What's new

IRIAF | News and Discussions

747 CMCA:
isn't it a reliable short term solution to our badly need for an strategic bomber??
this baby has the capacity to carry 50-100 CMs as far as 5000 KMs. :cheesy::cheesy:
i am sure we have several of them abandoned in aircraft graveyard.
rlabfdndjnelosjgyuw5.jpg
 
Last edited:
Some modifications to the new nose mounted flir/eo system,its been fitted with new led lights,both white and ir from the looks of it.
51179641_996535893868628_2483447802986434626_n.jpg

51545977_2136245006459854_3187777873137544665_n.jpg
 
747 CMCA:
isn't it a reliable short term solution to our badly need for an strategic bomber??
this baby has the capacity to carry 50-100 CMs as far as 5000 KMs. :cheesy::cheesy:
i am sure we have several of them abandoned in aircraft graveyard.View attachment 541329

A plane? That is your idea? Better yet a slow big as hell plane that has zero defenses?

Even if by some miracle that plane were able to make it close to enemy airspace and release its payload, a interceptor fighter would blow it right out of the sky before it could turn around.

A strategic bomber must be at the very least supersonic, especially if it is not going to have reduced RCS. Ideally it would in the future be a Hypersonic unmanned flying wing design skipping off the upper stages of the atmosphere releasing Hypersonic payloads and other smaller attack drones.
 
A plane? That is your idea? Better yet a slow big as hell plane that has zero defenses?

Even if by some miracle that plane were able to make it close to enemy airspace and release its payload, a interceptor fighter would blow it right out of the sky before it could turn around.

A strategic bomber must be at the very least supersonic, especially if it is not going to have reduced RCS. Ideally it would in the future be a Hypersonic unmanned flying wing design skipping off the upper stages of the atmosphere releasing Hypersonic payloads and other smaller attack drones.
boeing b-52 and tu-95 are both subsonic. a bomber always moves with escort planes not alone and also the idea of turning a 747 to a bomber does not include that it's gonna inter enemy air space it's mission is to get close to target and release the missiles.
 
boeing b-52 and tu-95 are both subsonic. a bomber always moves with escort planes not alone and also the idea of turning a 747 to a bomber does not include that it's gonna inter enemy air space it's mission is to get close to target and release the missiles.

Better would be that an F-4 sized MRCA launches ALCM instead of larger bomber.
 
boeing b-52 and tu-95 are both subsonic. a bomber always moves with escort planes not alone and also the idea of turning a 747 to a bomber does not include that it's gonna inter enemy air space it's mission is to get close to target and release the missiles.

B-52 is an anti-insurgent bomber. It has been used in airspace where air superiority has been established.

The US would never use the B-52 against Russia or China because it wouldn’t survive one second.

And the blackjack bombers main mission is to be nuclear payload carriers.
 
B-52 is an anti-insurgent bomber. It has been used in airspace where air superiority has been established.

The US would never use the B-52 against Russia or China because it wouldn’t survive one second.

And the blackjack bombers main mission is to be nuclear payload carriers.
dude super tucano is anti insurgent not a bomber with MTOW equal to 200 tons. you have misunderstood the concept of heavy bombers and air superiority. in the H3 raid our tanker was in iraqi air space and in tens of other missions they were near of iraqi borders yet i never heard of them getting hit. one of these cruise missile carriers loaded with 100 howeizeh CMs could completely destroy emiratis air bases and air defence sites without entering their interceptors range. also for an interceptor plane there is no difference if the target is 747, tu-160 or b-1 they all are vulnerable against long range missiles.
 
dude super tucano is anti insurgent not a bomber with MTOW equal to 200 tons. you have misunderstood the concept of heavy bombers and air superiority. in the H3 raid our tanker was in iraqi air space and in tens of other missions they were near of iraqi borders yet i never heard of them getting hit. one of these cruise missile carriers loaded with 100 howeizeh CMs could completely destroy emiratis air bases and air defence sites without entering their interceptors range. also for an interceptor plane there is no difference if the target is 747, tu-160 or b-1 they all are vulnerable against long range missiles.

you are comparing Iraqi radar technology and air defense systems of 1970’s to modern day SAM systems and radars of a developed world power? Lol

Iran’s CMs can already reach all major targets (Israel, SA, UAE, etc). What would the point of launching CMs further than that? Attacking Europe or US mainland is suicide and would rally the West to finish off the Republic.

Play chess not checkers mate.

The concept is just not enough of a GameChanger on the battlefield.

You want to avoid the Nazi Germany wunderweapon syndrome. Instead of spending money on many cost heavy sci fi weapon projects, all
Nazi germany had to due to win the war was double efforts on nuclear weapons. Ironically that was the ultimate wunderweapon and yet they thought nuclear fission was not realistically possible.

So in case of Iran, don’t waste money on projects that won’t change the outcome on the battlefield. Invest in things that will punish your enemy to its core while not inviting an even bigger response.
 
[QUOTE = "TheImmortal, post: 11171002, member: 183490"] Non sarei sorpreso se l'Iran al momento non è successo costruire un intero F-5.

L'OWJ non è stato presentato in serie e non è una linea di produzione. [/ CITAZIONE]


why do they have to show them?
maybe the other countries show every supply line to make their fighter planes!
there are always, in every nation, the limits in showing places, workshops or research centers, as they are considered places where only a few eyes must enter.
We can only make suppositions viewing the leaked images, from what they showed us, in that assembly workshop there were 7 "Kowsar" fuselages in different stages of preparation and in the vicinity the structural elements ready for assembly, and I think that are not a low number, indeed.
Only time will show us if it will be only those 7, or the number will increase exponentially.
2125728_original.jpg

This is basically an assembly line for Kowsar fighter jets, correct? Besides, the 7 jets are what we see on the right-hand side and not on the left side, and no one knows if there are other assembly lines in Iran. People can only entertain the official releases from the Iranian side; so the claim that some are making here that Iran doesn't have enough production capacity is just a speculation. Truth is, no one expect Iranian officials knows how much of a production capacity for those fighter jets exist in Iran.
 
A plane? That is your idea? Better yet a slow big as hell plane that has zero defenses?

Even if by some miracle that plane were able to make it close to enemy airspace and release its payload, a interceptor fighter would blow it right out of the sky before it could turn around.

A strategic bomber must be at the very least supersonic, especially if it is not going to have reduced RCS. Ideally it would in the future be a Hypersonic unmanned flying wing design skipping off the upper stages of the atmosphere releasing Hypersonic payloads and other smaller attack drones.

Wrong the bomber doesn't have to be supersonic. A B-52 can do just fine launching cruise missiles from very far range and turn back around.

B-52 is an anti-insurgent bomber. It has been used in airspace where air superiority has been established.

The US would never use the B-52 against Russia or China because it wouldn’t survive one second.

And the blackjack bombers main mission is to be nuclear payload carriers.

No the B-52 is not an anti insurgent bomber. It has been used against conventional and unconventional forces. Against the Taliban and ISIS as well as against Vietnam and Iraq. If the enemy country has sophisticated defenses, course the B-52 would launch cruise missiles from distance. If the enemy has no air defense then it would fly over and even circle around.
 
Wrong the bomber doesn't have to be supersonic. A B-52 can do just fine launching cruise missiles from very far range and turn back around.



No the B-52 is not an anti insurgent bomber. It has been used against conventional and unconventional forces. Against the Taliban and ISIS as well as against Vietnam and Iraq. If the enemy country has sophisticated defenses, course the B-52 would launch cruise missiles from distance. If the enemy has no air defense then it would fly over and even circle around.

Vietnam US allies had air superiority
Iraq US allies had air superiority

Again your logic is flawed.

And if the CM can already hit all vital targets by itself, why would you need a bomber to carry it half the distance?

For example let’s say Iran wants to hit a target in Israel. It can launch from Syria, Iraq, Western Iran. Why would it need to have a bomber carry it From Iran and launch it over Syria airspace?

Not to mention as soon as the bomber is in the air all of your enemies air defense systems go on high alert and you lose the element of surprise that is vital for a CM.

So then Israel will just launch F-35 or F-18’s and go through Syria airspace and chase the bomber and bring it down.

With an aging airforce, Iran cannot defend a bomber.
 
Home-grown MiG-29 gearbox successfully completes operational testing

Jesus Christ will you STOP saying HOMEGROWN for several reasons, one it is not a plant that gradually grows from vase or earth, two it is not a living thing it is a mechanical part and three it is rather engineered, designed built domestically not in the garage but rather by serious engineering teams!
 
Back
Top Bottom