IRIAF | News and Discussions

[gambit]

View attachment 704655

Thrust would effect trust to weight ratio meaning your payload capacity would increase... doesn't change the facts about hot climates

View attachment 704656

RD-33 turbofan twin-shift engine with afterburner for the duel-engine power plant for Mikoyan MiG-29 fighter with individual supersonic variable intake for each engine. (tmkb-soyuz.ru)

so lets just agree to disagree


View attachment 704657

RD-33 turbofan twin-shift engine with afterburner for the duel-engine power plant for Mikoyan MiG-29 fighter with individual supersonic variable intake for each engine. (tmkb-soyuz.ru)

Here is the deal...

Ansys Blog | Simulation & Engineering Articles

The Ansys blog is the premier place for engineering simulation news, insights and industry trends, as well as tips on using Ansys simulation software tools.

www.ansys.com

...the amount of lift produced is also proportional to the density of the fluid, in this case air, that the wing is moving through. Increase the density and you increase the lift force. Conversely if the density of the air decreases, so does the available lift force.​

​

If ambient air density affects aerodynamic lift, then it stands to reason that the same density factor that affects aerodynamic lift would also affect the fuel/air mixture necessary to produce thrust. Basically, there would be a less than optimum balance of the fuel:air ratio that was designed into the engine.

Standard air is sea level with baro pressure of 29.92 (1,013.25 mb) at temperature 59F (15C).

Each engine design have its own unique fuel:air mixture ratio based upon the aircraft design. When an engine is rated at X thrust, that spec is from the ideal standard air. Then when you install the engine into its designed target aircraft(s), both aircraft and engine manufacturers essentially locked the pairing permanently. This is why you cannot simply modify one engine model from one platform then graft that engine into a different platform without extensive testing to permanently mate that engine to the new aircraft platform. Tests confirms that the new engine would not move the newly mated aircraft/engine pairing outside of its original flight performance envelope.

On the F-16, we have 'small mouth' and 'big mouth' or inlets. Early F-16s were Pratt/Whitney engine and were 'small mouth'. Later F-16s were General Electric engine and were 'big mouth'. The inlets were modified to match the engines' volumetric air requirements.

Mass (volumetric air) x Acceleration (speed of volumetric air) = Thrust

We can modify the front of the equation to have the same Thrust. That means as long as different engines produce the same Thrust, within some margins, there should be no problems with the jet using different engine manufacturers. However, if one engine is unable to compensate for one variable in the front of that equation, we will have a lower performance engine wherever and whenever the environment create that possibility. The result is what you said that the MIG-29 RD-33 is restricted by IranIan Air Force to specific locations.

This is actually not a good image for the MIG-29. There are plenty of articles that says how great is the MIG-29 over the F-16 in a dogfight, but if the MIG cannot be deployed on time and/or into certain situations, whereas the F-16, no matter its engine configuration, can be deployed, the F-16 will be the preferred choice. Not that Iran can get the F-16 in the first place. But the perception is made.

 

[WudangMaster]

There was an older documentary series called Wings of the Red Star and one episode that covered the Mi-24 Hind. The helicopter had major issues at 5000m altitude in some parts of Afghanistan in certain places and they had to take off on a short runway rather than straight vertical lift. Though this problem was altitude related rather than temperature, I think the concept of air density still applies.

 

[VEVAK]

Here is the deal...

Ansys Blog | Simulation & Engineering Articles

The Ansys blog is the premier place for engineering simulation news, insights and industry trends, as well as tips on using Ansys simulation software tools.

www.ansys.com

...the amount of lift produced is also proportional to the density of the fluid, in this case air, that the wing is moving through. Increase the density and you increase the lift force. Conversely if the density of the air decreases, so does the available lift force.​

​

If ambient air density affects aerodynamic lift, then it stands to reason that the same density factor that affects aerodynamic lift would also affect the fuel/air mixture necessary to produce thrust. Basically, there would be a less than optimum balance of the fuel:air ratio that was designed into the engine.

Standard air is sea level with baro pressure of 29.92 (1,013.25 mb) at temperature 59F (15C).

Each engine design have its own unique fuel:air mixture ratio based upon the aircraft design. When an engine is rated at X thrust, that spec is from the ideal standard air. Then when you install the engine into its designed target aircraft(s), both aircraft and engine manufacturers essentially locked the pairing permanently. This is why you cannot simply modify one engine model from one platform then graft that engine into a different platform without extensive testing to permanently mate that engine to the new aircraft platform. Tests confirms that the new engine would not move the newly mated aircraft/engine pairing outside of its original flight performance envelope.

On the F-16, we have 'small mouth' and 'big mouth' or inlets. Early F-16s were Pratt/Whitney engine and were 'small mouth'. Later F-16s were General Electric engine and were 'big mouth'. The inlets were modified to match the engines' volumetric air requirements.

Mass (volumetric air) x Acceleration (speed of volumetric air) = Thrust

We can modify the front of the equation to have the same Thrust. That means as long as different engines produce the same Thrust, within some margins, there should be no problems with the jet using different engine manufacturers. However, if one engine is unable to compensate for one variable in the front of that equation, we will have a lower performance engine wherever and whenever the environment create that possibility. The result is what you said that the MIG-29 RD-33 is restricted by IranIan Air Force to specific locations.

This is actually not a good image for the MIG-29. There are plenty of articles that says how great is the MIG-29 over the F-16 in a dogfight, but if the MIG cannot be deployed on time and/or into certain situations, whereas the F-16, no matter its engine configuration, can be deployed, the F-16 will be the preferred choice. Not that Iran can get the F-16 in the first place. But the perception is made.

The F110 & F100 are both superior engines compared to the RD-33 that is a fact and no one is questioning that fact however that doesn't necessarily make the F-16 a superior platform....
Just as AL-21's are superior to the J79 but that doesn't necessarily make Su-22's superior to F-4

Temperature at various parts of Southern Iran hit the extremes on a yearly bases especially if you factor in humidity and direct near the equator sunlight...
so performance issues in hot climate aside your MiG-29's end up being grounded seasonally based on the manufacturers own guidelines. Due to the cost of these Aircrafts every Airforce on the planet will be conservative and will exercise caution and will cap and ground their fighters at well below the manufacturers own guidelines during peace time and due to sanctions Iran has no choice but to be a little more conservative than most so the standard RD-33's are NOT a good choice for Iran's (Southern Iran) climate.
So no doubt one can argue that the F-16 due to its engine is a better choice for Iran and preferable to any aircraft powered by RD-33's but that doesn't necessarily make one platform superior to the other....

Plus in performance both fighter are close enough that it would actually be the subsystems that would be the deciding factor

However as a matter of personal preference I much prefer twin engine fighters for use as war machines and in terms of what's best for Iran it's my belief that the technology and infrastructure gained from producing your own engines and your own fighter in the end is far more valuable than the actual fighter it's self. And even if there is a war the technology and infrastructure gained from producing a comparatively inferior Aircraft would have a far greater effect in your overall ability to win a war than any 5th gen fighter ever could. And that's coming from someone who believes that F-4's & F-14's saved Iran's behind in the Iran-Iraq war!

 

[gambit]

The F110 & F100 are both superior engines compared to the RD-33 that is a fact and no one is questioning that fact however that doesn't necessarily make the F-16 a superior platform....

So no doubt one can argue that the F-16 due to its engine is a better choice for Iran and preferable to any aircraft powered by RD-33's but that doesn't necessarily make one platform superior to the other....

Plus in performance both fighter are close enough that it would actually be the subsystems that would be the deciding factor

A platform is the typical 'whole is greater than the sum of its parts'.

When I was on the F-111, I never understood why the US was so insistent on keeping the jet in service, then in a classified meeting, our squadron was told that in every arms reduction negotiation, the Soviets wanted the F-111 out of England. Each time our negotiators told the Soviets to STFU. At the combatant level, we accepted that but then we do not know why the Soviets wanted so. Then after the Soviets collapsed, we learned that Soviet EE/Avionics engineer Adolph Tolkachev was a CIA asset for yrs and provided technical and tactical proofs to our leadership that the Soviets had no credible response to the F-111.

You can figuratively take a jet apart and compare discrete units to other jets and found some to be better or inferior to each other. Then make pronouncements that A jet is superior to B and so on. But that is not how things work in the real world. When you compare discrete components, you are summing up the parts. But when you insert the pilot, there is synergy where the whole aircraft enable the pilot to do things that other pilot/aircraft pairing cannot do in the same situation.

What is this 'synergy'?

the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects.

What make a 'real world' opinion why A is better than B is not by desk bound analysts but by combatant commanders who has to make decisions based on factors like weather, logistics, manpower, and war necessities. Soviet combatant commanders did that and feedback to their leadership that the F-111 has to go. There were plenty of Soviet platforms where each platform have discrete superior capabilities over the F-111. But we had defenses against theirs while the Soviets had no defense against my old F-111.

 

[Mr Iran Eye]

I have said on this forum that I am sure Iran has new hidden fighter jets and I am sure that will be revealed in the future. I am sure that the Shafaq project has always continued in secret. We will see in the future

And go say here on this forum that the F-5 was easy to replicate it in heavy penalties is really silly. The Kowsar in a comprehensive strategy will be very helpful. There are people here who are bad at war strategy, completely bad. Iran is full of secrets and is more advanced than you think

 

[VEVAK]

A platform is the typical 'whole is greater than the sum of its parts'.

When I was on the F-111, I never understood why the US was so insistent on keeping the jet in service, then in a classified meeting, our squadron was told that in every arms reduction negotiation, the Soviets wanted the F-111 out of England. Each time our negotiators told the Soviets to STFU. At the combatant level, we accepted that but then we do not know why the Soviets wanted so. Then after the Soviets collapsed, we learned that Soviet EE/Avionics engineer Adolph Tolkachev was a CIA asset for yrs and provided technical and tactical proofs to our leadership that the Soviets had no credible response to the F-111.

You can figuratively take a jet apart and compare discrete units to other jets and found some to be better or inferior to each other. Then make pronouncements that A jet is superior to B and so on. But that is not how things work in the real world. When you compare discrete components, you are summing up the parts. But when you insert the pilot, there is synergy where the whole aircraft enable the pilot to do things that other pilot/aircraft pairing cannot do in the same situation.

What is this 'synergy'?

the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects.

What make a 'real world' opinion why A is better than B is not by desk bound analysts but by combatant commanders who has to make decisions based on factors like weather, logistics, manpower, and war necessities. Soviet combatant commanders did that and feedback to their leadership that the F-111 has to go. There were plenty of Soviet platforms where each platform have discrete superior capabilities over the F-111. But we had defenses against theirs while the Soviets had no defense against my old F-111.

I totally agree with all the points you made however when your generalizing two different platforms that have been produced since the 80's and over the years come in verity of variants with various upgrades the sum of the parts of each variant is as different as life and death.

Fact is in modern war it will be the subsystems that will be the deciding factor because an F-16 Block 70 equipped with an AESA radar will no doubt and rather easily out match an 80's era Fulcrum-A
Just as MiG-35 would rather easily do the same to any Block 30

And that doesn't make my statement... or your statements about them being the sum of their parts any less true.

In the Iran-Iraq war the only Iranian fighter that was out matched was the F-5E and it really didn't matter that our pilots had superior American training with far more flight hours under their belt or that the F-5 was a comparatively pilot friendly fighter the US specifically modified to go up against MiG-21. The aircraft came up short more due to a lack of "synergy" between the weapons & subsystems than anything pilot related while at the same time Iranian F-4 pilots flying the more bulky, less maneuverable, more complex, less pilot friendly with less pilot visibility (Cockpit) made target practice out of the Iraqi MiG-21's while our F-5s where getting shot down 4 out of every 5 engagements & in the end it was the weapons & subsystems and the synergy between weapons, weapons system and pilot of each aircraft that were the true deciding factor.....

My point is if you go back and look at the type of radars, weapon & weapon system of each and compare it to the kill ratio in almost every instance (In real war not combat sim's) the Aircraft equipped with a more advanced radar, weapon and weapon system has come out on top almost every time regardless of almost all other factors and I'm guessing the main issue the Russians had with the F-111 was it's superior radar and weapons system more than anything else.

 

[VEVAK]

I have said on this forum that I am sure Iran has new hidden fighter jets and I am sure that will be revealed in the future. I am sure that the Shafaq project has always continued in secret. We will see in the future

And go say here on this forum that the F-5 was easy to replicate it in heavy penalties is really silly. The Kowsar in a comprehensive strategy will be very helpful. There are people here who are bad at war strategy, completely bad. Iran is full of secrets and is more advanced than you think

history Shafaq training fighter Russia contract with Iran تاریخچه قرارداد جنگنده شفق روسیه با ایران - YouTube

For the last time, if Iran had any intention of perusing the Shafaq project we would NOT have bothered with years of R&D into upgrading the F-5 and producing the Kowsar

What would be the point in putting resources into a fighter that would be comparatively the same?
And you'd have to weigh in the minute differences in added capabilities across how many unknowns?

Shafagh project may have made sense 20 years ago but it just does not make any sense today exactly because Iran today is more advanced than you think

 

[gambit]

I totally agree with all the points you made however when your generalizing two different platforms that have been produced since the 80's and over the years come in verity of variants with various upgrades the sum of the parts of each variant is as different as life and death.

Fact is in modern war it will be the subsystems that will be the deciding factor because an F-16 Block 70 equipped with an AESA radar will no doubt and rather easily out match an 80's era Fulcrum-A
Just as MiG-35 would rather easily do the same to any Block 30

And that doesn't make my statement... or your statements about them being the sum of their parts any less true.

In the Iran-Iraq war the only Iranian fighter that was out matched was the F-5E and it really didn't matter that our pilots had superior American training with far more flight hours under their belt or that the F-5 was a comparatively pilot friendly fighter the US specifically modified to go up against MiG-21. The aircraft came up short more due to a lack of "synergy" between the weapons & subsystems than anything pilot related while at the same time Iranian F-4 pilots flying the more bulky, less maneuverable, more complex, less pilot friendly with less pilot visibility (Cockpit) made target practice out of the Iraqi MiG-21's while our F-5s where getting shot down 4 out of every 5 engagements & in the end it was the weapons & subsystems and the synergy between weapons, weapons system and pilot of each aircraft that were the true deciding factor.....

My point is if you go back and look at the type of radars, weapon & weapon system of each and compare it to the kill ratio in almost every instance (In real war not combat sim's) the Aircraft equipped with a more advanced radar, weapon and weapon system has come out on top almost every time regardless of almost all other factors and I'm guessing the main issue the Russians had with the F-111 was it's superior radar and weapons system more than anything else.

I said this before on this forum and I suggest you give serious thoughts. I learned this when I was active duty.

"In a fight, you win not by fighting under your opponent's rules, but by forcing him to fight under yours. And cheating is allowed."​

​

If you have superior engine, then make it a speed fight. If you can outturn, make it a maneuvering fight. If you have longer radar, then make it a long range fight. And so on...Any advantage you have, whether it is technical or not, is a rule. If you have superior logistics, or intelligence, or numerical, factor them into how you conduct the war.

When it comes to air combat, the issues are largely technical, so the point about synergy is how and when are the technical points of the platform make the platform easier for the human to make decisions that are independent of the platform as the human operate the platform.

What it means is:

- How many decisions can the aircraft make for the pilot​

- What is the quality of those decisions​

- The frequency of those decisions​

For example. In flight training, you have learn how to make 'coordinated turns'...

Coordinated Turns - FLYING Magazine

When we make a turn in flight, why do we use the rudder? We all know from the books the answer is to “correct for adverse yaw” — which is just a fancy way of saying to overcome drag from the aileron. When you initiate a turn, which should you move first, the aileron with … Continued

www.flyingmag.com

We are looking at going back to the Wright Brothers level of flying. No flight school will bypass this. It does not matter how advanced is flying in general. If want to learn how to fly, whether for a military career or else, you must learn the basics of piloting at its most elemental level.

When the aircraft is able to make coordinated turns for the pilot, that leave the pilot free to make other decisions about piloting. However, if the quality of that automatic decision make the maneuver less smooth than manual, then the process is of no help to the pilot. If I have to assist the aircraft, then I might as well make the maneuver myself. Me assisting the aircraft is the opposite of technological advancement.

The ultimate assistance is when the pilot just have to make the command. Soviet era avionics are less able than Western technology at assisting the pilot. Hands-On-Throttle-And-Stick (HOTAS) is less about technology advancement than it is about cockpit task management and this is where Soviet era platforms, not exactly failed, but is inferior to Western platforms. The synergy is less effective in terms of quality. If the pilot in a fighter that have various inferior systems but have superior synergy between aircraft and pilot, odds are good that he will win the fight. That is what synergy is: increase the odds of forcing your opponent to fight under your rules.

 

[Saleh99]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1349788169772916745

GBU-12/Sattar-4

2 AIM-9 Sidewinders
Yasin Glide Bombs

Aresh Suicide drone

AGM-65 Maverick

AIM-7 Sparrow
AIM-9 Sidewinder

 

[Shawnee]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1349788169772916745

View attachment 706911
GBU-12/Sattar-4
View attachment 706907
2 AIM-9 Sidewinders
Yasin Glide Bombs
View attachment 706908Aresh Suicide drone
View attachment 706909
AGM-65 Maverick
View attachment 706910
AIM-7 Sparrow
AIM-9 Sidewinder

The gimballed tip has the sensor and stabilizer. I like this description:

We also have a second type of Laser guided bombs for Karrar drone which is not apparently gimballed and is similar to this nosetip:

 

[Saleh99]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1349788169772916745

View attachment 706911
GBU-12/Sattar-4
View attachment 706907
2 AIM-9 Sidewinders
Yasin Glide Bombs
View attachment 706908Aresh Suicide drone
View attachment 706909
AGM-65 Maverick
View attachment 706910
AIM-7 Sparrow
AIM-9 Sidewinder

Iran produces the GBU-12 as Sattar-4 or they only have the bombs since Shah?

 

[Messerschmitt]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1351045269417316353

 

[aryobarzan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1351045269417316353

I know "vevak" is going to swear at me..lol but seeing those "Saegheh" (sorry " V " tailed F5s!) on the tarmac besides original F5"s and F14's looks good...hey I take this anyway but they better show me some of those Q-313's flying soon !.

 

[Philosopher]

@VEVAK and others

I'll bring the discussion to this thread as I do not want to take the missile thread off track. There is a whole world of difference between how much it costs Iran to produce its assets and how much it would have to pay on the market for similar products. Just imagine how much Iran would have pay for something like its accurate missiles, assuming such things were even available to purchase. Therefore Iran in the long run must rely on the mass production of its own fighter jets, there is no getting away from this. My personal feeling is that Iranian airforce is probably more ahead than we think they are in terms of their work behind the scene. The airforce generally seems to be very quiet regarding their development.

What we need to see from the airforce in the near future is the start of a stealth fighter project and a heavy UCAV. I agree that at the moment there is too many fighters jet that require different maintenances and that is sucking what little budget the airforce has and this needs to change. Hopefully in the near future IRIAF will enter the same level of development dynamics as we're seeing in others sectors. I am not one that cares much for perception, but for those people that are then when the IRIAF becomes worthy of attention in similar manner to its missiles, UAVs etc then that will completely change the perception of Iran's military capability. Most people tend to be shallow and they judge military capabilities purely by conventional means.

 

[aryobarzan]

@VEVAK and others

I'll bring the discussion to this thread as I do not want to take the missile thread off track. There is a whole world of difference between how much it costs Iran to produce its assets and how much it would have to pay on the market for similar products. Just imagine how much Iran would have pay for something like its accurate missiles, assuming such things were even available to purchase. Therefore Iran in the long run must rely on the mass production of its own fighter jets, there is no getting away from this. My personal feeling is that Iranian airforce is probably more ahead than we think they are in terms of their work behind the scene. The airforce generally seems to be very quiet regarding their development.

What we need to see from the airforce in the near future is the start of a stealth fighter project and a heavy UCAV. I agree that at the moment there is too many fighters jet that require different maintenances and that is sucking what little budget the airforce has and this needs to change. Hopefully in the near future IRIAF will enter the same level of development dynamics as we're seeing in others sectors. I am not one that cares much for perception, but for those people that are then when the IRIAF becomes worthy of attention in similar manner to its missiles, UAVs etc then that will completely change the perception of Iran's military capability. Most people tend to be shallow and they judge military capabilities purely by conventional means.

I hope you are right.....we all hope you are right.....about the "perception"... it matters to those who do not understand technology and that includes the dumb as* politicians that start the wars on "perception"..and then poor military people who know better have to fight that war for them.