IRIAF | News and Discussions

[sha ah]

I agree that Iran's end goal should be to acquire modern jets with technology transfers, with the jets being made in Iran.

BUT... Iran's airforce is in danger of becoming quickly obsolete in the near future and I'm not talking about compared to the USA. Even against regional rivals Iran's airforce is barely a threat anymore. Every jet has a life span and many of Iran's fighter jets are near, at the end or even past theirs.

Assuming that Iran does get the opportunity to buy a large number of fighter jets from Russia, we have to take Russia's previous lack of commitment into consideration (S-300). With that in mind I believe that it would be in Iran's best interest to get a significant portions of the jets into Iran's possession as soon as possible, regardless of a lack of TOT and even if they're made in Russia.

Keep in mind, setting up the necessary facilities to build 100-200 jets in Iran will take alot of time and effort. In the meanwhile the USA, Israel or others might be able to make Russia change its mind somehow. For that reason, I believe that Iran should try to get atleast 25% of the jets into the country as soon as possible.

Afterwards the rest can be built in Iran with TOT. So ideally a deal would go something like this. 60 x SU-27/30/35 variants are sent to Iran as soon as they're ready with technology transfers. Another 60-120 can be built in Iran, perhaps with 20 being built every year. Aside from the SU-27/30/34/35, Iran could also sign a deal for atleast 20-40 SU-57's. Some MIG-35s would also be a good option to compliment Iran's airforce.

Alongside a purchase like that Iran could continue to build its F-5 variant for training and as a light fighter. I'm actually interested to see what Iran is producing in terms of this heavier, delta wing jet. However I'm not going to hold my breath or get my hopes up. Anyways only time will tell.

I seem to recall iran trying a somewhat similar route previously back in the [?]1990s,I also recall that it didnt work out very well for rather obvious reasons.....
Irans only REAL options at this point are either full license production of either the su-30 or su-27sm3 or the chinese Shenyang J-16[assuming its available for export that is]
Another option from china would be the latest version of the J-10,tho as a single engine fighter this would be limited to replacing/augmenting the mig29/mirage f1 fleet.
But anything less than FULL COMPLETE LOCAL PRODUCTION in iran is simply an unacceptable risk of ultimately ending up wasting huge amounts of time,money and effort,because sadly BOTH russia and china have shown themselves to be very unreliable in this respect and until they can prove that they are trustworthy partners in this field it would be complete utter folly to agree to anything less than full complete local production of fighter aircraft in iran.

 

[Sineva]

Just clarify my one question,

The new stuff will it be brand new concept or the previous projects/ mockup/CAD we had seen so far.

I guess it would depend on who exactly is doing it....and what.
If it was the iriaf then it would likely be the usual mockup or modified airframe,probably f5 based as the iriaf seems to have a huge hard-on for it for some strange reason,which will probably result in perhaps one or two examples which will no doubt be "going into production very soon",or perhaps it might be some new radar or system which only a couple of aircraft will be fitted with ie F14M program.In other words just stuff for local consumption,like their bullsh!t "drone program" for instance.
However if its the irgc-af....that might well be something real,tho so far they seem to be more interested in modernising and upgrading the strike capabilities of their su17 and f-7 fleets,so I dont really expect to see them building new aircraft to be quite honest.

 

[Shawnee]

I would not be so sure that Iran can have ToT or at least buy fighters from China and Russia very soon. It may take five years. They may start with T90 and then years after comes fighters.

It is good to have the option but do not depend on it.

Have you considered the effect of US/EU?

Are you ready to abide the nuclear deal the way they ask you?

How do you know it will not end up like S300? Late delivery after much humiliation. How much do we need S300 now? Those days we used to believe S300 is like bread for Iran. Now what?

Air Force is important but air power is not just Air Force and Iran has deterrence even without buying Russian planes.

I would rather fly my own fighter and keep my pride. Overtime we will improve our fighters. Yes, it will not be ideal first but it will work better in the end.

You will also have a better hand at buying fighters if you make your own fighter. It is a lot easier to buy what you already make.

Necessity is mother of all the inventions. Power come from within not outside.
........

 

[Messerschmitt]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1266732952358174720

https://twitter.com/x/status/1266733794905788416

https://twitter.com/x/status/1266734975426211841

^ Images captured by IRIAF RF-4E in reconnaissance operations during Iran-Iraq war

 

[gambit]

Air Force is important but air power is not just Air Force...

The only force that can impress to others that a country can project air power is the air force. No other.

When I was invited to this forum back in '09, I have repeated this based on my USAF yrs, F-111 Cold War then F-16 Desert Storm.

Air Dominance. The ability of an air force to compel other air forces to re-array themselves, usually to subordinate postures.

Air Superiority. The ability of an air force to repeatedly achieve control of contested air spaces, and if there are losses, those losses would not pose a statistical deterrence to that ability.

Air Supremacy. He flies, he dies.​

Air power is the totality of the above. Missiles cannot give that, unless each missile have a %100 kill probability regardless of situation and environment.

An air force IS air power.

Why does an air force need to be an independent branch? Because for the army, its opponent is usually within 48 hrs of contact. If air power remains under army control, air power will be little more than helo squadrons. A ball bearing factory may have no short term military value, but if view greater than 48 hrs, the ball bearing factory is a great strategic target.

https://ww2db.com/facility/Schweinfurt_Ball_Bearing_Factories/

The city of Schweinfurt, located in central Germany, was the center for the production of ball bearings during WW2, a characteristic that remains true until today. During the war, Schweinfurt was the host to four ball bearing manufacturing complexes which collectively produced about half of the country's total ball bearing output.
​

Without ball bearings, there would be no tanks, ships, and aircrafts, and for the hardware that are battle damaged, they could not be repaired. True airpower looks beyond the short term gains and continuously expands that horizon. That is why US air power advocates fought for the institutional independence of the US Army Air Corps into the US Air Force. This is not to say that army generals are stupid but only precisely because of their opponents, army generals have no choice but to think in short term gains on the battlefields. In a manner of perspective, air power can strike into the future.

Today, any military that do not have an air force WILL be defeated.

 

[sha ah]

I don't understand the point of unveiling the Karrar if Iran is just going to end up acquiring the T-90 ? and if Iran can't even mass produce its own tanks then how is Iran going to do mass produce modern fighter jets ?

Hopefully Iran will only acquire some vital tank parts or components (maybe the cannon, engine, etc) but we're going to have to wait and see. In any case, many of Irans older tanks, like the M-60s and Chieftains need to be put into storage or given to proxies, the sooner the better.

In regards to IFVs and APCs, Iran can build them by itself. Many nations are doing it, although it should be noted that some of them have access to licenses from western Europe and the US, while others build inferior products that are sufficient for their needs none the less. Again, some new components from Russia would be great to give Iran that edge, but other than that I want to see Iran build its own.

Iran really needs a newer tracked APC/IFV since the BMPs are too old. The Czech Sakal IFV is a good example of how modern upgrades can turn an older platform into a modern, lethal weapon. Iran also needs a new 8x8 armored vehicle. The BTR vehicles in Irans possession are again too old now.

Going back to fighter jets, I understand your point about pride and self sufficiency but imagine what would have happened during the Iran-Iraq war if Iran had not acquired the F-14s. The Iraqis would have been able to hit hundreds, perhaps thousands of vital targets without much getting in their way.

Of course back then Iran didn't have thousands of missiles but regardless, no military can depend on one weapon alone. Missiles by themselves are not going to be enough for Iran to win any prolonged conflict.

When it comes to fighter jets, one only needs to look at a powerhouse like China to realize how difficult and time consuming it is to produce modern fighters. China, with its massive military budget, huge industrial base, over 1 billion population, is still buying essential hardware from Russia. China can produce fight jets, air defense systems and has been doing so since the 60's, but after all these years, they're still not on par with Russia.

For Iran to be able to produce a modern fighter jet, it would require Iran to invest tens of billions in R&D and even then there would be no guarantee. The main obstacle Iran faces today is the lack of a viable platform.

Realistically if Iran really had faith in the Kowsar for example, then they should produce a large amount, not just 20.
It's the same story with the Karrar, Zulfiqar, Shafaq and many others. Whether its rifles, tanks or jets, Iran's military often times do not mass produce weapons after presenting them to the public. Sometimes weapons do go through serial production but you never know for sure.

In any case, looking at Iran's current inventory of jets, even just compared to regional countries, Iran is hopelessly lagging behind. Whether Iran produces its own or buys jets abroad, one way or the other, Iran's airforce is in dire need of a boost just to stay relevant.

One thing is for sure, within the next decade, something has to give. Either Iran has to acquire or produce a fleet of modern fighters or Iran will forced to go nuclear and build an ICBM. Either that or Iran must produce hypersonic weapons.

I would not be so sure that Iran can have ToT or at least buy fighters from China and Russia very soon. It may take five years. They may start with T90 and then years after comes fighters.

It is good to have the option but do not depend on it.

Have you considered the effect of US/EU?

Are you ready to abide the nuclear deal the way they ask you?

How do you know it will not end up like S300? Late delivery after much humiliation. How much do we need S300 now? Those days we used to believe S300 is like bread for Iran. Now what?

Air Force is important but air power is not just Air Force and Iran has deterrence even without buying Russian planes.

I would rather fly my own fighter and keep my pride. Overtime we will improve our fighters. Yes, it will not be ideal first but it will work better in the end.

You will also have a better hand at buying fighters if you make your own fighter. It is a lot easier to buy what you already make.

Necessity is mother of all the inventions. Power come from within not outside.
........

 

[Shawnee]

The only force that can impress to others that a country can project air power is the air force. No other.

When I was invited to this forum back in '09, I have repeated this based on my USAF yrs, F-111 Cold War then F-16 Desert Storm.

Air Dominance. The ability of an air force to compel other air forces to re-array themselves, usually to subordinate postures.

Air Superiority. The ability of an air force to repeatedly achieve control of contested air spaces, and if there are losses, those losses would not pose a statistical deterrence to that ability.

Air Supremacy. He flies, he dies.​

Air power is the totality of the above. Missiles cannot give that, unless each missile have a %100 kill probability regardless of situation and environment.

An air force IS air power.

Why does an air force need to be an independent branch? Because for the army, its opponent is usually within 48 hrs of contact. If air power remains under army control, air power will be little more than helo squadrons. A ball bearing factory may have no short term military value, but if view greater than 48 hrs, the ball bearing factory is a great strategic target.

https://ww2db.com/facility/Schweinfurt_Ball_Bearing_Factories/

The city of Schweinfurt, located in central Germany, was the center for the production of ball bearings during WW2, a characteristic that remains true until today. During the war, Schweinfurt was the host to four ball bearing manufacturing complexes which collectively produced about half of the country's total ball bearing output.
​

Without ball bearings, there would be no tanks, ships, and aircrafts, and for the hardware that are battle damaged, they could not be repaired. True airpower looks beyond the short term gains and continuously expands that horizon. That is why US air power advocates fought for the institutional independence of the US Army Air Corps into the US Air Force. This is not to say that army generals are stupid but only precisely because of their opponents, army generals have no choice but to think in short term gains on the battlefields. In a manner of perspective, air power can strike into the future.

Today, any military that do not have an air force WILL be defeated.

@gambit
Hi there, It has been a while since we had a discussion.

Last time was 8 years ago, when I spent a few pages of comments to prove to you and @500 that Shahed 129 is not photoshopped, is real and can fly. My effort was in vain.

Yet, I have enjoyed your posts many times.

Countries have won wars without Air Force or air power: Yemen, Hizbullah are two examples.

KSA is the fifth air force on earth and Yemen has no Air Force. Air Force razed the civilian houses and infrastructures but failed to achieve the goal.

Air power is indeed a mix of different capabilities but it is not just Air Force. Missiles, AD, drones, etc
one example: If you ablaze the enemy ships, AC, and hangars with your missiles you have neutralized their air force.

Everything else that you mentioned in your post was correct IMHO.
.........

 

[gambit]

Countries have won wars without Air Force or air power: Yemen, Hizbullah are two examples.

There are two components in a war: political and military.

The political goals determines the military objectives. The politician says: Defeat country A. The general says: To defeat country A, we have to mine this harbor, bomb this city, take that hill, and so on and so on. What the politician do with successful military objectives is a different matter. The politician can throw everything away -- Vietnam War -- and despite the successful military objectives, the war is lost.

 

[Shawnee]

There are two components in a war: political and military.

The political goals determines the military objectives. The politician says: Defeat country A. The general says: To defeat country A, we have to mine this harbor, bomb this city, take that hill, and so on and so on. What the politician do with successful military objectives is a different matter. The politician can throw everything away -- Vietnam War -- and despite the successful military objectives, the war is lost.

- In Yemen war: Military goal was to at least capture the capital Sanaa. Military goal failed despite multiple attempts and the superior Air and ground technology. Political goal was to reach a desirable peace treaty which also failed.

-In Hizbullah-Israel war: Military goal was to advance up to Litani river which failed. Political goal was to disarm hizbollah and did not succeed.

The war with a missile/drone power would be a different ballgame though.

“F16 is not a strategy”: John Boehner.
....................

 

[hussainb72]

Hi guys, It's been a very long time since the last time I posted here. I got really busy for a while. I hope that everyone is doing fine these days.

I had some thoughts about the future of the IRIAF. If iran can convert its owj engine into a turbo fan engine, then it can upgrade its existing F-5 fleet to the kowsar standard with turbo fan engines. It should also convert most of them to the double seat version and use the F-5 as its supersonic trainer. It can also use the same turbofan engine for the yasin and produce it and use it as its sub sonic jet trainer. We have also seen an iranian version of the pc-7 which can be used for advanced training and the iranian version of the bonanza for the basic pilot training. This means that iran can produce it's own training aircrafts with no problems if it converts the owj into a turbofan engine.

The next step for iran would be to develop an engine in the same class as the rd-33, then it can produce it's own medium weight fighter, and I am sure iran is currently capable of such a thing and I hope we see something in this regard soon. But for the heavy fighters, it might need to buy some from russia, but only under the condition of full tot, or the transfer of some important engine and avionics related data. After gaining such experience, iran can then design it's own heavy fighter and fully become independent with its airforce.

 

[Shawnee]

I don't understand the point of unveiling the Karrar if Iran is just going to end up acquiring the T-90 ? and if Iran can't even mass produce its own tanks then how is Iran going to do mass produce modern fighter jets ?

Hopefully Iran will only acquire some vital tank parts or components (maybe the cannon, engine, etc) but we're going to have to wait and see. In any case, many of Irans older tanks, like the M-60s and Chieftains need to be put into storage or given to proxies, the sooner the better.

In regards to IFVs and APCs, Iran can build them by itself. Many nations are doing it, although it should be noted that some of them have access to licenses from western Europe and the US, while others build inferior products that are sufficient for their needs none the less. Again, some new components from Russia would be great to give Iran that edge, but other than that I want to see Iran build its own.

Iran really needs a newer tracked APC/IFV since the BMPs are too old. The Czech Sakal IFV is a good example of how modern upgrades can turn an older platform into a modern, lethal weapon. Iran also needs a new 8x8 armored vehicle. The BTR vehicles in Irans possession are again too old now.

Going back to fighter jets, I understand your point about pride and self sufficiency but imagine what would have happened during the Iran-Iraq war if Iran had not acquired the F-14s. The Iraqis would have been able to hit hundreds, perhaps thousands of vital targets without much getting in their way.

Of course back then Iran didn't have thousands of missiles but regardless, no military can depend on one weapon alone. Missiles by themselves are not going to be enough for Iran to win any prolonged conflict.

When it comes to fighter jets, one only needs to look at a powerhouse like China to realize how difficult and time consuming it is to produce modern fighters. China, with its massive military budget, huge industrial base, over 1 billion population, is still buying essential hardware from Russia. China can produce fight jets, air defense systems and has been doing so since the 60's, but after all these years, they're still not on par with Russia.

For Iran to be able to produce a modern fighter jet, it would require Iran to invest tens of billions in R&D and even then there would be no guarantee. The main obstacle Iran faces today is the lack of a viable platform.

Realistically if Iran really had faith in the Kowsar for example, then they should produce a large amount, not just 20.
It's the same story with the Karrar, Zulfiqar, Shafaq and many others. Whether its rifles, tanks or jets, Iran's military often times do not mass produce weapons after presenting them to the public. Sometimes weapons do go through serial production but you never know for sure.

In any case, looking at Iran's current inventory of jets, even just compared to regional countries, Iran is hopelessly lagging behind. Whether Iran produces its own or buys jets abroad, one way or the other, Iran's airforce is in dire need of a boost just to stay relevant.

One thing is for sure, within the next decade, something has to give. Either Iran has to acquire or produce a fleet of modern fighters or Iran will forced to go nuclear and build an ICBM. Either that or Iran must produce hypersonic weapons.

Valid points. I do not say missiles are enough. Of course not.

The indigenous fighter is in better shape now. Even the turbofan bottleneck is in better shape.

I am fine with buying fighters or ToT. I think we both agree that you will get a better deal if you make your own fighter too, like China. The danger is solely anchoring to a purchase that may drag on for years to be delivered.
.............

 

[TheImmortal]

I don't understand the point of unveiling the Karrar if Iran is just going to end up acquiring the T-90 ? and if Iran can't even mass produce its own tanks then how is Iran going to do mass produce modern fighter jets ?

Hopefully Iran will only acquire some vital tank parts or components (maybe the cannon, engine, etc) but we're going to have to wait and see. In any case, many of Irans older tanks, like the M-60s and Chieftains need to be put into storage or given to proxies, the sooner the better.

In regards to IFVs and APCs, Iran can build them by itself. Many nations are doing it, although it should be noted that some of them have access to licenses from western Europe and the US, while others build inferior products that are sufficient for their needs none the less. Again, some new components from Russia would be great to give Iran that edge, but other than that I want to see Iran build its own.

Iran really needs a newer tracked APC/IFV since the BMPs are too old. The Czech Sakal IFV is a good example of how modern upgrades can turn an older platform into a modern, lethal weapon. Iran also needs a new 8x8 armored vehicle. The BTR vehicles in Irans possession are again too old now.

Going back to fighter jets, I understand your point about pride and self sufficiency but imagine what would have happened during the Iran-Iraq war if Iran had not acquired the F-14s. The Iraqis would have been able to hit hundreds, perhaps thousands of vital targets without much getting in their way.

Of course back then Iran didn't have thousands of missiles but regardless, no military can depend on one weapon alone. Missiles by themselves are not going to be enough for Iran to win any prolonged conflict.

When it comes to fighter jets, one only needs to look at a powerhouse like China to realize how difficult and time consuming it is to produce modern fighters. China, with its massive military budget, huge industrial base, over 1 billion population, is still buying essential hardware from Russia. China can produce fight jets, air defense systems and has been doing so since the 60's, but after all these years, they're still not on par with Russia.

For Iran to be able to produce a modern fighter jet, it would require Iran to invest tens of billions in R&D and even then there would be no guarantee. The main obstacle Iran faces today is the lack of a viable platform.

Realistically if Iran really had faith in the Kowsar for example, then they should produce a large amount, not just 20.
It's the same story with the Karrar, Zulfiqar, Shafaq and many others. Whether its rifles, tanks or jets, Iran's military often times do not mass produce weapons after presenting them to the public. Sometimes weapons do go through serial production but you never know for sure.

In any case, looking at Iran's current inventory of jets, even just compared to regional countries, Iran is hopelessly lagging behind. Whether Iran produces its own or buys jets abroad, one way or the other, Iran's airforce is in dire need of a boost just to stay relevant.

One thing is for sure, within the next decade, something has to give. Either Iran has to acquire or produce a fleet of modern fighters or Iran will forced to go nuclear and build an ICBM. Either that or Iran must produce hypersonic weapons.

Karrar was a modernization platform for existing T-72s. It wasn’t intended to be a brand new tank like some thought here. The engine is still the same.

There is no guarantee Iran will purchase T-90, as tanks are literally the last thing Iran needs in terms of priority. Iran could wait another 10 years and acquire a next gen tank like the Armata.

Also the reason why you don’t see large amounts of certain projects is simple.....NO CONTRACT.

Iran has a vast military arms industry, but it still relies on contracts from armed forces branches to mass produce a product. Thankfully, Iran’s armed forces are conservative in the sense that they don’t throw money at EVERY project. Instead they pick projects based on need and viability of the product.

The Kowsar and Karrar are simply not impressive products when compared to existing product. Thus they never receive major contracts.

 

[gambit]

- In Yemen war: Military goal was to at least capture the capital Sanaa. Military goal failed despite multiple attempts and the superior Air and ground technology. Political goal was to reach a desirable peace treaty which also failed.

-In Hizbullah-Israel war: Military goal was to advance up to Litani river which failed. Political goal was to disarm hizbollah and did not succeed.

The details would have to be examined before judgement.

Going back to the Vietnam War. There were different political goals. The North wanted unification at all/any cost. The South wanted partition. Each goal produced different military objectives and tactics. Here is what most glossed over in their support for NVN: The NVA lost all major battles. The NVA failed to achieve its military objectives so alternate tactics had to be devised: The Viet Cong and the Ho Chi Minh supply line, which violated the borders of two neutral countries: Laos and Cambodia. For SVN that wanted partition, its military objectives stopped at the 17th parallel. Given the different political goals where SVN stopped at the 17th, there was near zero chance that the SVN/US alliance would win even though the US dominated the sky over the entire country.

That was the lesson of Viet Nam that led to a different way of war for Desert Storm where politics did not tread into the military domain until the last minute where US troops were within 100 miles of Baghdad and B41 called a stop to the Army's advances.

The war with a missile/drone power would be a different ballgame though.

How different?

“F16 is not a strategy”: John Boehner.

Do not care what Boehner said. When you have to cite a politician, there is no argument. The man was discharged after 8 weeks.

 

[Shawnee]

The details would have to be examined before judgement.

Going back to the Vietnam War. There were different political goals. The North wanted unification at all/any cost. The South wanted partition. Each goal produced different military objectives and tactics. Here is what most glossed over in their support for NVN: The NVA lost all major battles. The NVA failed to achieve its military objectives so alternate tactics had to be devised: The Viet Cong and the Ho Chi Minh supply line, which violated the borders of two neutral countries: Laos and Cambodia. For SVN that wanted partition, its military objectives stopped at the 17th parallel. Given the different political goals where SVN stopped at the 17th, there was near zero chance that the SVN/US alliance would win even though the US dominated the sky over the entire country.

That was the lesson of Viet Nam that led to a different way of war for Desert Storm where politics did not tread into the military domain until the last minute where US troops were within 100 miles of Baghdad and B41 called a stop to the Army's advances.


How different?


Do not care what Boehner said. When you have to cite a politician, there is no argument. The man was discharged after 8 weeks.

I keep the post focused on Yemen and will not sway away of the topic to Vietnam. If KSA takes over Yemeni land or at least Sana’a, you will have some room to claim a partial military win. It is far to be at that point yet.

You know KSA military too. You have served in KSA and could have fun with their girls as far as I remember from our prior discussions

How did US win over Japan?
“The terms of peace are already defined in the battlefield”: General Eisenhower

War with a country with unlimited missiles and drones of different range is more difficult compared to Yemen.

I will give you one example: What can an AC or airbase with multiple fighters do when 100 missiles dive down to them at 8 Mach? Some missiles have cluster warhead that have diverged into submunitions 100 km above the earth. Note that the submunition still has guidance. Only one submunition sets the AC in havoc.

The missiles are launched from underneath granite mountains. They are pretty safe from a first strike.

There are factories under those granite mountains that even produce steel and ball-bearings.

 

[gambit]

I keep the post focused on Yemen and will not sway away of the topic to Vietnam.

All wars are instructive, but some are more so than others. In military academies worldwide, the Vietnam War and Desert Storm are used to show there must be separation between the political and the military. NATO operations over Yugoslavia is what happened when that mistake is made again. In Viet Nam, there was no 'partial' win for the US military. It was total to the point that after the war, even the NVA leadership admitted it, but when they said it did not matter, it was in the context of the failure to align political goals and military objectives, unlike the way the North Vietnamese leadership did with the NVA.

In Viet Nam, air power came very close to pressuring an opponent towards capitulation. The Rolling Thunder bombing campaign compelled the NVN to plea for 'negotiations' even though all sides knew it was nothing more than a plea for respite until NVN recovered its supplies from China and the Soviets, and the NVA had a chance to replenish its ranks.

I know people everywhere love to downplay the US military at any chance they can, but they cannot overcome objective analyses.

What can an AC or airbase with multiple fighters do when 100 missiles dive down to them at 8 Mach? Some missiles have cluster warhead that have diverged into submunitions 100 km above the earth. Note that the submunition still has guidance. Only one submunition sets the AC in havoc.

And the guidance is immune to countermeasures. Sure...