Qaher-313

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Which engines are used on Q-313,hesa.saqeah etc?

 

[Penguin]

Comparing this

to this (F-20 Tigershark)

and we see where that came from.

 

[That Guy]

Which engines are used on Q-313,hesa.saqeah etc?

Iran is known to possess the General Electric J85 turbojet engine. Since it's used in the F-5 which Iran has in it's inventory, and the Saeqeh is known to be a reverse engineered version of the F-5, we can safely assume that this is the engine being used.

If the Qaher-313 is indeed a real plane, then this is the engine it would use, which would explain why the Qaher is so small.

 

[Penguin]

The J85 was originally designed to power a large decoy missile, the McDonnell ADM-20 Quail. The Quail was designed to be released from a B-52 Stratofortress in-flight and fly for long distances in formation with the launch aircraft, multiplying the number of targets facing the SA-2 surface-to-air missile operators on the ground.

Applications
Fairchild C-123 Provider
Canadair CL-41 Tutor
Canadair CF-5
Cessna A-37 Dragonfly
Fiat G.91Y
North American T-2 Buckeye
Northrop F-5
Northrop T-38 Talon
Ryan XV-5 Vertifan
Saab 105Ö
Scaled Composites White Knight
Viperjet MKII
Messerschmitt Me-262A-1c and B-1c. (The "c" suffix stands for the flyable reproductions equipped with the J85-derived CJ610 engine instead of the original Junkers Jumo 004 jet engine.)

Note that with the exception of the Viperjet the applications typically involve 2 engines

 

[The SC]

I can't really understand that what IRAN will do against NATO??

NATO couldn't do much against Libya without the Libyans themselves fighting on the ground, and this was a very tiny populated country -about 5 million at most-, you can not in any way compare that to Iran, And NATO will need to set foot in the Area, but no regional country will allow that again, so NATO will be doomed to defeat at the hands of Iran; read post #12.
With no bases and no air superiority, NATO warships will be like sitting (or even moving) ducks to Iranian antiship, cruise missiles, and the stealthy Qaher-313.

 

[Penguin]

With no bases and no air superiority, NATO warships will be like sitting (or even moving) ducks to Iranian antiship, cruise missiles, and the stealthy Qaher-313.

IF you put you ships in the Gulf that is. And I don't see why NATO would need to do that.

 

[The SC]

IF you put you ships in the Gulf that is. And I don't see why NATO would need to do that.

If NATO does not need to do that Penguin, what does it need to do ?
Think about all the other possibilities and their consequences, they can use the British islands in the Indian ocean or send ballistic missiles, both will jeopardize the places where they will be sent from and the senders homes too, and much more.
The Idea you do not seem to grasp is that Iran will close the strait of Hormuz, where 40% of the world's oil transits from, so one way or another NATO will have to put its ships in or close to the gulf where they will sink.

 

[Penguin]

If NATO does not need to do that Penguin, what does it need to do ?
Think about all the other possibilities and their consequences, they can use the British islands in the Indian ocean or send ballistic missiles, both will jeopardize the places where they will be sent from and the senders homes too, and much more.
The Idea you do not seem to grasp is that Iran will close the strait of Hormuz, where 40% of the world's oil transits from, so one way or another NATO will have to put its ships in or close to the gulf where they will sink.

It is advisable to not assume about what I grasp and don't grasp. I'll see your education and raise you mine.

The Gulf is not longer than 1000km. Iran's best coastal antiship missile has a range of 200km, maybe 300km. Cruise missile equipped surface ships and submarines can sit well outside that range and strike with impunity. So can carriers.

Operational range s
Tomahawk Block II TLAM-A – 1,350 nmi (1,550 mi; 2,500 km)
Tomahawk Block III TLAM-C, Block IV TLAM-E - 900 nmi (1,000 mi; 1,700 km) Block III TLAM-D - 700 nmi (810 mi; 1,300 km)
Missile de Croisière Naval (MdCN) / Naval Cruise Missile "well over 1000km"
Storm Shadow over 250 kilometres (155 mi)

For example F/A-18E has a range of 722 km for interdiction mission, excluding the range of any stand-off weapon carried. E.g. AGM-158 JASSM: about 230 miles or 370 km (JASSM-ER is intended to have a range of over 575 miles or 925 km). AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon operational range for low altitude launch is 22 kilometres (12 nmi) and high altitude launch is 130 kilometres (70 nmi). AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER (Standoff Land Attack Missile Expanded Response) has a range of 150 miles or 240 km.

Add in landlaunched cruise missile, landbased aviation assets (bombers from Diego Garcia) and do consider your land borders (NATO includes e.g. Turkey). You don't send in ships first or blindly. You can safely assume any serious op would start from with an aircampagne.

Close down Hormuz and see how many friends you will be left with in the world. Most of your own oil (your nr1 export item) goes to Asia, by sea. Keep in mind that at least 1/3 of China's oil imports passes the Strait of Hormuz.... Not to mention Japan, South Korea, India. All of which countries with growing sophisticated naval assets. China is a strategic partner of Iran, supporting its weapons industry and nuclear programs (and the oil is one of the reasons for that). Iran's major commercial partners are China, India, Germany, South Korea, Japan, France, Russia and Italy, so you'ld mostly be hurting your own interests. Asia and Europe are the main investors in Iran, so on that front too you'ld just be shooting yourself in the foot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iran#Foreign_trade_and_economic_relations
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_113392.pdf

Also noteworthy is that US is far less dependent on Middle Eastern oil than any these Asian countries. And well situated around the globe

Check this map of US basing around the world
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopol/globalmilitarism58_14.jpg

 

[The SC]

It is advisable to not assume about what I grasp and don't grasp. I'll see your education and raise you mine.

The Gulf is not longer than 1000km. Iran's best coastal antiship missile has a range of 200km, maybe 300km. Cruise missile equipped surface ships and submarines can sit well outside that range and strike with impunity. So can carriers.

Operational range s
Tomahawk Block II TLAM-A – 1,350 nmi (1,550 mi; 2,500 km)
Tomahawk Block III TLAM-C, Block IV TLAM-E - 900 nmi (1,000 mi; 1,700 km) Block III TLAM-D - 700 nmi (810 mi; 1,300 km)
Missile de Croisière Naval (MdCN) / Naval Cruise Missile "well over 1000km"
Storm Shadow over 250 kilometres (155 mi)

For example F/A-18E has a range of 722 km for interdiction mission, excluding the range of any stand-off weapon carried. E.g. AGM-158 JASSM: about 230 miles or 370 km (JASSM-ER is intended to have a range of over 575 miles or 925 km). AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon operational range for low altitude launch is 22 kilometres (12 nmi) and high altitude launch is 130 kilometres (70 nmi). AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER (Standoff Land Attack Missile Expanded Response) has a range of 150 miles or 240 km.

Add in landlaunched cruise missile, landbased aviation assets (bombers from Diego Garcia) and do consider your land borders (NATO includes e.g. Turkey). You don't send in ships first or blindly. You can safely assume any serious op would start from with an aircampagne.

Close down Hormuz and see how many friends you will be left with in the world. Most of your own oil (your nr1 export item) goes to Asia, by sea. Keep in mind that at least 1/3 of China's oil imports passes the Strait of Hormuz.... Not to mention Japan, South Korea, India. All of which countries with growing sophisticated naval assets. China is a strategic partner of Iran, supporting its weapons industry and nuclear programs (and the oil is one of the reasons for that). Iran's major commercial partners are China, India, Germany, South Korea, Japan, France, Russia and Italy, so you'ld mostly be hurting your own interests. Asia and Europe are the main investors in Iran, so on that front too you'ld just be shooting yourself in the foot.
Economy of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_113392.pdf

Also noteworthy is that US is far less dependent on Middle Eastern oil than any these Asian countries. And well situated around the globe

Check this map of US basing around the world
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopol/globalmilitarism58_14.jpg

You seem to understand the economics part of it, but not that the war is related to the economics; will those countries you mentioned will allow their economies to sink, what would they do to prevent the war from happening, and in the case of war what would they do?
The US has about 1000 bases around the world, but there are bases and there are bases, a base with a few hundred or even a thousand soldiers is not necessarily a base from where to wage a war and that is the case of the majority of the US bases , they are mostly to insure a US presence in case it has to evacuate some of its citizens from those countries, because those friendships are conditional and shaky at best.
What the US can achieve by sending cruise missiles or other missiles on Iran, nothing really, apart from having its own bases in the area come under attack which will endanger US allies in the region and the oil flux to NATO itself and the ball will be in NATO's court again, so anyhow the US or NATO will have to send their ships and soldiers to the gulf to face destruction one way or another.
One little fact you seems to miss, Iran has 3000+ km range cruise missiles mass produced locally and are some of the best in the world.

 

[That Guy]

Still waiting for the Qaher to make an appearance.

 

[Penguin]

You seem to understand the economics part of it, but not that the war is related to the economics; will those countries you mentioned will allow their economies to sink, what would they do to prevent the war from happening, and in the case of war what would they do?

War IS economics. Shut down Hormuz, really, go ahead. It is a hollow threat.

The US has about 1000 bases around the world, but there are bases and there are bases, a base with a few hundred or even a thousand soldiers is not necessarily a base from where to wage a war and that is the case of the majority of the US bases , they are mostly to insure a US presence in case it has to evacuate some of its citizens from those countries, because those friendships are conditional and shaky at best.

It means you don't have to send in ships first, which was the point of the discussion.

What the US can achieve by sending cruise missiles or other missiles on Iran, nothing really, apart from having its own bases in the area come under attack which will endanger US allies in the region and the oil flux to NATO itself and the ball will be in NATO's court again, so anyhow the US or NATO will have to send their ships and soldiers to the gulf to face destruction one way or another.

Uhm, perhaps take out your command structure, severly limiting Iran's ability to mount a defence against further actions that may be necessary. Incidentally, we were talking NATO and not just US so add in any additional bases owned by Brits and assets belonging to NATO countries neighbouring Iran (that is more than US bases). Point here is that Iran is pretty much surrounded.

One little fact you seems to miss, Iran has 3000+ km range cruise missiles mass produced locally and are some of the best in the world.

Just like Iran is (mass)producing Qaher-313...?
Sometime 2001-2005 Ukraine exported 6-12 Kh-55SM to Iran for the purpose of reverse engineering. These have a range of 3,000 km. It is RUMORED Iran has started producing the missiles locally and is working on a longer range version. However, Iran's capacity to indigenously reverse engineer the Kh-55 is open to question. To date much of Iran's experience has been confined to component reverse engineering, rather than complete systems engineering. There is a large gap between reverse engineering individual components, or licence assembling proven designs, in comparison with tearing down a design and re-engineering it from the ground up. If Iran can actually massproduce a development of KH-55 (Meskat?), then why is it still messing around with e.g. an armed long range UCAV Karrar (which is clearly inferior to the KH-55 as strike weapon, being derived as it is from the South African Skua aerial target drone)?
Kh-55 (missile family) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Meshkat (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Karrar (UCAV) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bypassing the NMD - the Cruise Missile Proliferation Problem
Denel deny link with new Iranian drone. | sUAS News

 

[The SC]

War IS economics. Shut down Hormuz, really, go ahead. It is a hollow threat.


It means you don't have to send in ships first, which was the point of the discussion.


Uhm, perhaps take out your command structure, severly limiting Iran's ability to mount a defence against further actions that may be necessary. Incidentally, we were talking NATO and not just US so add in any additional bases owned by Brits and assets belonging to NATO countries neighbouring Iran (that is more than US bases). Point here is that Iran is pretty much surrounded.


Just like Iran is (mass)producing Qaher-313? Somtime 2001-2005 Ukraine exported 6-12 Kh-55SM to Iran for the purpose of reverse engineering. These have a range of 3,000 km. It is RUMORED Iran has started producing the missiles locally and is working on a longer range version. However, Iran's capacity to indigenously reverse engineer the Kh-55 is open to question. To date much of Iran's experience has been confined to component reverse engineering, rather than complete systems engineering. There is a large gap between reverse engineering individual components, or licence assembling proven designs, in comparison with tearing down a design and re-engineering it from the ground up. If Iran can massproduce a development of KH-55 (Meskat?) then why is it still messing around with a e.g. the armed long range UCAV Karrar (which is clearly inferiour to the KH-55 as strike weapon, being derived from an South African Skua aerial target drone )?
Kh-55 (missile family) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Meshkat (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Karrar (UCAV) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bypassing the NMD - the Cruise Missile Proliferation Problem
Denel deny link with new Iranian drone. | sUAS News

Just the case of Syria now shows that you have to send in ships first, so your arguments that follow that are not to be considered.

 

[Mani2020]

iran puts one more vertical stabilizer on f-5 and name it saqaeh and now they do the same on f-20 and name it qaher-313

when the hell they gonna come up with sumthng original, why to make mockery of one's ownself

 

[Penguin]

Just the case of Syria now shows that you have to send in ships first, so your arguments that follow that are not to be considered.

Really, ...? How exactly? Lets look at what kind of ships, doing what, and from where... Oh, wait, they are not actually sending in ships close to shore!

Clearly a carrier force could conduct air/missile strikes while standing well off, likewise various cruise missile equipped naval assets, ... exactly as I indicated before in the case of a Hormuz close down. So, unless you show me specific plans for e.g. conducting shore bombardments or landings, which require that navy ships are placed within 300km of the Syrian shore, the response you've given is balony.

President Obama will likely bomb Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria.

Most telling perhaps is a story in the New York Times, noting that Obama’s national-security aides are studying the 1999 air war in Kosovo as a possible blueprint for action in Syria.

Barack Obama’s logic for bombing Syria: The United States will seek to put an end to Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons. - Slate Magazine

Analysis: U.S. could look beyond U.N. Security Council in any Syria strike | Reuters

Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said the most likely option appeared to be the U.S. and NATO partners deploying airstrikes against Syrian missile sites, aircraft and other infrastructure that may be used to deploy chemical weapons.

Russia warns U.S., other nations against Syria action | abc7chicago.com

"The Syrian situation continues to become worse and worse and worse," Admiral James Stavridis, the commander of US European Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "No end is in sight to a vicious civil war."

He said a number of Nato nations are looking at a variety of military operations to end the deadlock and assist the opposition forces, including using aircraft to impose a no-fly zone, providing military assistance to the rebels and imposing arms embargoes.

Nato countries 'plan Syria action' | London Evening Standard

Missile strikes on Syria likely response to chemical attack

Earlier Monday, a White House official ruled out sending ground troops to Syria or implementing a no-fly zone to blunt al-Assad's aerial superiority over rebels fighting to oust his regime. The official insisted that all other options were under consideration by Obama but put no time frame on a decision.

Meanwhile, a senior Defense Department official told CNN's Chris Lawrence Monday that four U.S. Navy destroyers "maintain readiness and, if required, could execute a mission within hours" of being ordered to do so.

According to U.S. officials, updated options offered the president in recent days included:
• Cruise missiles fired from one of four Navy destroyers deployed in the Mediterranean Sea. The missiles would be used to strike "command and control" facilities such as command bunkers, or the Syrian regime's means of delivering chemical weapons: artillery batteries and launchers. There is no indication that the missiles would strike at actual chemical weapons stockpiles.
• Military jets firings weapons from outside Syrian airspace. This option carries additional risks and is considered less likely.

Missile strikes on Syria likely response to chemical attack - CNN.com

The kind of international response that might occur is still being debated, but some senior U.S. lawmakers have called for actions similar to the ones NATO and other allies undertook in Libya in 2011: Enforcing a no-fly zone as well as the possibility of missile strikes.

Fearing a U.S. strike, Syria warns of global "chaos" - CBS News

Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria

Royal Navy vessels are being readied to take part in a possible series of cruise missile strikes, alongside the United States, as military commanders finalise a list of potential targets.

America’s Sixth Fleet currently has four guided missile destroyers in the area, each of which could join the attack.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...vy-ready-to-launch-first-strike-on-Syria.html

 

[Penguin]

Just for comparison, an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a seazone prescribed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea over which a state has special rights over the exploration and use of marine resources, including energy production from water and wind. It stretches from the baseline out to 200 nautical miles (370km) from its coast.

Syrian EEZ

EEZ Waters Of Syria

Country legend

http://www.yalibnan.com/2012/03/01/lebanon-speaker-on-eez-our-problem-is-with-israel-not-cyprus/

Carrier based aviation and cruise missile equipped ships can - easily - hit Syria from outside its EEZ (and outside of reach of any coastal missile batteries).

Western options include strikes by Tornado jets equipped with £500,000-a-shot Storm Shadow long-range cruise missiles which can be fired 150 miles from the target, allowing pilots to avoid the need to come within range of Syrian air defences. The US warships in the region are carrying Tomahawk cruise missiles and Washington has F-16 fighter jets and Patriot missile batteries in Jordan.

If strikes were ordered, they would not be against chemical facilities as they are too mobile and present a risk of widespread contamination. Air defences would be hit first, perhaps initially those close to the Turkish border, as a warning shot. Long-range weapons would be used to avoid western casualties.

http://smarkos.blogspot.nl/

http://smarkos.blogspot.nl/

With respect to inclusion of Us 5th fleet in the Persian Gulf (8), consider the distance Basra-Damascus being 1134 km = 705 miles = within cruisemissile and - with aerial refuelling - within carrier aviation range. Project that distance from Damascus into the Mediterranean Sea and that'll give you an idea of how far naval ships can stand-off the coast while conducting a strike on Syria. Hence, note (4) and (2). US cruisemissile equipped destroyers in the Med are within strike range, RN surface warships are standing 'well clear' of the Syrian coastline.

Which perfectly illustrates that naval forces could effectively strike at significant portions of Iran from outside the Persian Gulf, including from the Mediterranean and Arabian Seas, without even being close to the Strait of Hormuz. So let Iran be the first to fire its missiles on commercial shipping there: it will only provide excuse to accompany commercial ships with navy ships. Fire upon those, and it is an excuse for all out war (coalition formation likely, but no longer required for military intervention). In Russian roulette, there is no bluffing.