the high available processing power of today).
A F-15 pilot on the other hand needs to train all the skills for bombing/interdiction, BVR positioning and dogfighting. They can't reach those skills in a T-38 trainer but need to do it at $40k an hour on a F-15. If they do those 150 hours on their F-15, it's 6 million dollars a year for training.
Training is always important but with a much smaller skill requirement, you need much less hours.
We slowly reach the age of maneuvering UCAV, in 10-15 years, automation is a game changer.

That's not because we've been trying our hardest to have a powerful air force and they've just beaten us at that because they're better. It's because Iran neglected the IRIAF for decades and now we have reached this. If Iran started putting the same sort of effort and resources it put into its ballistic missile force, into the IRIAF, we could envision a bright future for the IRIAF.

When do you think Iran Khodro would be able to compete with Mercedes Benz? 10 years? 100 years? What market share does Mercedes have and hence available money?

Never go for something where the enemy has absolute advantage if there are alternatives to it.
So you might go for a novel small city electric car to compete, but not for a limousine with combustion engine. That's your only hope to compete until the next 50 years.
But I pointed this out too here with VEVAK, no need to repeat.

We don't have the detailed figures of the E-3 radar to use the equation.

I know about the much more powerful S-band Big Bird radar and its detection capability via the radar equation on my spreadsheet. No, an E-3 would never be able to detect a LO 0,1m² target (F-313) at ranges over 100km.

The F-313 would have to fear the X-band fighter radars searching for it after it turns on its radar for the LRAAM shot and then try to hunt it. However X-band performance against a LO target such as the F-313 is low --> secondary key to survive as a subsonic mach 0,9 fighter at low altitude, first key is terrain masking. As said, the B-2 uses the same methods for survival.

 

[VEVAK]

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 ...

I don't think the Americans are worried of Iran attacking Israel if there was a war between Iran & Saudi Arabia!

And I would say the Saudi's would be more worried of what Iran would do to their own infrastructure than anything else & the Americans would be more worried of what Iran would do to their own bases & ships than anything else!
As for Israel it's doubtful Iran would use the missiles it has pointing at Israel unless the Israeli's get directly involved & Israeli's would have to be fools to get involved when two Muslim countries start attacking each other!

Iran didn't build large stocks of Fatteh Class, Zolfaghar Class, Qiam Class, Ya Ali class,... Missiles for Israeli targets!

I would say the only countries that will see Iran's wrath if the Saudi's start a war with Iran by themselves would be the UAE & Bahrain Iran will takeout UAE Military within an hour because Iran can't afford to allow the Saudi's to have an untouched forward operating base in the Persian Gulf & a few months ago I would have put Qatar on that list too
And any Saudi target between Iran & Riyhad will be taken out quickly!

As for the U.S., aside from selling weapons & giving intel It's not in the U.S. interest to get directly involved in a war between Iran & Saudi Arabia because the more Saudi Weapons & Facilities Iran destroys the more money the Americans will make in the long run!
From American military industrial complex to US Oil companies to large US construction companies to media moguls & the Israeli lobby... all without exception would love to see Iran & Saudi Arabia destroy themselves!

The U.S. doesn't see Saudi Arabia as a beacon of stability in the region so they would love to see Iran & Saudi Arabia destroy themselves so it's doubtful that you would see the U.S. lift a finger in the 1st months or year of war and because neither country is strong enough to invade the other all they have to do is wait around! As for giving the go ahead to the Saudi's they'll easily do that as they did to Saddam both against Iran & Kuwait! Hell they have been covertly creating tensions between both countries for years for this very reason!

Which means Iran would have NO CHOICE but to go after U.S. bases in the region & if the U.S. knew a Saudi war against Iran was coming they would more likely withdraw their personal to 1000km from Iranian borders & wait till Iran empty's out it's missiles on empty bases or bases with limited personal & equipment

U.S. likes easy wars and they have already done the math of what the costs would be if they initiate direct military confrontation with Iran without large scale use of nukes it would make Vietnam look like a cakewalk so the best option for them is for another country to start the war so they can wait around and later come in and finish an easy war!

So it's just a question of how stupid the Saudi's are and whether or not they are stupid enough to fall for this trap!
Because there is absolutely nothing Saudi Arabia would gain from a direct military confrontation with Iran! They don't have the power to invade Iran so there is no territory to be gained they don't have the power to change the government in Iran or even change Iran's foreign policy so there would be no political or strategic victory! And because of Iran's support of Hezbullah they can't even use a war with Iran as even a simple distraction just to distract Iran as they take down Syria covertly! And the only thing that would be ensured in a war with Iran is the weakening of their own military & destruction of their own infrastructure!
Saudi's are struggling with the poorest country in the region right off their own border in a country where they speak the language & can cut off supplies too so there would be no victory to be gained in a direct confrontation with Iran & any Saudi monarch would have to be either stupid, insane or a CIA operative to initiate a war with Iran!

I think the next major challenge Iran will be facing will likely be in Kurdistan. ISIS didn't work out for the U.S. because their religious views were just too insane for regional & global populations to accept but that's not a problem when it comes to the Kurds their views are purely ethnic that would translate to nationalistic with an independent Kurdish state & they'll easily sell out to the U.S., Israeli & Saudi's if it results in them having their own independent state!

 

[Cthulhu]

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.

Turbofan engines consist of four sections: the fan, compressor, combustion chamber, and turbine. For the fan and the compressor in the fore half section, where the temperature is relatively low (600˚C or lower), A titanium alloy is mainly used. For the turbine and the combustion chamber in the rear half section where temperatures are higher (1500˚C or higher), a nickel-based alloy or iron-based alloy (a.k.a Superalloys) is used. Having access to a Turbofan engine doesn't give you the technology needed for creating alloys and superalloys.

 

[AmirPatriot]

The RQ-170 is rumored to use such a integrated RAM

Must be a very obscure rumour. I haven't heard about this at all. On the contrary, I've heard the RQ-170 uses minimal physical stealth shaping techniques (beyond the obvious flying wing config) and instead relies on RAM for most of its stealth capacity.

No, as I'm not so much informed on aircrafts anymore. But from engineering perspective, you can do anything you want, carbon composite, steel or even new aluminium alloys. The question is only what performs better for weight and which one is less expensive.

Even commercial airliners use Titanium in their wing boxes and structures, though they do include composites for some parts. And commercial airliners aren't expected to pull 5 Gs.

Look at the F-15E for a fuselage hardpoint arrangement applicable to the F-313 on a bomb truck mission.

Like I said, the F-15 isn't a stealth aircraft and doesn't need to set aside fuselage space for weapons bays.

Not going to work very well when you have those massive bays (relative to the aircraft). You couldn't use both at the same time unless you get very creative with (unstealthy) sections of airframe poking out of the general shape to support those weapons.

So include the R&D on my 600 airframes. But bear in mind that this is not a conventional decade long project like the 20billion Turkish program.

If anything R&D will be more expensive than you expect, since this is a very unconventional design that requires unconventional design solutions.

Training is always important but with a much smaller skill requirement, you need much less hours.

So what, 3 times less, to 50? Still only 10 years of peacetime flying, much less in combat. Whereas IRIAF aircraft have been serving for 40 years now and some of them have been adapted to useful (though not competitive) roles given their age.

When do you think Iran Khodro would be able to compete with Mercedes Benz?

You could pose the same question to China. Compared to the Soviets', Europeans' and Americans' 100 years of experience, they had what, 20 years of experience designing combat aircraft, before they started making stealth aircraft?

I know about the much more powerful S-band Big Bird radar and its detection capability via the radar equation on my spreadsheet. No, an E-3 would never be able to detect a LO 0,1m² target (F-313) at ranges over 100km.

Difference is, the Big Bird is a ground based radar and the E-3 is thousands of feet up.

 

[PeeD]

Must be a very obscure rumour. I haven't heard about this at all. On the contrary, I've heard the RQ-170 uses minimal physical stealth shaping techniques (beyond the obvious flying wing config) and instead relies on RAM for most of its stealth capacity.

There is no reason to talk about something that is classified everywhere. Let me just say that integrated RAM in composite is technically feasible and more so for subsonic design. It's just a question about performance and cost. As said, RAM might only be used for gaps if the target is LO instead of VLO.

Even commercial airliners use Titanium in their wing boxes and structures, though they do include composites for some parts. And commercial airliners aren't expected to pull 5 Gs.

Commercial airliners safe every kg where possible, weight = fuel = money. More so for decade old companies with decade old supply chain and decade old engineers which are used to titanium.
The F-313 needs to be cost-effective, so if another material is available, even at lower performance, it might get selected for wing boxes and high loaded structures.

Like I said, the F-15 isn't a stealth aircraft and doesn't need to set aside fuselage space for weapons bays.

Not going to work very well when you have those massive bays (relative to the aircraft). You couldn't use both at the same time unless you get very creative with (unstealthy) sections of airframe poking out of the general shape to support those weapons.

At the bombtruck mission you want no stealth aircraft is stealthy.

You want to carry a high payload with the F-313 outside the w-bay. Here is a fuselage hardpoint arrangement that fulfill your wish without wing hardpoints:

At the AMRAAM positions

If anything R&D will be more expensive than you expect, since this is a very unconventional design that requires unconventional design solutions.

One can speculate about it. Lets do that if it is proven to be a real project and with my suggested function...

So what, 3 times less, to 50? Still only 10 years of peacetime flying, much less in combat. Whereas IRIAF aircraft have been serving for 40 years now and some of them have been adapted to useful (though not competitive) roles given their age.

Nobody knows. I just want a high degree of automation due to today available software and hardware. Maybe 50 hours a year plus extensive complex simulator and advanced trainer training.

You could pose the same question to China. Compared to the Soviets', Europeans' and Americans' 100 years of experience, they had what, 20 years of experience designing combat aircraft, before they started making stealth aircraft?

China has almost unlimited resources and manpower. It's the only country that plays this catch-up game and when they started a precision BM/CM arsenal was no feasible option.
From what is known, their stealth designs are based on espionage data from the Americans, without it they would lag much further behind.
Even if not, their designs do not have the 5th gen kinematics of Su-57 and F-22. Kinematics is at least as important as stealth, they still struggle to build high TBO 12KN engines, just now they want to fit a 14KN engine on the J-20 and it's supercruising capability is in question. For reference, Russians and Americans are working or have ~18KN engines for the same size.

Now with all that, they have a more than 50 year old fighter building industry. You seriously suggests Iran to join the catch-up game in airpower???

Difference is, the Big Bird is a ground based radar and the E-3 is thousands of feet up.

Aperture power makes the difference. You talk about line of sight. So again, no, the E-3 would not be able to detect a 0,1m² F-313 at ranges exceeding 100km.

 

[WordsMatter]

Turbofan engines consist of four sections: the fan, compressor, combustion chamber, and turbine. For the fan and the compressor in the fore half section, where the temperature is relatively low (600˚C or lower), A titanium alloy is mainly used. For the turbine and the combustion chamber in the rear half section where temperatures are higher (1500˚C or higher), a nickel-based alloy or iron-based alloy (a.k.a Superalloys) is used. Having access to a Turbofan engine doesn't give you the technology needed for creating alloys and superalloys.

Yep makes sense... Can't argue against a well argued point.

 

[VEVAK]

Turbofan engines consist of four sections: the fan, compressor, combustion chamber, and turbine. For the fan and the compressor in the fore half section, where the temperature is relatively low (600˚C or lower), A titanium alloy is mainly used. For the turbine and the combustion chamber in the rear half section where temperatures are higher (1500˚C or higher), a nickel-based alloy or iron-based alloy (a.k.a Superalloys) is used. Having access to a Turbofan engine doesn't give you the technology needed for creating alloys and superalloys.

Iran already solved the Magnesium problem & the next step would be titanium alloy, Iran's developing CMC (Ceramic Matric Composites) for ball brings which means they will continue to add CMC materials for heat shielding as well & continued advancement would allow them to build and use cmc turbine blades if they haven't already & 3D printing will revolutionize various conventional known Jet engine design within the next decade which will lessen Ti waist & use but Titanium is a light super alloy that's not going anywhere

Iran's Tolue-4 runs at 28,000 RPM but only has 770lbf's & that' mainly due to the diameter & size of the intakes but using cheap materials means you end up with an engine with a 50 hour lifespan

A J-47 with fairly similar design meaning a simple single shaft single turbine design (but much larger in diameter) running at 8000 rpm's at ~3ft in diameter can put out 6000lbf & 7000lbf if cooled
& until Iran starts playing around with a larger diameter engine they will never be able to perfect an engine design for a supersonic manned fighter worth producing

now the J-47 was build at a time when many composite materials, super alloys & precision cutting equipment didn't really exist or didn't exist at a production scale limiting everything from it's ball brings on up
It's turbine was built using an insufficient design, it's combustion chambers were too big requiring the shaft to be longer than it needed to be & it's airflow regulators & compressors can easily be improved upon using known methods

meaning there are a lot of problems you could potentially solve on a J-47 to make the engine more compact in length, more powerful & improve energy efficiency using tech already available to Iran now that's an engine Iran should have reverse engineered & improved upon as appose to the J-85 that's only 17 inches in diameter with little room for any significant upgrades!

Unfortunately, Iran's continued insistence on building lighter & cheaper fighters with an absurd fixation on initial production & purchasing cost will be the downfall of an Iranian fighter program!


Some here like to talk about the special engines on the RQ-170 well at best the RQ-170 had an electric turbofan engines meaning they took a small turbojet engine connected it to a brushless alternator that produces enough constant high powered electricity to power an advanced brushless DC electric engine(S) connected to a gearbox to turn a fan that runs counter to the jet engines turbine & compressor to give you a more stable, low noise, high airflow, hi bypass engine
I suspect that is the main reason why the intakes have that honeycomb shield because the electric powered fans aren't powerful enough to take a hit from small flying objects like birds & allows for an evenly distributed constant flow of air lessening shockwave they may have been put on the fans....

Brushless engines have made great advancements due to sensor, computing power & Composite materials & 3D printers allow you to play around with designs at a much faster pace using various types of materials and we have already seen BLDC engines that can run up to 109,000 RPM so having a brushless engine(s) connected to a gearbox that gives it enough power & torque to propel the aircraft at subsonic speeds with fans made out of composites running at ~3000 RPM's is within the realm of possibility & such an engine would produces less heat & noise than normal aircraft engines that size

RQ-170 is a platform used by the CIA for deep stealthy penetration of enemy territory at sufficient speed & range so they needed a platform with limited amount of thermal, radar & noise signature
I believe that's why to this day the US has not provided detailed specs on the RQ-170 while specs on newer more capable designs like the X-47 are readily available

 

[VEVAK]

Su-30 in IRAN!

 

[Muhammed45]

Su-30 in IRAN!

@AmirPatriot
It was already posted, soheil said that it's a lie!
But i had seen a claim of an MP. Look at this :
https://www.mashreghnews.ir/news/69...ه-های-سوخو-30-در-چند-روز-آینده-به-ایران-تحویل

See also
https://www.mashreghnews.ir/news/459592/ستاری-ایران-دو-مدل-جنگنده-از-روسیه-می-خرد

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[VEVAK]

@AmirPatriot
It was already posted, soheil said that it's a lie!
But i had seen a claim of an MP. Look at this :
https://www.mashreghnews.ir/news/69...ه-های-سوخو-30-در-چند-روز-آینده-به-ایران-تحویل

See also
https://www.mashreghnews.ir/news/459592/ستاری-ایران-دو-مدل-جنگنده-از-روسیه-می-خرد

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's no lie! You can see Iranian F-4's in the background!
I'm not saying those are Iranian Su-30's but it is clearly a Su-30 at an Iranian Air Base!


Regardless, Iran has made public it's interest to purchase ~60 Su-30's!

 

[arashkamangir]

Su-30 in IRAN!

How many times should we debunk this cgi overlay?