Ghaher 313 fighter

[ChineseTiger1986]

You should be the last to complain about copying foreign technology, considering the fact your space and missile program was built by (captured) German scientists. Not withstanding the fact that your (Soviet/Russian) equipment has failed in almost every war when it encountered US (western) equipment on a equal level.

They had their own fame as well, and they lost to US in the Moon landing race because of losing this man.

 

[gambit]

Gambit:

As I said, there are clearly changed that needs to be done to this plane. Iranian users in other forum were the ones who were pointing out those changes to me. I have no real experience in aerospace but funny enough I come from a family where everyone has qualification in engineering.
Anyway, I have a little bit of knowledge, that is why I am saying, there is no real problem with this design in order for it to be a fake propaganda as some users claimed. It's is a mock-up, that's for sure, but you, as an experienced person; do you see any fundamental flaw in the design?

Forget the engine for now because we don't know anything about it.

Depends on how you define 'flaw'.

What is the most 'stealthy' man-made thing to fly? The paper airplane, believe it or not. But how many 'flaws' can you find? The word 'flaw' is casually used by detractors/critics if they dislike something and that dislike nearly always depends on their emotional biases rather than objective analyses.

Right now, we do not have any aircraft that can carry bombs like the B-52, have thrust-to-weight ratio like the F-15, can turn like the F-16, and TO/L like an AV-8. That is my criteria and that mean every aircraft in the world is 'flawed'.

So...If the ONLY consideration is low radar observability, then the paper airplane is perfect.

Now...A real flaw is when the US decided to arm the F-4 only with missiles, never mind when those missiles were vulnerable to humidity because that is a technical problem easily remedied, but the notion that guns and air combat maneuvers (ACM) were obsoleted by missiles, hence the US designed the F-4 without guns and pilots went without ACM training. The result for US air power was disastrous.

Fundamentally speaking, what 'flaws' are there in what the Iranians have done? Can it fly? A small scale model proved the shape can exploit aerodynamic forces to its intended goal: flight. Can the model be increased to hold a real pilot and large enough a radar? Yes. Does the design somehow exclude the engine? Of course not, it looks like it can hold a jet engine as it is now. But if the Iranians equip the thing with an AK-47 instead of a Gatling type larger caliber cannon, then compare to other fighters that do carries cannons, that would be a real flaw.

My criticism is about the ease in which the Iranian military trumpets this thing as something significant when nothing is known about it except that a small scale model of it can fly. How would you like it if I call the paper airplane a 'breakthrough' in low radar observability design?

 

[SOHEIL]

such a irony ...

@KRAIT ...

1-ignoring 2-laughing 3-fighting ...

no offence ... 4-Crying

as i said ! let them trolling ...

 

[Hack-Hook]

It's not that Iran does not wish to buy Russian planes, it's more like Iran can't buy russian jets, because Rusia wont sell them to Iran. And if we talk about modern defence industry, than we can say that Russian tech has always been top notch in almost every segment.

well as we always said and anybody tends to forget even if any body offer us an airplane for 100$ we can't buy them because after the war with Iraq about 10-15 year ago and before these drama about the nuclear program our parliament passed a law that said our armed force are not to buy any new military plane and if they want something new they must build them themselves

 

[tyrant]

Depends on how you define 'flaw'.

What is the most 'stealthy' man-made thing to fly? The paper airplane, believe it or not. But how many 'flaws' can you find? The word 'flaw' is casually used by detractors/critics if they dislike something and that dislike nearly always depends on their emotional biases rather than objective analyses.

Right now, we do not have any aircraft that can carry bombs like the B-52, have thrust-to-weight ratio like the F-15, can turn like the F-16, and TO/L like an AV-8. That is my criteria and that mean every aircraft in the world is 'flawed'.

So...If the ONLY consideration is low radar observability, then the paper airplane is perfect.

Now...A real flaw is when the US decided to arm the F-4 only with missiles, never mind when those missiles were vulnerable to humidity because that is a technical problem easily remedied, but the notion that guns and air combat maneuvers (ACM) were obsoleted by missiles, hence the US designed the F-4 without guns and pilots went without ACM training. The result for US air power was disastrous.

Fundamentally speaking, what 'flaws' are there in what the Iranians have done? Can it fly? A small scale model proved the shape can exploit aerodynamic forces to its intended goal: flight. Can the model be increased to hold a real pilot and large enough a radar? Yes. Does the design somehow exclude the engine? Of course not, it looks like it can hold a jet engine as it is now. But if the Iranians equip the thing with an AK-47 instead of a Gatling type larger caliber cannon, then compare to other fighters that do carries cannons, that would be a real flaw.

My criticism is about the ease in which the Iranian military trumpets this thing as something significant when nothing is known about it except that a small scale model of it can fly. How would you like it if I call the paper airplane a 'breakthrough' in low radar observability design?

A fair summary after 46 pages of troll, sarcasm and nonsense.
I have to add that leave a possibility that Iranians have, fully or partly, accomplished the plane.
When US drone was captured in 2011, no one in this forum believed the Iranian images and videos. Every one said the images are fake and the drone is a toy.
Then suddenly Obama asked for it back! and people changed their mind. Go back through the posts of 2011 and read your own comments.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

For people criticizing the Avionics , suite

Well some of the sample images for other planes have display on , which shows the terrain and navigationl map or radar.
The Qahar's avionics are turned off so we only have lCD displays

The plane would also look fancy , if all the LCD's were displaying GPS information and maps

 

[Ashoka The Great]

Its too early to say anything about it. We have to wait for better quality vids/pics.

Seriously ?? You guys believe everything just by seeing blurry distorted image from China and now you want to wait for better quality vids/pics when the posted pics are already of good quality.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Will this A/c be available for sale too in future??

 

[Mani2020]

You should be the last to complain about copying foreign technology, considering the fact your space and missile program was built by (captured) German scientists. Not withstanding the fact that your (Soviet/Russian) equipment has failed in almost every war when it encountered US (western) equipment on a equal level.

atleast they achieved what only few other nations have so far ...after US they are the biggest arm producers and have produced a heck of an equipment ..... dont compare the performances of russian tech in hands of a rookie outnumbered and outclassed by the opponent ... whatever the case has been you dont compare handful of old , poorly maintained iraqi migs shot down by latest NATO fighters operating under AWACS and what not .....in a hand of good operator under balanced circumstances they can give tough competition to any US equipment ....

dont defend yourself on the basis of comparing abc with xyz rather see what your country has achieved (if you have any) and then compare it to the poster's claim

As much as i would love to see iran progressing but the reality is they have disappointed me every time , now when i see a thread on the development of something new by iran .....lame is the thing what comes to my mind...iran has made itslef a laughing stock for the world by coming up hard with developments that dont have significant impact ...at best they can do is change and chop few things in existing fleet of US or russian background or come up with something that never materializes or atleast have the least probability to materialize

If you have the tech and capabilities there is no need to brag about look at israel , being a so small nation with its size and low human resource still they have developed what other countries with 10 times more gdp and population can only think of ....imagine a country with the size of israel is one of the major exporter of military tech to a country with population of over a billion, a defence budget that is nearly 4 times higher and geography that can accommodate 100s of israel's

 

[tyrant]

Let's look back a little bit:
When Iran showed the pictures of RQ 170, people said it is fake, and photoshop, full of bumps, bad colored, duck-taped,...

That is why I say:
Leave a possibility that Iranians have, fully or partly, accomplished the plane.

 

[gambit]

A fair summary after 46 pages of troll, sarcasm and nonsense.
I have to add that leave a possibility that Iranians have, fully or partly, accomplished the plane.
When US drone was captured in 2011, no one in this forum believed the Iranian images and videos. Every one said the images are fake and the drone is a toy.
Then suddenly Obama asked for it back! and people changed their mind. Go back through the posts of 2011 and read your own comments.

That is where the logic failed. Just because we asked for the return of the lost UAV, that does not mean we acknowledged the claim that Iran 'hacked' or brought it down any other way.

Still, I have no problems expressing my doubt that the thing Iran presented is THE one that we lost. That does not mean Iran cannot possess the actual UAV, but it may be in too many pieces due to a crash, or that it may have soft landed being reasonably intact but was fired upon by some Iranian soldiers, after all, it is not that difficult to mistake a UAV for a manned aircraft by someone untrained in aircraft recognition. Then Iran decided to mock up a model with sufficient outer details for propaganda purposes. It is not that difficult to present irrefutable proof: Let a few journalists take pictures of components that contains manufacturer's part numbers, serial numbers, and/or positions on the aircraft.

The fact that Iran presented this latest model as somehow indicative of the country's capability to build a complete 'stealth' fighter only to have it taken apart on the Internet is even more supportive of the perception that Iran will go to any length for propaganda purposes. And that includes our lost UAV.

 

[tyrant]

That is where the logic failed. Just because we asked for the return of the lost UAV, that does not mean we acknowledged the claim that Iran 'hacked' or brought it down any other way.

Still, I have no problems expressing my doubt that the thing Iran presented is THE one that we lost. That does not mean Iran cannot possess the actual UAV, but it may be in too many pieces due to a crash, or that it may have soft landed being reasonably intact but was fired upon by some Iranian soldiers, after all, it is not that difficult to mistake a UAV for a manned aircraft by someone untrained in aircraft recognition. Then Iran decided to mock up a model with sufficient outer details for propaganda purposes. It is not that difficult to present irrefutable proof: Let a few journalists take pictures of components that contains manufacturer's part numbers, serial numbers, and/or positions on the aircraft.

The fact that Iran presented this latest model as somehow indicative of the country's capability to build a complete 'stealth' fighter only to have it taken apart on the Internet is even more supportive of the perception that Iran will go to any length for propaganda purposes. And that includes our lost UAV.

No one will know how exactly Iran got it, in near future. Just speculations.
Regarding Ghaher 313, I am shocked by the unexpected design. Maybe China helped them or maybe RQ 170 really helped Iran in a short time, or just a plan for future, or just propaganda. We will see in 3-4 years.

 

[Programmer]

Well, I know this may upset many Iranians here, but I really have to say this!
So I listed few things that I noticed after seeing the pictures:

1- Where does the radar go?! Certainly not in the nose! Because the nose is too small!
2- Air intakes are so small that I had to look for them!
3- Why are there so many bumps on the aircraft body?
4- and many more...

I seen the video also, why there is no footage of takeoff and landing? I think the aircraft in the video is a RC model.

@gambit

Sir, aren't you a retired artillery commander by any chance?

 

[tyrant]

Well, I know this may upset many Iranians here, but I really have to say this!
So I listed few things that I noticed after seeing the pictures:

1- Where does the radar go?! Certainly not in the nose! Because the nose is too small!
2- Air intakes are so small that I had to look for them!
3- Why are there so many bumps on the aicraft body?
4- and many more....

Already discussed.
Read the 46 pages or at least post 677.

 

[Programmer]

HAAHHAH Have you ever heard of Vietnam , Korean war, South Osstia war.

Well, you certainly didn't win the Korean War!

South Ossetia?! Seriously... pick on someone your own size!

By the way, if Tupolev is so safe "!" Why Aeroflot, Russia largest airline doesn't operate any Tupolev?!

Aeroflot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia