And this signifies what? Iran and Russia are in a strategic alliance.
Opinion not fact
Su-35S's AL-41F will be overhauled inside Iran so how "odd" it will be if the same AL-31/41 are being manufactured inside Iran?
Very odd if you don’t know the difference between license production vs 100% TOT
.Stop backtracking. I see, "Russian or Iranian" AL-31 has now become "irrelevant"
Always was irrelevant Russia supplying AL-31 physically or 100% TOT so it can be used in Kowsar or any non SU-35S or Russian fighter(or Migs get upgraded like you say) is still highly unlikely. That has been my point all along.
Call Manteghi or TEM offices directly and tell them that you "think" their presentation was false and that apparently, you know more about Russian-Iranian strategic dealings than them all.
Do you have their number? I’ll call
- J-85 licensed production in Canada, Italy
- J79 licensed production in Belgium, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, and Japan
- F404 licensed production in the Republic of Korea, Sweden
- F110 licensed production in Japan, Turkey
- RD-33MK licensed production in India
- RD-93 licensed production in China
- Spey licensed production in China
Do you agree that license production and 100% TOT are not the same thing? One is limited to assembly and some parts production the other is ability and know how to make the product from scratch without the need from the foreign entity
- AL-31F licensed production in India
not 100% TOT. It seems you are inferring that licensed production is the same as 100% TOT
The leading jet engine vendors—General Electric (GE), Honeywell, and Pratt & Whitney of the US; the British Rolls-Royce; the French Safran; and Russia’s Klimov and Saturn—have not been as forthcoming about sharing the technical know-how which could boost India’s self-reliance in the defence sector. For instance, Safran wanted more than €1 billion to part with the technology.
It has been reported that 100% ToT will allow India to manufacture the more powerful GE F414 engine variant. It would power the LCA Mark II, Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), and other future Indian fighter jets.
This is highly significant because transfer of technology in this sphere is easier said than done. So far, India has been devoid of genuine transfer of technology.
It is not clear whether the US engine deal will be similar to previous deals like those with Russia where jet engines were built with ToT for decades but India did not have the capability to design its own jet engine from scratch that involves metallurgy and manufacturing engine components. For instance, experts say, we have been carrying on just licensed production of the Russian-made Mig 27 and Mig 21 Jets.
The UK, the US, France, and Russia are the only countries to have mastered the combat jet engine technology till now.
www.news9live.com
Neither the Turks or India can build those respective engines from scratch.
Licensed production =/= 100% TOT production
You are implying Iran is getting 100% TOT. Licensed production is not that.
Ask any Turk if they can build F110 from scratch without US supplying critical components and the answer is no! Most of the time licensed production is “kit assembly” with some common spare part production inside the country. Iran got this “deal” with the Russians in the 90’s for T-72 tanks I believe.
Licensed production is rarely 100% TOT.
So which one are you claiming that Iran will have license production or will be given 100% TOT?
I gave plenty of examples Turbojets/Turbofans TOTs above including RD-33, AL-31, you can do same about OTH's.
You gave licensed production examples and in nearly all cases the company did not have critical 100% transfer that would allow the country to build engines from scratch and use it for whatever they wish.
Iran has/had license production of Coca-Cola and thru an Irish subsidiary Coca-Cola sell Iran the “concentrate” to assembly the sodas does that mean Iran has its hands the Coca-Cola formula? Of course not.
Please explain why would China need AL-31 when they have their own equivalent WS-10A/G and WS-15? There are problems in few designs for now but Chinese are a growing tech superpower, how long will it take them to fix and even produce something even better than Russian product? they no longer are dependent upon Russia for things that they were reliant upon a decade ago.
Until a few years ago J-20 was flying (of which serial production was made years ago) were flying with Russian engines.
The transition to Chinese engines is still ongoing.
The keys to producing the raw materials, as well as creating the high-tolerance final parts, are closely guarded national secrets. Spy photos are easy to take at airshows, and blueprints can be readily stolen –
often as simply as searching for CAD files and sending them home. Data on metallurgy and materials and production processes can be harder to lay one’s hands on.
The jet engine has a long and storied history. Its development occurred spontaneously amongst several unrelated groups in the early 20th Century. Frank Whittle submitted a UK patent on a design in …
hackaday.com
"India's Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has obtained licensed production for RD-33MK variant in 2006"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_RD-33
"AL-31FP is built in India by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) at the Koraput facility under a deep technology transfer agreement"
https://www.key.aero/article/after-burn
View attachment 935137
Far from “serving me”, your confusing license production with 100% TOT.
India cannot build AL-31 without key Russian components and assistance even after all these years.
Neither can the Turks build their engines for their future fighter without the American supplying the critical know how and components.
I asked for an example of 100% TOT.
There are zero signs of Iranian attempts to copy or get a license for RD-33 production as there are zero signs of Iran being even remotely interested in expanding or upgrading the MIG fleet for ~30 years.
What does reverse engineering RD-33 have to deal with upgrading MIG? You can use the engine in any fighter jet that can fit it and makes sense from an aerodynamic standpoint.
Between using Owj vs RD-33 in Kowsar or any future fighter (F-313 or others) which one is better? The answer is clear.
Russia has given Turbojet/Turbofans TOT to countries (China, India) before but not a single example exists for R-33, R-37 BVR transfer.
Licensed production =/= 100% TOT
For example, for any Russian licensed produced engines supplied to Pakistan’s Chinese fighters, Russian have to give approval.
Russia has been the single biggest supplier of weapons to Iran since the war.
Yes because no one else would sell to us. Even the Chinese deals for C-802 and others were fraught with problems.
Chinese combat aviation just picked up 2 decades ago. By the turn of the century, they were still flying J-7 with PL-7 sidewinders.
Chinese fighter jet development started in 1970’s with J-12. J-10 in 1980’s.
Chinese has been doing this ALOT longer than Iran has.
Today they have all of that, Their end products are getting better than Russian products so they are not even reliant.
They still use Russian engines in many of their fighter jets. The transition to WS engine have only begun recently and it’s next to impossible to verify how those engines do over long hours. China is not exactly publishing those information.
Jahesh-700 example is totally illogical since it's currently not powering some large fleet of aircraft in Iran.
It is not illogical when we have yet to serial production of OWJ engines or J-700.
Had it been ordered by lets say IRGC-AF for their UCAV fleet, we would have seen its assembly line like we have seen OWJ being assembled for Kowsar. Demand leads to mass production. If there is no demand then why would we see assembly lines?
You had claimed at one that J-700 would power Kowsar. (I provided proof of your quote) yet now you say demand is not there for it since it’s only useful for UCAV.
TOT's include vendor's supervision of the establishment of facilities in the client's premises that ensure mass production. If Iran gets AL-31 TOT as Manteghi was showing then the mass production capability will come from NPO Saturn-supplied SOPs.
That’s called licensed production of which you have given several examples above. If the Vendor is over-seeing and supplying the critical components and metallurgy than that is not 100% TOT.
So again I ask are you saying Russia will provide licensed production to Iran or will give 100% TOT for Iran to produce everything from scratch so that if tommorrow Russia is gone, Iran can build engines without any foreign parts.
Stop dodging, You in previous post claimed that I said, "F-5 with drop tanks and fully loaded armament is going to be at 1m2 RCS". I am waiting for evidence of this statement from me.
You ask me to stop dodging, but yet you dodge my questions all the time. What a peculiar tactic.
Has an F/A-18 ever been shot at BVR ranges? It has shot down many aircraft in Gulf War I and II, the only time it was shot down was through R-40 within at borderline WVR ranges. F/A-18 never ever loses in exercises.
Are you really comparing Iraqi Air Force in 1990’s and 2003 with the American Air Force?
Is that really fair?
Again America has yet to face a near peer adversary in the air.
What is common among these? The low RCS and N-156 or similar origin.
The common theme among these is Intel, ECW, Support system of a superpower vs Russian aircraft in various states of condition and the opposing country.
It’s an apple to oranges comparison to say the RCS was the primary reason for this.
Same can be said about every plane, including F-22, F-35, J-20. All aspect RCS is averaged but has peaks and valleys in plots of RCS vs distances vs angles.
5th Gen fighters have internal weapon bays. So they can go stealth layout and not full bombing layout and maintain their frontal RCS. The same cannot be said of Kowsar.
Furthermore, F-22 and F-35 (cannot speak about J-20 as information is limited) are built with minimum radiation leakage hence why IRST are key tech on SU-35S, future Turkish fighter, and even Iranian ground based defenses as it allows for detection when ECW is active or in case of RQ-170 minimum radiation and low RCS are combined. Of course this comes at reduced ranges, but better late than never.
I never said anything about ground-based interceptions. Read again, I said airborne interception.
Two points here
1) US and Israeli airforce since 1990 have yet to engage a competitive Airforce in the air. I think we can agree on that. So there is no modern examples (2000 onward) examples of these fighter jets truly fighting a near peer adversary in the air. So any data is of course going to be favorable for the opponent.
2) Your comment also is my point for my previous claims of lethality of SU-35S within the Iranian IADS network. Any F-18/F-16 etc will have to approach Iranian airspace or be within it to engage SU-35S and whatever ground based targets it is assigned. So again RCS of SU-35 (whatever it maybe) is a bit irrelevant if the enemy does not destroy or severely degrade Iranian IADS.
S-200 has a powerful SARH illuminator called 5N62B. The same can not be said about an ARH/SARH airborne interception where T/R elements are usually <1000.
S-200 was never designed for F-16 ECW equipped engagement. It was designed for Cold War era bombers/AWACS as an Area denial weapon.
The fact an Israeli F-16 was managed to be hit employing all of the well known tactics that IAF is known by a severely degraded Syrian Air defense force after years of air strikes and civil war is remarkable.
Just see how F-16 does in Ukraine if it is ever supplied. We will find out if SU-35’s SU-30’s can take them down or not. We will have a modern example.
