Qaher F313 l News & Discussion

[AmirPatriot]

This after the IRGC itself bought AK-103 rifles while we had a national rifle program with multiple contestants.

 

[N_Al40]

This after the IRGC itself bought AK-103 rifles while we had a national rifle program with multiple contestants.

But we produce them under license don't we?

 

[AmirPatriot]

But we produce them under license don't we?

Not sure.

 

[VEVAK]

This after the IRGC itself bought AK-103 rifles while we had a national rifle program with multiple contestants.

These post reappeared on Tasnim with more nonsense just as our Defense Minister finished meeting with the Russians! So I would say they were more a message to him than anything else!

Even if we don't buy the Su-30's Iran needs to double it's efforts on building a large fighter bomber as appose to the absurd F-313

A Mirage IV can carry 16 1000lb bombs has speeds of up to Mach-2 and a combat radius of over 1200km using fairly simple turbojet engine design

Iran could easily produce something far superior with a smaller RCS, ability control UAV's & the potential of being upgraded with laser countermeasures in the next 2 decades and we can produce them at low rate of ~6 per year for the next decade!

That's a production rate within Iran's capability so is keeping them airworthy, armed and ready to scramble at a moments notice

You can build them to accomitade 6-8 x 2000lb air to ground missiles with a range of +200km (Beyond the reach of most SAM) And their speed, range and altitude makes interception using Mach2 fighters not an easy task

 

[PeeD]

100 Su30's as appose to 1000 F-313's means what? means 300 landing gears as appose to 3000
it means 400 engines as appose to 4000 and that's for an engine with over 4 times the life span of a Turbojet engine!

The maintenance effort is the driving cost parameter. My F-313 has 1/10, or 10% of your Su-30. My J-90 engines operate at lower powerlevels and have a equivalent or higher TBO compared to your Al-31.

Here a analogy: I have a Toyota sedan while you drive a Ferrari. Lifecylce costs are magnitudes different.

It means 100 airframe who will easily last Iran for over 2 decades as appose to 1000 Airframes that won't even last a decade

My composite subsonic airframe has a higher lifetime than your Su-30 and can be zero-houred if necessary because we are the OEM.

It means requiring fuel tanks, fuel reserves,..... for 100 aircrafts as appose to 1000!

My Al-222 class J-90 consume 20-30% of your Al-31, a consumption of 1/4 to 1/3. Plus they never go supersonic in training or wartime.

It means 100 Su-30 pilots having to practicing on live ordinance as appose to 1000 and unless your just practicing with dumb bombs with dummy warheads that is in it's self a major cost!
etc etc

This is a highly automated next-gen aircraft, training requirements are magnitudes lower.

And a jet Aircraft is a Jet aircraft whether they are subsonic transport aircraft or fighter jets they require a lot of fuel and engine maintenance after each flight on the ground with various ground equipment and facilities required to support them!

As said I have just 10% maintenance hours/spareparts effort than you.

And lets see what's more logical producing 1000 UAV's that can do the same mission the F-313 can who can be stored and pilot training for the vast portion of the fleet can be simulated on the ground during peace time as appose to 1000's of F-313 pilots that would require years of actual flight hours & training on various aircraft including on the F-313

Fair enough. A combat drone is a progressive novel solution that I support. What I see are technological hurdles. At this point in time I prefer to have a human brain in that combat zone that can also direct nearby combat drones. But I certainly effort a extensive AI project to enable unmanned solutions.

Just the Fuel cost of the F-313 would bankrupt Iran's military let alone anything else the fuel cost alone with standard engine maintenance will be upwards of half a billion USD a year let alone anything else "Ghatreh Ghatreh jam gardad vangahi darya shaved"

My airframe cost is 1/5th of yours
My maintenance effort/sparepare cost is 1/10th of yours
My fuel costs are 1/4th of yours
My peacetime training flight hours are 1/3 of yours
Only come costs like pilot salary are higher for me but the increased flexibility and coverage/interception sortie rate I have are worth it.

Do you know how irresponsible it is of a government not to acquired Air Superiority fighters in 4 decades!!!!!
And to complain about the purchasing of only 80-100 Air Superiority fighters for defensive purposes after 4 decades is boarding on treason!

It's absolute treason! Bunch of crooks that see Iran buying 100 Fighters after 4 decades as money going out of their personal pockets!

An I don't blame the Rahbar I just think he has been surrounded by crooks and is being misinformed!

It's the opposite. It was genius and brave by our military decision makers to skip the fighter aircraft race and invest everything on missiles. Our missile capability of today is just due to this decision not to buy massive amounts of aircraft from foreigners (export variants).

And yes I agree that Iran should not buy anything it can produce it's self like Tanks, APC, Light and mid size helo's,...... But Air Superiority fighters is something we can't currently produce and we also need a major infuse of modern tech in our Air Force to increase our own tech!

Lets see what we can extract from the black project rated RQ-170 instead for basing our technology on a design from the 70's (export rated).

 

[VEVAK]

The maintenance effort is the driving cost parameter. My F-313 has 1/10, or 10% of your Su-30. My J-90 engines operate at lower powerlevels and have a equivalent or higher TBO compared to your Al-31.

Here a analogy: I have a Toyota sedan while you drive a Ferrari. Lifecylce costs are magnitudes different.



My composite subsonic airframe has a higher lifetime than your Su-30 and can be zero-houred if necessary because we are the OEM.



My Al-222 class J-90 consume 20-30% of your Al-31, a consumption of 1/4 to 1/3. Plus they never go supersonic in training or wartime.




This is a highly automated next-gen aircraft, training requirements are magnitudes lower.



As said I have just 10% maintenance hours/spareparts effort than you.



Fair enough. A combat drone is a progressive novel solution that I support. What I see are technological hurdles. At this point in time I prefer to have a human brain in that combat zone that can also direct nearby combat drones. But I certainly effort a extensive AI project to enable unmanned solutions.



My airframe cost is 1/5th of yours
My maintenance effort/sparepare cost is 1/10th of yours
My fuel costs are 1/4th of yours
My peacetime training flight hours are 1/3 of yours
Only come costs like pilot salary are higher for me but the increased flexibility and coverage/interception sortie rate I have are worth it.



It's the opposite. It was genius and brave by our military decision makers to skip the fighter aircraft race and invest everything on missiles. Our missile capability of today is just due to this decision not to buy massive amounts of aircraft from foreigners (export variants).



Lets see what we can extract from the black project rated RQ-170 instead for basing our technology on a design from the 70's (export rated).

Your so called figures are boarding on delusional!

The F-313 has a high drag airframe design with think low angled wings, two stabilizers, two thick wing tips on a very un-aerodynamic fuselage
And it sure as hell doesn't use Turbofan engines and all you have to do is look at it's intakes to see that!

SO WRONG! And even if Iran slapped AL-222 on the Kowsar that's a far more aerodynamic aircraft your looking at 30-35% of the fuel cost as appose to an aircraft with over 6 times the capability while using 3 times the fuel! So your still at a loss!

NO one said anything about buying massive number of fighters almost every other year like during the Shah! We are talking about 100 Su-30's to replace Iranian F-14's as Iran's main Air Superiority fighter AFTER 40 years!
+ 40-60 Iranian built heavy long range supersonic fighter bombers!
So that's negligent boarding on treachery!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And yes it may be genius for the crooks that are pocketing the money rather than spending it on the country!

As for delusions about your airframe lasting longer because it's a subsonic aircraft! One of the major stresses on any Jet Aircraft is during landing! And F-313 Air Frame wouldn't have half the life span of a Su-30 and anyone that tells you different doesn't have the slightest clue!

Also for the same life span of 400 AL-31's Iran would need to produce 16,000 J-85's!!!!!!!!!! clearly you don't seem to comprehend how absurdly delusional that is!

As I said even if you drug Air Force officers to accept such an absurd delusional plan after the 1st 100 batch they would be canceled!!!

And what the hell does an RQ-170 have to do with an Air Superiority fighter! Your talking about an Airframe design compared to advanced modern long range sensors, targeting equipment and weapons that go with that 30 year old airframe design!


And as I have explain for the 100th time there will be no human factor in terms of BVR capability of a fighter that is fully reliant on ground sensors and data for targeting!
And if your so confidant in the aircraft ability to receive data coming from ground sensors then you should be confidant in the ability to control the aircraft like a UAV!
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!

You can't spend half a billion USD for fuel and standard maintenance alone on such an absurd aircraft it's delusional! And it will never happen because Iran's Air force will show the flaws in such absurd project after the 1st batch is delivered!!!!!!!!!!! And even if some insist on keeping them after the cost of the 1st 100 has been made clear it will be canceled!

I personally think it won't even get that far! With it current design it's doubtful it will even pass standard flight tests!

 

[PeeD]

Brother, I see no content in your post. You just used Trump like phrases and dismissed my numbers.

"SO WRONG!"
"negligent boarding on treachery!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
"are boarding on delusional!"

I can say 10 times that J85 will not be used in my F-313 and there is the option of airborne data-link relay, not just ground based, but its like talking to a stone.

 

[VEVAK]

Brother, I see no content in your post. You just used Trump like phrases and dismissed my numbers.

"SO WRONG!"
"negligent boarding on treachery!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
"are boarding on delusional!"

I can say 10 times that J85 will not be used in my F-313 and there is the option of airborne data-link relay, not just ground based, but its like talking to a stone.

Your right I apologize brother just getting tired of repeating my self!

1st off the evidence shown so far does not support your claim of a Turbofan engine! And it is very doubtful that Iran would be able to build even a Turbofan engine with a life span greater than the J-85's by it's self at home

Jet engines in general aren't that complicated to build what is complicated is making sure those engines have an appropriate amount of TBO, maintenance hours,.....

Or else countries like China or India or even Iran could easily build high trust jet engines that is NOT the issue!

And one of the main reasons Jet engine projects in most countries don't pass R&D is because of Lifespan and maintenance hours.... or else building a jet engine is really not that complicated!


What I'm proposing would require Iran to build high powered Jet engine at a max rate of 2 per month at a Jet propulsion factory that produces various types of Jet engines for UAV's and missiles and such a production rate you can gradually work on improvements and upgrades to your designs where as what you propose means Iran would require a major factory to produce your J-90's at production rates greater than 1 per working day!
with little to show for it in terms of capability after a decade!


For a country like Iran a smaller more capable Air Force backed Iranian built UAV's, UCAV's, BM & Land attack cruise missile is far more realistic
Iran could easily mass produce low life span engines on UCAV's and Cruise Missiles that have been stocked in storage where the vast portion of our fleet and stock is only used in the time of war

What your proposing is just not realistic or practical and whomever tells you deferent doesn't know what he is talking about! ​

 

[PeeD]

@VEVAK

What you said about engines is generally correct. Yes life-time is the hurdle.

It's just because of that reason that I say we must work on a subsonic/non-afterburning design. We must be smart enough to build a potent fighter despite this huge constrain.

I give you a scenario: Americans use their leading expertise to develop an small engine for their operational black-world UAVs --> RQ-170 --> Iran captures that engine.

Some new next-gen technologies and concepts are learnt.
But instead to try to copy and apply those technologies to a copy or even more potent larger engine, they do following: Build an scaled engine that works at 2/3 of equivalent power levels. In that way they benefit from the new technology and as result get a useful TBO on that new engine.

Two examples:

- Turbine blades are today made of superalloys which very complex cooling, which design affects to complete engine. A next-gen engine could just skip all the cooling and science behind it. It could skip metallurgy expertise on superalloys and single crystal production. How? By using a mature ceramic design. A true technology shortcut, which is not possible with known state of the art.

- Fanblades of larger turbofans used titanium in a very complex hollow-blown production technique. GE removed this complex science/expertise by developing a mature carbon-fiber fanblade.

Now it might not be possible to master a next-gen technology at the same power/load levels as the original, but 70% might be possible, 70% RPM, 70% turbine inlet temperature. Due to the next-gen benefit of that technology it could be possible to compensate that 30% penalty and still land at 90's or 2000's state of the art levels.

In general, engine life-time improves with smaller load/power levels. So if you manage to get a engine with 90's state of the art level but encounter problems with TBO. Your can limit max. power to 70% of possible max.power. Then your engine lands in late 70's/80's level of state of the art and that is still good and enough (AL-222).

Don't mistake: Chinese chose a US engine from the 70's as their basis for their best engine, WS-10. Their idea was to come on pair with that US engine by the 2000's --> copy it. They failed after 20 years work, because their goal was 100% or even 120% of a mature US design.

For all those reasons: If the RQ-170 engine should really be something that is expected in 2030 in the open world, I'm optimistic that its technology could enable us to develop a J-90 with AL-222 like thrust levels.

We need a new engine for the S-171 anyway. Coping it is a project of national prestige. Hence there will be enough support to kick-off a J-90.
Remember that the single small RQ-170 engine powered this draggy airframe to fly at 40-50k feet. The F-313 might be a little more draggy but with two of those engines, we can expect high subsonic speeds at sea level.

My J-90 would be easy to produce because of its small J-85-like size (without afterburner). Many production and assembly problems as on larger engines are skipped.

You work with whats already there. The IRGC-ASF needs engines for its RQ-170 variants. The whole effort is divided if we manage to design a fighter that makes sense with those engines.

 

[skyshadow]

J90 engine

 

[OldTwilight]

what I witness from attack on Syria ....
look like the stealth cruise missile are real deal ... if SCM(stealth cruise missile) are fired at high number , even most advance Air Defence System will have problem to detect them and without detecting them in safe distance , they can't respond them in time ....

so if we are developing F313 for Anti Ship mission , then we should develop stealth cruise missile as well ... the combination of these two can become

 

[Stryker1982]

what I witness from attack on Syria ....
look like the stealth cruise missile are real deal ... if SCM(stealth cruise missile) are fired at high number , even most advance Air Defence System will have problem to detect them and without detecting them in safe distance , they can't respond them in time ....

so if we are developing F313 for Anti Ship mission , then we should develop stealth cruise missile as well ... the combination of these two can become

The ability for F313 to be able to carry two cruise missile is soo important, otherwise this platform is useless really.

 

[OldTwilight]

The ability for F313 to be able to carry two cruise missile is soo important, otherwise this platform is useless really.

two stealth cruise missile ...
there are 3 primary way to break through navy air defence and close air defence system :
1- over power it by firing too many missile
2- speed of your missile should be very fast
3- your missile should be stealth ....

F313 is small platform , so it can't carry more than 1-2 cruise missile and the cruise missile should be small enough to carried in internal weapon bay ... so option 1 and 2 are gone , so the only remaining option is option 3 ...

IMO making stealth subsonic cruise missile is very easy for Iran ....

 

[TheImmortal]

two stealth cruise missile ...
there are 3 primary way to break through navy air defence and close air defence system :
1- over power it by firing too many missile
2- speed of your missile should be very fast
3- your missile should be stealth ....

F313 is small platform , so it can't carry more than 1-2 cruise missile and the cruise missile should be small enough to carried in internal weapon bay ... so option 1 and 2 are gone , so the only remaining option is option 3 ...

IMO making stealth subsonic cruise missile is very easy for Iran ....

stealth cruise missile is more a marketing term by the arms industry. A cruise missile is already hard to detect because it flies low and is small in size.

Stealth cruise missiles just attempt to reduce the RCS of the cruise missile even further by design.

It’s nothing out of Iran’s capabilities.

 

[OldTwilight]

stealth cruise missile is more a marketing term by the arms industry. A cruise missile is already hard to detect because it flies low and is small in size.

Stealth cruise missiles just attempt to reduce the RCS of the cruise missile even further by design.

It’s nothing out of Iran’s capabilities.

So why we shouldn't have it !?