IRIAF | News and Discussions

[scythian500]

There are serious issues with your argument. On the surface, it seems reasonable enough, but the Devil lives in the details, smart fella that he is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_fighter_aircraft_1950–1959

The 1950 decade is a good starting point.

When an aircraft is designed, it contains essentially the most FUNCTIONAL pieces of technology that a country have. Not imported, meaning contracted out, but the technology that the country can sustain.

For example...You cannot have the hydraulics technology of 3000 psi without the supporting technology of petroleum, metallurgy, electronics, etc...etc...

You can buy the equipment that have hydraulics of 3000 psi, but you cannot maintain it yourself.

With the 1950s, there was virtually an explosion of fighter designs. Each design feature a prominent aerodynamic component like the unique delta wing of the F-102 and F-106, or the rocket like aerodynamics of the F-104, or the different intake locations of the F-4 and the F-8. We can assume that each design is essentially a production study of aerodynamics and full functionalities of the systems in each design. The 1950s was a crucial era in combat aircraft development.

With the 1960s and later, each decade produced considerably less designs but each design is more sophisticated in everything, from aerodynamics to electronics that produced fighters that are more versatile and higher lethality. A later design may not have the same capabilities as the older design, but would still be better in operation. For example...The F-16's top speed is lower than the F-4's, but overall, the F-16 is a much better platform.

The point here is that Iran MUST spend billions in R/D no matter what. Iran must explore her current technology foundation and develop an R/D base even just to maintain licensed imported fighters. Only from that R/D base can Iran gain experience in experimentation and exploration into newer designs.

A question... Iran already mastered some of critical techs on supersonic and above speeds on both its Kowsar fighter and different types of missiles.. I know there's a difference between two.. but you know what I mean.. also, mastered some other interchangeable techs here and there in thousands of projects... being hydraulics, metallurgy, composites, etc... the question is... How far do u see Iran from designing and building its own supersonic fighter design? Let's suppose Iran has not done anything more unannounced...

 

[Ray_Atek]

It is legitimate to want this or that aircraft of 4 + or 5 generation, even more legitimate to discuss what would be possible for Iran, but at the present time, except for surprises, the only opportunity to have new combat aircraft is thanks to the codification almost total of the F-5 and its engine and with the implementation of new systems and radar.
Waiting for a last-generation foreign aircraft to be sold to Iran, or for a latest-generation Iranian airplane to fly ready to pass years.
Therefore the only current alternative is to continue with the Kowsar and its Owj engines, and from these extrapolate extra performing versions.
Without Kowsar, within 10 years Iran would risk remaining without air force

Qaher planform has more option to develope it as national fighter planform than kowsar.

 

[gambit]

A question... Iran already mastered some of critical techs on supersonic and above speeds on both its Kowsar fighter and different types of missiles.. I know there's a difference between two.. but you know what I mean.. also, mastered some other interchangeable techs here and there in thousands of projects... being hydraulics, metallurgy, composites, etc... the question is... How far do u see Iran from designing and building its own supersonic fighter design? Let's suppose Iran has not done anything more unannounced...

For the highlighted question -- that is up to Iran to answer.

Am not being facetious or mysterious here. From a technology perspective, there is nothing to prevent Iran from designing a true indigenous supersonic fighter design. The main issue is always -- finance. Specifically, finance for mass production, not laboratory products.

If we take a look -- again -- at this list of US 1950s era fighters...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_fighter_aircraft_1950–1959

Each that does not have an 'X' prefix is the result of roughly 10 yrs of development. And this is at the time when the US was rebuilding from WW II and the economy was strong.

 

[Hack-Hook]

I also believe that the era of Dog Fighting is over. When was the last time that kill was made in dog fight?
Perhaps 99% of kills during last decade have been made through radars and missiles.

I believe that modern Drones could also hold the same Radars and same missiles, and could achieve exactly the same results. Actually, they have more benefits over manned jet when it comes to speed and turnings etc.

A Kowsar, when accompanied with many drones, could achieve good effect like SU-30. And in price of one SU-30, Iran could have Kowsar and many many drones.

I am in favour of specialized drones. For example, a drone which carries only bigger Radar and works as mini AWACS. Making such bigger drone, while using AWJ engine is possible for Iran.

sight problem drone speeds is a lot different from an airplane speed

 

[sahureka2]

[QUOTE = "Ray_Atek, post: 11390154, membro: 184479"] La planimetria di Qaher ha più opzioni per svilupparla come planer del combattente nazionale rispetto a kowsar. [/ QUOTE]

Of course the Qader has a superior development perspective, but it still takes years, save for surprises, to bring it to the operational level, instead the Kowsar is ready and in production.
Therefore while the production of the two-seater Kowsar is continuing and I think with the same fuselage a single-seater version, we continue the development of promising aircraft, Qader or other.

 

[gambit]

I also believe that the era of Dog Fighting is over. When was the last time that kill was made in dog fight?

This is not a very good argument. For starter, as aircrafts gets more sophisticated, they get more expensive to produce and maintain. The accepted number of fighters per squadron is 12-24, with mid tens usually the case, and depending on the type of aircraft, the number can go below 10 per squadron. What this mean is that the odds of fighters meeting each other in a dogfight is very low, especially when modern fighters are more multirole than mission type dedicated like for 'air superiority'.

US airpower made a mistake post WW II when we believed that since fighters are more powerful and faster, the odds of a WW II type air combat melee is negligible. The result is the disaster that was air combat over Viet Nam that ended up with programs like 'Top Gun' for the US Navy and 'Fighter Weapons School' for the USAF. Today, it is shortened to 'Weapons School'.

Pilots are conservative for a simple reason -- it is their lives that are at stake. They want every options and advantages possible. Planning may put a pilot in superior position to make a long range 'kill' but he will still want ACM skills as a measure of last resort.

I believe that modern Drones could also hold the same Radars and same missiles, and could achieve exactly the same results. Actually, they have more benefits over manned jet when it comes to speed and turnings etc.

Currently, the ideal environment for an autonomous aircraft is -- commercial aviation.

Think about it for a moment. A city-city flight is steady state when it comes to flying, predictable in duration, and other than fuel consumption, there is no loss of cargo. Clearly, we do not jettison passengers while in flight, even though some of them may deserve it.

A combat mission is the opposite and requires a decision maker that is in the immediate area. Not only that, the decision maker must have full information access that are inside and outside the aircraft. We call that 'situational awareness' (SA). No computer or even a remote human pilot can do that.

How do you know -- upon entering your home -- that something is odd? It could be an odor or a piece of furniture slightly misplaced or a missing sound that you are used to hearing. Sailors not being on the bridge can tell when their ship make a maneuver. Car owners know when their vehicles drives not the way they are used to. No different for experienced pilots. The progress on fully autonomous drones will continue but in the meantime, defense will continues to rest on the humans.

 

[Ray_Atek]

[QUOTE = "Ray_Atek, post: 11390154, membro: 184479"] La planimetria di Qaher ha più opzioni per svilupparla come planer del combattente nazionale rispetto a kowsar. [/ QUOTE]

Of course the Qader has a superior development perspective, but it still takes years, save for surprises, to bring it to the operational level, instead the Kowsar is ready and in production.
Therefore while the production of the two-seater Kowsar is continuing and I think with the same fuselage a single-seater version, we continue the development of promising aircraft, Qader or other.

Yes
And single engine kowsar same as f20 not far away from kowsar project.

 

[Mithridates]

There are serious issues with your argument. On the surface, it seems reasonable enough, but the Devil lives in the details, smart fella that he is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_fighter_aircraft_1950–1959

The 1950 decade is a good starting point.

When an aircraft is designed, it contains essentially the most FUNCTIONAL pieces of technology that a country have. Not imported, meaning contracted out, but the technology that the country can sustain.

For example...You cannot have the hydraulics technology of 3000 psi without the supporting technology of petroleum, metallurgy, electronics, etc...etc...

You can buy the equipment that have hydraulics of 3000 psi, but you cannot maintain it yourself.

With the 1950s, there was virtually an explosion of fighter designs. Each design feature a prominent aerodynamic component like the unique delta wing of the F-102 and F-106, or the rocket like aerodynamics of the F-104, or the different intake locations of the F-4 and the F-8. We can assume that each design is essentially a production study of aerodynamics and full functionalities of the systems in each design. The 1950s was a crucial era in combat aircraft development.

With the 1960s and later, each decade produced considerably less designs but each design is more sophisticated in everything, from aerodynamics to electronics that produced fighters that are more versatile and higher lethality. A later design may not have the same capabilities as the older design, but would still be better in operation. For example...The F-16's top speed is lower than the F-4's, but overall, the F-16 is a much better platform.

The point here is that Iran MUST spend billions in R/D no matter what. Iran must explore her current technology foundation and develop an R/D base even just to maintain licensed imported fighters. Only from that R/D base can Iran gain experience in experimentation and exploration into newer designs.

our main problem is bigger engines and better material for structure, we only produce 7075 aluminum alloy and carbon fiber. our R&D is around j-85 engine and to me it's just circling around yourself, we can't expect something better than f-5 with it.

all of these planes are powered with j-85.

for me the best solution is to acquire rd-33 technology from russians and moving toward platforms with reduced RCS.

 

[TheImmortal]

There are serious issues with your argument. On the surface, it seems reasonable enough, but the Devil lives in the details, smart fella that he is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_fighter_aircraft_1950–1959

The 1950 decade is a good starting point.

When an aircraft is designed, it contains essentially the most FUNCTIONAL pieces of technology that a country have. Not imported, meaning contracted out, but the technology that the country can sustain.

For example...You cannot have the hydraulics technology of 3000 psi without the supporting technology of petroleum, metallurgy, electronics, etc...etc...

You can buy the equipment that have hydraulics of 3000 psi, but you cannot maintain it yourself.

With the 1950s, there was virtually an explosion of fighter designs. Each design feature a prominent aerodynamic component like the unique delta wing of the F-102 and F-106, or the rocket like aerodynamics of the F-104, or the different intake locations of the F-4 and the F-8. We can assume that each design is essentially a production study of aerodynamics and full functionalities of the systems in each design. The 1950s was a crucial era in combat aircraft development.

With the 1960s and later, each decade produced considerably less designs but each design is more sophisticated in everything, from aerodynamics to electronics that produced fighters that are more versatile and higher lethality. A later design may not have the same capabilities as the older design, but would still be better in operation. For example...The F-16's top speed is lower than the F-4's, but overall, the F-16 is a much better platform.

The point here is that Iran MUST spend billions in R/D no matter what. Iran must explore her current technology foundation and develop an R/D base even just to maintain licensed imported fighters. Only from that R/D base can Iran gain experience in experimentation and exploration into newer designs.

There is major problem in your assumption. That is that RD = progress. That couldn’t be farther form the truth. Assuming funding RD will lead to timely progress is flawed thinking.

Look at Iran’s nuclear program. It was IMPORTED, Iran started with a base technology (IR-1 1960’s centrifuge design) and has over 20 years improved that to current IR-6 and IR-8 prototypes that are still some years away from full production.

Iran currently DOES NOT have the basic tools to create a modern fighter. It has used the F-5 for its lack of Titanium because as @VEVAK will tell you Iran lacks Titanium Ovens among many other things.

But the issues go much further and deeper than that. Including landing gears for heavy fighter jets, radars, heavy jet engines, etc.

You can sit and pour billions into RD, doesn’t mean you will learn to build an AL-31 just because you throw money at it.

Iran needs to build a modern jet fighter via license to learn ALL the parts as you said.

In my opinion it is still the best route for license deal. The only thing Kowsar can do is replace F-5’s that reach end of service life in 10 or so years. Obviously if Shafagh program had reached production by 2005, Iran would be much further ahead in the field of building fighter jets.

But currently Iran can only build light fighter jets powered by J-85’s which serve very limited use in actual combat.

 

[Hack-Hook]

There is major problem in your assumption. That is that RD = progress. That couldn’t be farther form the truth. Assuming funding RD will lead to timely progress is flawed thinking.

Look at Iran’s nuclear program. It was IMPORTED, Iran started with a base technology (IR-1 1960’s centrifuge design) and has over 20 years improved that to current IR-6 and IR-8 prototypes that are still some years away from full production.

Iran currently DOES NOT have the basic tools to create a modern fighter. It has used the F-5 for its lack of Titanium because as @VEVAK will tell you Iran lacks Titanium Ovens among many other things.

But the issues go much further and deeper than that. Including landing gears for heavy fighter jets, radars, heavy jet engines, etc.

You can sit and pour billions into RD, doesn’t mean you will learn to build an AL-31 just because you throw money at it.

Iran needs to build a modern jet fighter via license to learn ALL the parts as you said.

In my opinion it is still the best route for license deal. The only thing Kowsar can do is replace F-5’s that reach end of service life in 10 or so years. Obviously if Shafagh program had reached production by 2005, Iran would be much further ahead in the field of building fighter jets.

But currently Iran can only build light fighter jets powered by J-85’s which serve very limited use in actual combat.

Problem with license production . you get a fancy assembly line but they don't tell you how to build key component like engine blades to withstand higher temprature or alloys to make your airplanes withstand higher stress and be lighter . they give you component and say you go and assemble them . or even worse they give you just parts .

 

[Ray_Atek]

You can sit and pour billions into RD, doesn’t mean you will learn to build an AL-31 just because you throw money at it.

All developed world countries using RD for advancing and developing.
Good managed RD in turbofan field can reach more than Al31.

Iran needs to build a modern jet fighter via license to learn ALL the parts as you said.

Licensing does not mean know-how ( technology) transfering to targeted country.

 

[TheImmortal]

Problem with license production . you get a fancy assembly line but they don't tell you how to build key component like engine blades to withstand higher temprature or alloys to make your airplanes withstand higher stress and be lighter . they give you component and say you go and assemble them . or even worse they give you just parts .

All developed world countries using RD for advancing and developing.
Good managed RD in turbofan field can reach more than Al31.


Licensing does not mean know-how ( technology) transfering to targeted country.

I should clarify my comment, by licensing, I didn’t mean simply parts installation. I ment license/TOT deal.

At the very least something like Pakistan has with China for JF-17, but preferably a full TOT transfer including license to build X amount of planes without facing legal penalties.

Now I’m not sure Russia will offer SU-30 full TOT. Maybe Iran will have to settle on lower level plane if FULL TOT including engines is provided. Or else Iran might have to turn to China.

If Russia offers FULL SU-27 TOT with engines, Iran should pay for it!

SU-27 is an air superiority fighter and while not in the same class as F-22/J-20/SU-35 it is still a deadly fighter.

Iran’s first and foremost need is an air superiority fighter for defending the skies.

While SU-30/SU-35 are preferred, Russia is unlikely to give away their prized fighters technology to Iran.

SU-27 is a nice compromise.

 

[Ray_Atek]

I should clarify my comment, by licensing, I didn’t mean simply parts installation. I ment license/TOT deal.

At the very least something like Pakistan has with China for JF-17, but preferably a full TOT transfer including license to build X amount of planes without facing legal penalties.

Now I’m not sure Russia will offer SU-30 full TOT. Maybe Iran will have to settle on lower level plane if FULL TOT including engines is provided. Or else Iran might have to turn to China.

If Russia offers FULL SU-27 TOT with engines, Iran should pay for it!

SU-27 is an air superiority fighter and while not in the same class as F-22/J-20/SU-35 it is still a deadly fighter.

Iran’s first and foremost need is an air superiority fighter for defending the skies.

While SU-30/SU-35 are preferred, Russia is unlikely to give away their prized fighters technology to Iran.

SU-27 is a nice compromise.

Our problems is no country basically transfer high technology to iran.

 

[CAN_TR]

Chinese Aircrafts especially J-10 not an option for Iran?

JF-17 was really a success for PAK, Iran also could benefit from such a joint project with China.

 

[TheImmortal]

Our problems is no country basically transfer high technology to iran.

I guess we have to wait and see what happens post arms embargo.

TOT of aircraft technology is tough for any country to give up.