SU-30MKK had data link back in 2000’s as I said in my post earlier with stats provided but you ignored.
I provided several examples of Chinese local upgrades outside of contract on their SU-30’s back in 2000’s. Russians did not care one bit. Again you ignored more evidence of your lies.
Stop misqouting me, I said any TDL in Sukhoi does not exist for IRIAF. Here is my direct qoute:
It won't have the datalink that IRIAF uses for Kowsar, F-14AM and UCAVs (confirmed by IAI head, Gen. Afshin Khajeh Fard). It would have an isolated battle environment cut off from the entire IRIAF fleet.
Dr. Carlo Kopp of AussieAirpower is saying the same thing that it's an isolated system for Flankers so yes any Flanker won't have the TDL for IRIAF
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html
- The first TDL (TKS-2) on any flanker came as an upgrade not an inherent package after some 24 years of birth of the Flanker family.
- It is an isolated system limited to Flankers, and does not even work with RuAF MIG-31BM or A-50 AWACS of Ru-AF so good luck fitting in with Iranian GWACS, UCAVS or local avionics package on Kowsar.
Any Flanker procurement won't have the universal TDL (confirmed by IAI head, Gen. Afshin Khajeh Fard) that will just start working with IRIAF, IRGCAF's double duplex Fighter-Fighter Fighter-UCAV TDL. Iranian engineers will have to integrate this 85 Million USD 15 m2 RCS elephant into the current TDL network. Would Russia allow Iran to touch their front-line fighter? Their history with Iran, India, Egypt, and Vietnam tells us that whenever these countries operated a 4th generation Russian fighter, they had to pay Russia for upgrades despite having local industrial base to carry out the work themselves. I have explained multiple times that the Chinese case is different, it's a superpower with 20+ Trillion USD GDP economy that Russians are lucky to still have as clients. China can dictate its terms with Russia that Iran, India, Vietnam, and Egypt can't even think of. This is why every one of these countries are trying to get rid of Russian dependence. India despite having a for-show token domestic production of Flankers is still paying Russia 62 USD/ Su-30MKI CDK kits. They are opting for their Rafale as their front-line Air superiority fighter while their own Tejas as their light platform. They did not go for SU-35 or MIG-35. Rosoboronexport of Russia (under Umbrella Defence ministry) is a partner in Indian local upgradation program of SU-30MKI including new Turbofans (~5 Billion USD)
https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/russia-to-supply-more-ckd-kits-for-sukhoi-30mki/2582410/
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/india-s-su-30mki-costs-almost-twice-as-much-as-russia-s-new-su-30sm-here-s-why.
https://www.defensemirror.com/news/32069/India_Allocates__9_8B_for_Corvettes__Su_30MKI_Engines
So your "Let's trap them in a contract" rant does not work with Russia or China. No significant clients of Russia among Iran, India, Egypt, or Vietnam (all have industrial bases) has ever changed a screw on 4th generation Russian jets without paying Russia, directly or indirectly. India even today with their "domestic program" is paying Russia heavy money for Flankers.
As for your F-5 claims, you never produced a single strand of evidence that F-5 has a 1-2m2 frontal cross section.
You literally want everyone to believe you based on F-18 has 3m2 (no citation provided other than your claim that USN said so which I couldn’t find) so F-5 will have 1-2m2 because it’s a “smaller”. That’s ultimately where your claim comes from....yourself. Which is fine, but you tried to pass it off as FACT.
Official RCS data on modern fighters is very hard to find if not classified by most countries. Simulations out there are what make it to web. Same simulations you berated.
Like I said above, you either have dementia or you deliberately misquote people for trolling purposes. Here is my direct quote on F-5's RCS before, my basis for F-5 have 1-3 m2 RCS has always stemmed from a family of airframes N-156 having officially known RCS of ~1-3 m2. Your claim of 16 m2 is laughable at best which fits your past record of claiming BS.
"FA/18 itself has a USN claimed RCS of 3m2 (1999) and the airframe is a modified version of F-5E/F, but larger and edgy, Do you really want us to believe that F/A-18 is 3 M2 but the tiny needle like F-5 is 16 m2 somehow?
F-5 was and is quite hard to track in aerial combat which is why its base design (N-156) was chosen to be driven into F/A-18 which became the premier USN fighter for decades and still is. Even the modern US aviators call an upgraded F-5N a small low observable platform that you can not just defeat easily in the sky. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...at-will-make-the-entire-fleet-far-more-potent
We have a logical base as well. In the Iran-Iraq war, the thickest possible majority of F-5E was downed by SAM fire which tracks the aircraft from the aspect of lower body. Even an F-22 will have a hard time hiding its lower body RCS. Barely ~8 confirmed air-to-air kills of F-5E were recorded during combat with MIG-25PD, MIG-23ML and all by WVR engagement. None killed at distance during BVR attack which Iraqis used to launch like maniacs with R-40 BVR missile from MIG-25PD. They once even got an F-14A of Hashem Ale-Agha but none ever got an F-5E despite being fired upon multiple times by an R-40. It tells us how difficult it is to track such a small airframe and kill it with ARH/SARH missiles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iraqi_aerial_victories_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war"
My claim for F-5's RCS being 1-3 m2 (which I firmly stand on) has always stemmed from the fact that its driven F/A-18 has a 1-3 m2 RCS, actually 1.2 m2 if I may qoute USN Aviation historian/Author Mr. Peter Grining. F/A-18, F-5E/F/Kowsar, F-20, Saeqeh-I/II, FCK-1 are all driven from N-156 airframe and have mild difference from each other. If the edgiest/largest member of this family airframes has a RCS of 1.2 m2 (USN) then how come the less edgy and smaller version of same airframe suddenly become 16 m2 according to your troll logic? Unlike you, I would not use the software a simulated RCS value here. I would rather USN naval aviation author himself Mr. Peter Grining, for F/A-18 RCS values of 1.2 m2 RCS and 0.75 m2 for F/A-18EF.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/2300/Articles/PG/PGSA.htm
According to you, Dr. Carlo Kopp is wrong, USN's author Mr. Peter Grining is wrong, US aviators are wrong, IAIO's Afshin Khajeh Fard is wrong, Sukhoi OKB .... who else is wrong?
Several actual technical people with experience in the field of aeronautics like Evilwesterners and Peed have commended the flankers and suggested that Iran purchase the plane for defense purposes if at all possible.
Spare me from your ***-kissing of other posters here but I believe in numbers published by companies and officials. Sukhoi or any official related to Ru-AF, Russian aviation source never ever claimed that SU-35 (SU-27SM with avionic upgrade) has an RCS of 1-3 m2 that you claimed is true. Let along Su-35, Sukhoi never actually claimed in their patent for SU-57 to be stealth, its low observatory at best with 0.1 m2 value they published, close to Rafale. They are not stupid that they will allow their company to be ridiculed by claiming SU-27SM suddenly became 1-3 m2 from 10-15 m2.
Barely information on its “datalink”, “radar” by the military themselves.
Head of IAIO, Brig General Afshin Khajeh Fard confirmed a two way, Double Duplex Tactical Datalink between Fighter(Radar data)<---------->UCAV(SAR Data+EO/IR data)
Link 
“radar” by the military themselves.
ISWNEWS quoting official figures: Radar: Griffo-Leonardo (or its Chinese NREIT copy) produced domestically, Range: 93 KM, can attack two Targets.
Link
Visually: an "exact" replica of Grifo-346 with the same antenna shape, arrays, T/R count, processing units, tracking range, and engagement specs.
Key Aero, AirInternational: IEI Bayyenat-II locally produced multimode X band Fire Control Radar of NRIET Chinese and Italian Leonardo origin.
Officially presented: HESA floors, Dezful Airshow
You may be living under a rock and yet you dare to claim BS here but others are not. And no they do not owe you any explanation on how they got this system in their hands, being produced domestically now.
No long range BVR or if it’s coming.
BVR capability =/= BVR posession
Before Fakour-90 test and few AIM-54 being overhauled, F-14A were flying without BVR does this mean F-14 suddenly become BVR less fighter ? was it a BVR-capable fighter who at that moment had no missile to use at BVR ranges? Your logic is stupid at best.
But you assume it’s better than Russian electronics
Where did I say that Iranian local electronics are better than Russian electronics? provide evidence.
Here is the paper in PDF format if you actually want to read and understand it without having a stroke
I have concluded you are too far down the rabbit hole regarding Project Kowsar to consider viable stop gap alternatives. It would be counter productive to try to make you see the light. You made it clear you rather sit in fanboy darkness clutching on to false hopes.
Posting the same paper, again and again, would not make your troll claim true. I read this entire paper the first time you tried to use it for your stupid claim. Nowhere I found the authors claiming the RCS as real. As a matter of fact they did not even utter the words of real RCS, because their paper's ONLY objective is to show that whatever simulated value of RCS their software is showing drops when RAM coating is applied (with incremental width). Their paper is about the DROP of RCS in simulation and nothing to verify the RAM's performance in simulation. You tried to lie to the entire IRIAF section here but were caught pants down
. Lesson for you: Stop misquoting the authors! Researchers hate that, you are a troll, they are not.
Here is a list of your failures related to this bogus claim of yours:
- Software Simulated RCS =/= Real RCS. No simulation in the entire world of science can ever be equated to real-world values without a relative factor which needs to be x or + or - from the simulated RCS to make it equal to the actual lab tested value. We don't know this relative factor because the paper was not about the real RCS. The paper was about simulated drop in RCS by RAM.
- The authors in your "trophy" paper you posted, are nowhere claiming that their simulated RCS = Real RCS. They are not doing it because they are scientists. While you being a troll are constantly misquoting their work. Scientists hate being misquoted.
-
Actual RCS is measured by multimillion USD facilities, not on freeware software by actual professional scientists, who according to your stupid logic are just fools wasting their years of lives, millions of USD on establishing laboratories. They can just download freeware and design the next generation of F-35 and F-22 from their bedrooms.
-
US aviators themselves are claiming that their F-5N is hard to track/observe even from an F-18E of F-35. Would they say it about an airframe that you are claiming to be having an RCS of 16 m2? They can just track it from 150 KM away and destroy it, why an experienced US aviator will call the airframe hard to track if it has larger than an F-4/F-15's RCS value?
-
F-5E/F during the war has never been shot by a BVR missile. MIG-25PD and MIG-23ML shot F-4E and F-14A with R-40, and R-23 BVR missiles but failed to track "16 m2 F-5". Iraqi MIG-25PD later had to wait till 30 KM to get a lock on US F/A-18. N-156 family has small RCS no matter which member we take. USN themselves released F/A-18 and F/A-18EF to be 0.75 to 1.2 m2, how come the same N-156 airframe with fewer edges and smaller size suddenly becomes 16 m2 according to your logic?
Now please provide us the citation for your following claims:
1) F-5 has a RCS of 16 m2 and it will be attacked from all sides (real RCS not simulation)
2) SU-35S has a RCS of 1-3 m2
I don't think anybody takes you seriously anymore, like I said before many times, you have a habit of claiming baseless things and when someone counters that with facts you will either go shut up about it or try to deviate the subject with trash talking, which you did in this post. Here is an updated list of your troll claims that have been smashed right away and you do not address them anymore:
-
Your claim There have been two dozen plus Saegheh built.
Reality Serial numbers proved there have just been 6.
-
Your claim Kowsar is a 1960s fighter plane.
Reality Its radar (Shown at the unveiling, ditto of Grifo-346), avionics (Shown at unveiling), communications (Shown by unveiling), FBW system (BT), Tactical datalink (IAIO head) rivals Mirage-2005, F-16 Block 30. Easily more advanced than anything in IRIAF.
-
Your claim Mirage-F1 were purchased from France
Reality They are Saddams gifts. How come an Iranian does not know this is beyond me?
-
Your claim There are only "6 prop airframes" of Kowsar in HESA from the same 2018 unveiling that they show each time some official visit the facility
Reality With serial numbers, it was proven that there are 4 aircraft that are operational and there are
18-24 further airframes in primer/being worked upon inside HESA.
-
Your claim SU-35S has an RCS of 1-3 m2
Reality There is a "ZERO" difference between the frontal section of SU-27 and SU-35 so how come SU-27 having a company patented 10-15 m2 RCS suddenly became 1-3 m2 in SU-35? Is there any evidence for that? let alone evidence is this even logical to assume that same airframe reduced some 12 m2 of RCS just because of avioncis upgrade ?
-
Your claim SU-35 has the longest BVR package
Reality The officially released Russian video shows IRBIS-E radar tracking a fighter sized target at ~100 KM.
-
Your claim Software simulated RCS are real RCS
Reality No they are not, Simulated values with relative factors = Real values. Entire world of scientists will laugh on you for claiming that simulation value = real value without any coefficient/relative factor between them.
-
Your claim 1960s era designed airframes can't have low RCS
Reality MIG-21, F-5, F-16, F/A-18 are all from 1960s-1970s generation airframes yet their RCS values are below 5m2.
- Your claim F-5 airframe has a RCS of 16 m2 and will be attacked from front and lateral sides
Reality You failed to produce a single document of REAL RCS values of F-5 instead tried to pass simulated RCS values without any relative factor, misqouting the authors for things they did not even claim. You neglect the fact that the largest, most edgiest airframe of the N-156 family (F-5, F-18, F-17, Saeghe-I/II, FCK-1) has a USN released RCS of 1-3 m2. USN combat aviators call it hard to observe/track fighter which obviously they wont call a 16 m2 RCS bearing airframe. You neglect the fact that despite being in aerial combat for a decade long war, Iraqi MIG-25PD, MIG-23ML failed to shoot IRIAF F-5E at BVR ranges while same fighters scored victories on F-4E/D and F-14A with R-40D and R-23 BVR missiles.
According to you:
- USN serving naval aviators are wrong to call F-5 hard to track. They should have read your "SImUlatEd RCS oF 16m2" so that they can question themselves.
- History of Iran-Iraq war of F-5 never been shot with a BVR missile is wrong
- USN and their aviation historian/authors like Peter Grining is wrong for publishing N-156 family airframes having 0.75-1.2 m2 RCS
- IACI head Brig. General Afshin Khajeh Fard is wrong for talking about Full Duplex Tactical Datalink in use of IRIAF and IRGCAF.
- Photos of HESA floors for Kowsar-I production are wrong "because 6 PRoP AirFRaMES"
- Aviation photographers who counted Saegheh Numbers are wrong
- Sukhoi Company is wrong to publish their flanker airframe having an RCS values as 10-15 m2 in their patents.
- NIIP is wrong to release videos of IRBIS-E tracking range at 100 KM.
Please tell us what your next claim is so that this list can grow.
