- Is your airpower survivable on the ground?
Ideally in a time of crisis, a large proportion of your aircraft will be out there on Combat Air Patrol (CAP), while the rest will be in a high state of readiness. As soon as ground and air based radars detect an incoming tomahawk attack, those aircraft in a high state of readiness would move to take off immediately, which can be completed in a manner of minutes. Proper use of Hardened Aircraft Shelters (HAS) to protect aircraft under maintenance or in a low state of readiness as well as effective SHORAD can allow those HAS to protect their aircraft and take minimal losses (since multiple tomahawks are likely needed to destroy a HAS). Against a less capable regional force, this will work out even better. Iran used HAS to great effect in the sacred defence.
- Can it sustain operations when under attack?
Like I said, ideally the majority of aircraft will be in the air at that point. At this point, AWACS and aerial refuelling aircraft should allow enough time to repel an attack without having to land. Intact runways in more heavily defended areas can be used to allow aircraft to land while their home bases are being repaired. Use of roads to allow aircraft not in range of aerial refuelling aircraft to land, refuel, and fly to safer areas.
- How much maintenance/supply is necessary and how large/fragile is the necessary infrastructure?
Enough to support a large IRIAF. Thankfully this is already largely in place because of the Shah's pre-revolutionary IIAF expansion plans, and the rapid construction of infrastructure and supply structures. Probably even the HAS may not need building, but possibly improvement. Iran will probably have to expand its maintenance capabilities, and these can be in more "homeland defence" areas like the Vietnamese concept.
As for fragility, I suppose you are talking about fuel depots and such in TABs closer to combat zones. Something like the
Red Hill Underground Fuel Storage Facility can be of great use and isn't out of reach considering Iran's mountainous terrain and the IRGC's industrial capacity.
- Which competing indigenous weapon systems could provide the same capability?
As of now, nothing in Iran allows the flexibility, mobility and power of conventional airpower. And your Qaher-313 would not be as powerful as it either.
- Which one is more cost effective?
I maintain that Qaher is not as cost effective as you say it is. And aircraft are more cost effective than missiles, owing to their re usability. Missiles should be used for striking HVTs, SEAD/DEAD, or striking targets inaccessible to airpower.
- Do you have a indigenous capability to produce fighters in necessary numbers?
Of course we do not have this now. But we must invest in it. We did the same for our missiles, and our tanks (Dorud factory).
- Can you produce most critical parts, the engine? Which thrust class?
etc.
We are working on it. Something like the RD-33, improved somewhat to grant about 20,000 lb of wet thrust, could be used in a twin engine fighter about the same size and capability as the J-31. I think it is feasible for us to try and gain access to engine production capability in a similar way to how achieved tank production capability. It may not succeed, but it is something that must be pursued.
By the way, how did you hear about the RD-33 possible reverse engineering? Not asking for your sources if you don't want to reveal them, but I also heard of it, from word of mouth. I'm just curious.
Something of the size and capability of Irans current airforce is sufficient for that task... I want the IRIAF to be there as it is, present a threat dimension for which the enemy at least has to add AAMs
It really isn't.
http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/weapons/loadout-configurations/124-iraqi-freedom
I've shown you this site before. Even with air superiority USAF F-15Es usually carry 2 AIM-9M/Xs and 2 AMRAAMs. We rarely see the IRIAF carry AIM-9s (which are so old they are not even all-aspect) and AIM-7s. The USAF would need a very small number of aircraft to deal with our current air force. They can jam everything we have, and outrange everything we have apart from the F-14 (which is still very jammable and in small numbers). 40 F-14As won't hold two carriers worth of aircraft, or those plus an airbase or two. Especially since the enemy can employ stealth aircraft that could negate the F-14's range advantage.
In any case, I doubt the IRIAF's current state of readiness will allow it to get many aircraft in the air before they are destroyed on the ground.
I already told that enemies want Iran to pursue weapon system paths that lead to inefficiency
We do not have to go down the Saudi route. I do not envision us spending $80 billion on our military. After the Syrian war is over (and by the looks of things, it is nearing its end), Iran will have a lot more money on its hands.
Also consider that the Turkish defence budget is just $18 billion and they have a capable air force, a powerful navy, and a modern (and rapidly modernising) army.
Only with a precise evaluation it can be decided/managed to go for a Saudi size import airforce which many of you would so much love to see, or not.
I want us to have a powerful air force. I do not want us to just import them and have a situation like the sacred defence. We have to be able to maintain and keep all our aircraft in service. And domestic production is a huge priority.
Now, if an opportunity arises and we get something like a J-20 or J-31, I would probably accept import - as long as once imported, those aircraft never have to leave the country again for maintenance. This would probably mean at least some sort of TOT.
