Meet Owj: Iran’s First Indigenous Fighter Jet Engine

[AmirPatriot]

Iraq's integrated air defense system rivaled that of Moscow's

Come on... the absolute best they had was some geriatric SA-6 batteries. Moscow was protected by S-300s. Current Iranian (let alone Russian) and peak Iraqi air defence capability is incomparable.

Just because Van Ripper did it, does not mean Iran can replicate what he did. For starter, Van Ripper knew US combat doctrines and was able to exploit weaknesses.

Van Ripper was trying to replicate Iranian tactics!

Iran, having observed US combat doctrine for 50 years (yes, even during the shah times, since the Shah's military was modelled off the US'), has gone the past 30 years specifically tailoring it's military doctrine to fight the US.

This is where you are wrong. Seriously wrong. The idea of a 'war game' or exercise is to stress everything related to the focus of the exercise. Stress to the point of breaking, if necessary.

For example...If the focus of the exercise is transporting heavy equipment to the front line, you stress the maintenance people. You virtually 'kills' them. Place them under cards, meaning they are now 'dead' and ineligible to contribute to their unit's operations. Now their trucks and/or aircrafts that have maintenance problems will go longer unrepaired and yet the goal of transporting X amount of tanks and ammunition still must be met.

Another example...If the focus of the exercise is to deal with numerical superiority, then you give permission to the 'bad guys' to regenerate as much tanks, ships, or fighter aircrafts as needed. When the defense, the 'good guys', finally failed, you now know where the weak points are.

I know exactly what a war game is. All nations have war games to test their capabilities. And I'm not saying that the US did not go through that. What I am saying is that in MC 2002, they refused to learn what was in front of them.

What Van Ripper did was in no way indicative that we learned and changed nothing. Least of all, that Iran can count on US to be static so that what happened is available on the Internet for Iran to assuredly can defeat the US Navy. I have said it before that the US military is the most self critical organization in the world. We change while it is appearing that we do not.

So you are basically saying, without proof or evidence, that the US must have learnt from MC 2002 in private, even though there are numerous articles, leaks (esp. from Van Ripper) that disprove that. Chief among which is the re-floating of the allied ships and the unrealistic operational restrictions put on "red" to guarantee a "blue" victory.

Then when the time comes, people get embarrassed real fast when they underestimated US. Like your Iran did for Desert Storm.

Iran underestimates US military power. You heard it here first folks...

 

[Blue In Green]

Pretty grim out look for Iran.

Why do they even try if it will only take 4 days for us to beat them?

There has to be more to this than just comparison to decades old wars with outdated technology. Idk, if we do adjust for US advancements since Desert Storm then indeed, 4-10 days doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility if Iran has an untrained and unmotivated force. I just... it sounds like a slaughter the way you put it Gambit. There has to be some kind of reciprocal credit from our side.

 

[Faravahar]

Do not think that just because you use the words 'integrated air defense' it means you know what you are talking about. Am saying this gently.

The concept of an integrated air defense is relatively new. It did not exist in WW II, not in the Korean War, and relatively experimental in the Vietnam War. Air defense have always existed to defend against aircrafts, but the responses were not coordinated and the individual units had poor communication with each other. To put it simply...What integration did was to put an area under the unified command of a single commander, from personnel to hardware.

By the time of Desert Storm, Iraq's integrated air defense system rivaled that of Moscow's. It was better than what North Viet Nam fielded under Chinese design and built in the Vietnam War. We blinded Iraq's integrated air defense commanders in the first hour, crippled it in the first day, and essentially rendered it impotent by the 4th. Yes, Iraq had mobile radars as well. Those crews learned that to transmit any longer than one second is to invite death.

If you're going to question my knowledge in this topic, at least give a better reply.
How can I take you seriously when you just compared the Iraqi air defence system to the Iranian one? Do you have any idea just how many different types of air defences Iran has? And on top of that, minus the S-300 and very few other systems, the vast majority of those systems are Iranian designed with little to no info available about them. I didn't know Iraq has various different long range air defence system with AESA radars! Iraq's air defence can in no way, not quality or quantity wise be compared to Iran.

How is the US going to blind the Iranian air defence exactly? You're going to teleport into Iranian airspace and blind everything? Iran posses both mobile and static long range OTH radars incorporating frequency hopping tech for which it is impossible to the American to "blind" and they will detect any American system far before they reach anywhere the Iranian air borders. And this is just one example of the systems Iran has.

One of the purposes of the Iranian air defence is to actually monitor and defend against enemies long before they are in Iranian air space. For example, the Persian gulf. Therefore, I am interested in how any hostile US system is planning to ever even get to a position where it could blind anything.

 

[gambit]

Come on...

Come on...

https://defence.pk/threads/ten-propositions-for-modern-air-power.472753/page-2#post-9182513
In the Iran-Iraq War, the lack of either air force's capability to attack the enemy at the strategic depth was a major contributor to why the war lasted so long, and ended in a stalemate with each side proclaiming victory in their respective propaganda campaigns.

We can attack Iran at ANY depth.

Pretty grim out look for Iran.

...if we do adjust for US advancements since Desert Storm then indeed, 4-10 days doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility if Iran has an untrained and unmotivated force. I just... it sounds like a slaughter the way you put it Gambit. There has to be some kind of reciprocal credit from our side.

What make you think Iraq had an untrained and unmotivated army ? Was the stalemated war against Iran not enough proof of their training and motivation ?

 

[Muhammed45]

Come on...

https://defence.pk/threads/ten-propositions-for-modern-air-power.472753/page-2#post-9182513
In the Iran-Iraq War, the lack of either air force's capability to attack the enemy at the strategic depth was a major contributor to why the war lasted so long, and ended in a stalemate with each side proclaiming victory in their respective propaganda campaigns.

We can attack Iran at ANY depth.

Really? So why you cowards never have tried that before?
MF American, Do it if you dare. We need to restore our space program, you MFs are the best excuse for it.

 

[gambit]

Iran posses both mobile and static long range OTH radars incorporating frequency hopping tech for which it is impossible to the American to "blind" and they will detect any American system far before they reach anywhere the Iranian air borders. And this is just one example of the systems Iran has.

I call this bullshit.

Anyone who is experienced in radar systems design know that the longer the operating freq, the longer the operating time necessary in order to have any kind of valid radar return, assuming there are bodies to produce those returns.

You tossed out 'OTH radars' as if you know what you are talking about. I am willing to say -- kindly -- that you do not.

In order for an 'over the horizon' radar method to work, you must use atmospheric reflections and the atmosphere layers are friendly to only a certain range of freqs. Those long wavelengths are in the meters physical lengths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar

But to sum it up for you, the longer the operating time, the easier it is to detect the stations, even if they are mobile. You cannot simply transmit and leave. You have to stay in order to work on any returns. Further, you cannot simply move to another location. You have to coordinate each other's movements so as not to replicate each other's work. All of this make you vulnerable to SIGINT and no one is even on a par with US at SIGINT, let alone better.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Iran-Iraq War

I thought you actually, you know... knew anything. To cite a war that happened 30 years ago is the ultimate folly. It's like comparing the Russia that surrendered in 1918 with Russia the superpower in 1948.

 

[gambit]

I thought you actually, you know... knew anything. To cite a war that happened 30 years ago is the ultimate folly. It's like comparing the Russia that surrendered in 1918 with Russia the superpower in 1948.

The folly here is to buy in what the Iranian government produced regarding what the Iranian military can do. Desert Storm is one of the major turning points in the history of warfare, whereas stalemates like the Iran-Iraq War produced nothing but propaganda.

 

[Faravahar]

I call this bullshit.

Anyone who is experienced in radar systems design know that the longer the operating freq, the longer the operating time necessary in order to have any kind of valid radar return, assuming there are bodies to produce those returns.

You tossed out 'OTH radars' as if you know what you are talking about. I am willing to say -- kindly -- that you do not.

In order for an 'over the horizon' radar method to work, you must use atmospheric reflections and the atmosphere layers are friendly to only a certain range of freqs. Those long wavelengths are in the meters physical lengths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar

But to sum it up for you, the longer the operating time, the easier it is to detect the stations, even if they are mobile. You cannot simply transmit and leave. You have to stay in order to work on any returns. Further, you cannot simply move to another location. You have to coordinate each other's movements so as not to replicate each other's work. All of this make you vulnerable to SIGINT and no one is even on a par with US at SIGINT, let alone better.

Iran has in operation mobile OTH radars as I write this comment, so clearly, YOU don't know what you're talking about. OTH radars do not have to stay in the exact same spot from which they transmitted, you're talking as if that is the case. The reason why most these OTH radar are static is simple, because they're too big to be mobile.

The folly here is to buy in what the Iranian government produced regarding what the Iranian military can do. Desert Storm is one of the major turning points in the history of warfare, whereas stalemates like the Iran-Iraq War produced nothing but propaganda.

I'll take their words over what come out of your government, that's for sure. Like your super dupper "stealth" RQ-170

 

[gambit]

Iran has in operation mobile OTH radars as I write this comment, so clearly, YOU don't know what you're talking about. OTH radars do not have to stay in the exact same spot from which they transmitted, you're talking as if that is the case. The reason why most these OTH radar are static is simple, because they're too big to be mobile.

No, it is YOU who do not know what you are talking about. You are essentially making up 'Iranian physics'. You do not see how you contradicted yourself -- the highlighted.

OTH arrays have to be large, as in meters large. There is an inverse relationship between beamwidth and operating freq.

http://www.satsig.net/pointing/antenna-beamwidth-calculator.htm

I will sum it up for you.

Inverse means opposite. For any operating freq and for any desired beamwidth, the longer the wavelength, the larger the array IN ORDER TO PRODUCE THE SMALLER BEAMWIDTH.

Long wavelengths have very poor target resolutions, especially against moving targets. For centimetric (cm) wavelengths, the ideal beamwidth is 3-5 degs. With longer wavelengths, as in the meters length bands, to produce that same 3-5 deg beamwidth would require an array of tens of meters across. Not mobile. On the other hand, if your array is small enough to make your station mobile, the final beamwidth will be like a fan instead of a pencil.

If that is what Iran have, then we have nothing to worry about.

 

[Faravahar]

No, it is YOU who do not know what you are talking about. You are essentially making up 'Iranian physics'. You do not see how you contradicted yourself -- the highlighted.

OTH arrays have to be large, as in meters large. There is an inverse relationship between beamwidth and operating freq.

http://www.satsig.net/pointing/antenna-beamwidth-calculator.htm

I will sum it up for you.

Inverse means opposite. For any operating freq and for any desired beamwidth, the longer the wavelength, the larger the array IN ORDER TO PRODUCE THE SMALLER BEAMWIDTH.

Long wavelengths have very poor target resolutions, especially against moving targets. For centimetric (cm) wavelengths, the ideal beamwidth is 3-5 degs. With longer wavelengths, as in the meters length bands, to produce that same 3-5 deg beamwidth would require an array of tens of meters across. Not mobile. On the other hand, if your array is small enough to make your station mobile, the final beamwidth will be like a fan instead of a pencil.

If that is what Iran have, then we have nothing to worry about.

Iranian physics? Iranians were calculating the diameter of the earth to 99% accuracy when your kind were busy mating with squirrels. If you're going to comment on any people's scientific history in a mocking manner, don't pick the Persians.

Your comment did not in any way contradict anything I said. I do not need radar lessons from you kid. You basically regurgitated bunch of fact (which I am already aware of) which in no way debunked what I said. I said the radar are not usually mobile because of their large size, which is factual. I did not comment on why they're usually large. However, an OTH radar does not absolutely have to be large and can be made smaller and compact.

Here is an Iranian OTH radar, which is mobile and has been in service for years now:

That is what it looks like when it is open.

If you're to bother to quote me with a response, at least do it properly.

 

[gambit]

Your comment did not in any way contradict anything I said. I do not need radar lessons from you kid.

Kid ? I am 54 yrs old. Old enough to be your father. I am a USAF veteran of two aircrafts: F-111 (Cold War) and F-16 (Desert Storm).

You basically regurgitated bunch of fact (which I am already aware of) which in no way debunked what I said.

Debunked what ? That Iran have no OTH radars ? I did not set out to dispute your argument that Iran have OTH radars, but only to point out your technical errors on how they operate.

http://meteorologytraining.tpub.com/14271/css/14271_60.htm

Beamwidth varies directly withwavelength and inversely with antenna size. Radar systems that produce relatively small beam widths generally provide greater target resolution.

Against an airborne target, these are the desired target resolutions:

- Heading
- Altitude
- Airspeed
- Aspect angle

Against ANY target, the radar beam have what is called 'resolution cell'...

https://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-029/_4335.htm

The radar cannot distinguish between two separate objects that lie within the same resolution cell.

This is what ALWAYS occurs with larger beamwidths...

So against moving targets on the sea surface, a fleet that sails in this formation...

...Would appear as one huge blob on the scope. Something like a weather formation instead of an aircraft carrier and its escorts.

If you're to bother to quote me with a response, at least do it properly.

I should say that to you, kid.

 

[Asghar1234]

Useless talk...

 

[Faravahar]

Kid ? I am 54 yrs old. Old enough to be your father. I am a USAF veteran of two aircrafts: F-111 (Cold War) and F-16 (Desert Storm).


Debunked what ? That Iran have no OTH radars ? I did not set out to dispute your argument that Iran have OTH radars, but only to point out your technical errors on how they operate.

http://meteorologytraining.tpub.com/14271/css/14271_60.htm

Against an airborne target, these are the desired target resolutions:

- Heading
- Altitude
- Airspeed
- Aspect angle

Against ANY target, the radar beam have what is called 'resolution cell'...

https://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-029/_4335.htm

This is what ALWAYS occurs with larger beamwidths...

So against moving targets on the sea surface, a fleet that sails in this formation...

...Would appear as one huge blob on the scope. Something like a weather formation instead of an aircraft carrier and its escorts.


I should say that to you, kid.

I am not going to comment the software capabilities associated with those Iranian radars and they aid in efficiency of such systems. Nowhere in my comment did I make say say anything about the accuracy of that radars. I am aware of that costs associated with making these things mobile, such as what you said with regards to bandwidth. But, we have to keep in mind that these radars are not suppose to give highly accurate data to begin with. From my interpretations of the Iranian systems, it seems the main role of these OTH radars both the static and the mobile ones is to provide a general early warning cover, once these "blobs" are shown on the radar screen, then they will turn on their more accurate longer radar system, for example, the likes of their meraj-4 which has 500km range etc.

One of the Iranian OTH radar is called Ghadir, this one is large and static with 1100km range, it is posses that "frequency hopping" capabilities meaning within the allowed frequency ranges, it can vary it frequency, presumably to make it less likely to be effected by ARM's. Such radars are naturally very difficult to be target anyway by ARM due to their long wavelengths. That was the reason I mentioned these radars to begin with, due to them being very unlikely to be blinded electronically.

 

[gambit]

I am not going to comment the software capabilities associated with those Iranian radars and they aid in efficiency of such systems.

Software cannot defy the laws of physics. The Chinese on this forum tried. Resorting to mysterious software is a cheap cop-out.

Nowhere in my commonly did I make any comment about the accuracy of that radars.

Because you did not know of these details. If you did, you would not have posted that image in post 146. You would have been true to the technical reality that such a small array is tactically useless due to its large beamwidth.

I am aware of that costs associated with making these things mobile, such as what you said with regards to bandwidth.

Bandwidth ? It is BEAMWIDTH. Like this...

According to the laws of physics, there is an INVERSE relationship between array and operating freq for any desired beamwidth. I cannot dumb it down further than that.

But, we have to keep in mind that these radars are not suppose to give highly accurate data to begin with.

Then they are good for weather. Not against an aircraft carrier fleet and/or bombers.

From my interpretations of the Iranian systems, it seems the main role of these OTH radars both the static and the mobile ones is to provide a general early warning cover, once these "blobs" are shown on the radar screen, then they will turn on their more accurate longer radar system, for example, the likes of their meraj-4 which has 500km range etc.

Then you are vulnerable to weather and/or spoofing. You will end up chasing ghosts.

One of the Iranian OTH radar is called Ghadir, this one is large and static with 1100km range, it is posses that "frequency hopping" capabilities meaning withing the allowed frequency ranges, it can vary it frequency, presumably to make it less likely to be effected by ARM's. Such radars are naturally very difficult to be target anyway by ARM due to their long wavelengths. That was the reason I mentioned these radars to begin with, due to them being very unlikely to be blinded electronically (not taking into account cyberwarfare).

In the US, we have a group calls 'ham radio' operators.

http://www.arrl.org/what-is-ham-radio

They use various freqs in the OTH bands to communicate with people all over the world. So yes, the US military knows about how to freq agility in radar operations.

So you are basically saying, without proof or evidence, that the US must have learnt from MC 2002 in private, even though there are numerous articles, leaks (esp. from Van Ripper) that disprove that. Chief among which is the re-floating of the allied ships and the unrealistic operational restrictions put on "red" to guarantee a "blue" victory.

Just because there are public disputes among the generals, that does not mean the US cannot learn. Remember, or perhaps you did not know, but the Army generals and Navy admirals disputed Billy Mitchell on what air power can do even AFTER he proved that bombs can sink ships.

Looky here...No one have contributed to the arts and crafts of warfare like the US have in its short time in history. Certainly not your Iran since the Industrial Revolution. Criticize US all you want, but we only need to prove ourselves just once -- in battle.