What's new

IRIAF | News and Discussions

. .
Translate please, what does it mean?
With web traslate:
Defense Minister in talks with Al Jazeera: We have signed an important agreement with Russia for the development of our country's air force

Finally announced, congratulations to all

And:

https://shahraranews.ir/fa/news/47298/وزیر-دفاع-هشدار-داد-هرگونه-تهدید-اسرائیلی-از-منطقه-با-پاسخ-روشن-و-مستقیم-مواجه-خواهد-شد

Web traslate:
"In an interview with Al-Jazeera, Amir Hatami, the Minister of Defense of the Islamic Republic of Iran, stressed that the end of the arms embargo against Iran is an opportunity for us to import the weapons we need and export our weapons to others.

"We have military agreements with Russia and China for the next phase of the arms embargo," he said. We have important agreements with Russia with the aim of developing air weapons."
 
Last edited:
.
Iran is purchasing SU-30 and SU-35 to defend its airspace NOT penetrate foreign airspace. Thus stealth is a lot less important when fighting on your home turf.

A jet powered UCAV should be stealth if it’s main goal is to penetrate foreign airspace and assist with bombing missions (look at Chinese next gen drones and Russian for example).

Or else if you build a large non LO or VLO drone it’s just gonna get shot down when it approaches enemy air space. Unless your enemy is a bunch of insurgents or like Armenia operates a 1970’s air defense network.

So basically you are saying the same as me:

Supersonic UCAVs (not stealth) with AESA radars and BVR missiles can do well the air defence task in iranian airspace, as a 1st step.
Even with a J-85 or J-79 engines, due to the BIG weight loss for an UCAV (compared to a manned aircraft), the range, the payload, the speed, the acceleration... would be good enough for these UCAVs in order to defend iranian airspace.

In the 2nd step: turbofan powered UCAVs and turbofan powered manned fighters.
 
.
So basically you are saying the same as me:

Supersonic UCAVs (not stealth) with AESA radars and BVR missiles can do well the air defence task in iranian airspace, as a 1st step.
Even with a J-85 or J-79 engines, due to the BIG weight loss for an UCAV (compared to a manned aircraft), the range, the payload, the speed, the acceleration... would be good enough for these UCAVs in order to defend iranian airspace.

In the 2nd step: turbofan powered UCAVs and turbofan powered manned fighters.

No I am not because you are wrong.

There is no true weight loss if your building a true UCAV that is ment to be an A2A fighter. Go look at how massive China’s Dark Sword drone fighter is and tell me Iranian J-85 can power that. J-79 and J-85 are terrible engines for a interceptor role. They are not fast enough.

If Iran wants to make a “gimmick” drone that carries 2 A2A missiles and can go supersonic then by all means go ahead and do it. But that drone would be a novelty item and not a serious threat to enemy fighter jets.

China has laid the blueprint for next gen drones.
 
.
Answer from other discussion North Korea Defence Forum

Omissis......
The main, and dramatic fate is its Mig-29. NK is now producing its own Mig-29 models with its indigenous RD-33. It is not only fate but the seismic event that will have heavy consequences in the coming years, if not months.

If this statement were true, the problem for Iran of decoding the RD-33 would be solved, given the good relations of the past and probably the present, it should not be difficult to import this North Korean version of the RD-33, indeed better still have the possibility to have the projects and data needed to build it in IRAN.
 
.
Answer from other discussion North Korea Defence Forum



If this statement were true, the problem for Iran of decoding the RD-33 would be solved, given the good relations of the past and probably the present, it should not be difficult to import this North Korean version of the RD-33, indeed better still have the possibility to have the projects and data needed to build it in IRAN.
Mig 29 are assembled in N. Korea for decades, but they never produced it on its own, I doubt they prodduce it now, in past many people mistakes this assembly line and claimed N. Norea produce mig 29. I may be wrong, but probably not
 
.
the fates of NK did not stop only to the missile, contrary to the ugly westerner's assertions. The main, and dramatic fate is its Mig-29. NK is now producing its own Mig-29 models with its indigenous RD-33. It is not only fate but the seismic event that will have heavy consequences in the coming years, if not months.
Where is the source? I never heard of NK's rd33 project till now. Iranian project to build a viable afterburning turbofan is very old and I believe it's in final stages and possibly not even based on rd33. Iran is far ahead in this field.
 
.
No I am not because you are wrong.

There is no true weight loss if your building a true UCAV that is ment to be an A2A fighter. Go look at how massive China’s Dark Sword drone fighter is and tell me Iranian J-85 can power that. J-79 and J-85 are terrible engines for a interceptor role. They are not fast enough.

Yoy are making chinese Dark Sword the ONLY choice for a supersonic UCAV. That is naive.
Supersonic UCAV will be in different forms, as manned fighters: light (F-16, MIG-29), semi-heavy, heavy (F-14, SU-35...), etc


J-79 engines power Phantom F-4 (heavy weight multirole interceptor) with top speed of Mach 2.2 and max payload > 8 tonnes. F-4 maximum takeoff weight of 28 tonnes.

Obviously, two J-79 can power a supersonic UCAV with enough speed and enough payload. Why I'm so sure? Because J-79 already powered a supersonic fighter (mach 2.2) with up to 8 tonnes of payload.

And weight of iranian UCAV would be clearly lighter than F-4 (no pilot, no co-pilot, no ejection seats, no vital human cells, no vital human systems...)
So UCAV's range would be better than F-4 (its main disadvantage).
 
.
Yoy are making chinese Dark Sword the ONLY choice for a supersonic UCAV. That is naive.
Supersonic UCAV will be in different forms, as manned fighters: light (F-16, MIG-29), semi-heavy, heavy (F-14, SU-35...), etc


J-79 engines power Phantom F-4 (heavy weight multirole interceptor) with top speed of Mach 2.2 and max payload > 8 tonnes. F-4 maximum takeoff weight of 28 tonnes.

Obviously, two J-79 can power a supersonic UCAV with enough speed and enough payload. Why I'm so sure? Because J-79 already powered a supersonic fighter (mach 2.2) with up to 8 tonnes of payload.

And weight of iranian UCAV would be clearly lighter than F-4 (no pilot, no co-pilot, no ejection seats, no vital human cells, no vital human systems...)
So UCAV's range would be better than F-4 (its main disadvantage).

It’s clear you lack the concept of understanding how pieces work together. You can’t just put at a J-79 inside any drone. The drone needs to be built to accommodate the J-79 and it’s size. So the drone will be BIG in order to incorporate the engines and fuel tanks.

The lack of cockpit, air support system, will be replaced by a full avionics suite/radar/etc.

Also don’t give me top speed of F-4 from wiki. Give me sustainable top speed. Because a J-79 powered UCAV will be going up against F-22 and F-35 that can supercruise. This is why Chinese drone has supercruise capability.

Thus you need a drone that can actually do Mach 3+ in order to be anywhere in Iranian airspace at any given time and chase down other fast fighters. Survivability of drone is important if you make a half assed drone that’s powered by a jet engine you are throwing money away because jet engines don’t grow on trees. They take time to build and are costly.

J-79 might work for a supersonic bomber drone. But even then there would be a range problem. It won’t work for a interceptor drone. Not against 5th and 6th gen fighters which is what it would face in the next 10-20 years.
 
.
Answer from other discussion North Korea Defence Forum



If this statement were true, the problem for Iran of decoding the RD-33 would be solved, given the good relations of the past and probably the present, it should not be difficult to import this North Korean version of the RD-33, indeed better still have the possibility to have the projects and data needed to build it in IRAN.

However, if this were not the case and Iran has actually decoded the J-79 (which has a power very close to the RD-33) and can already build it in series, it would be advisable to use it for the new fighter jets which appears to be on. . tables of Iranian designers and engineers, single-engine or better still twin-engine, but having the foresight that this aircraft has a fuselage configuration capable of receiving a new generation engine.
This is because if you really want to build a new completely national fighter plane that avoids any foreign sanctions or embargoes and from the very first steps you want to build both the plane and a turbofan engine from scratch, you run the risk of having to wait many years, perhaps decades. .

The J-79 is an old project = Yes
Consume a lot = Yes
is powerful = Yes
was and is a reliable engine = Yes
it is a well known engine in Iran = Yes
So, if a turbofan isn't available or won't be available in the short or medium term, why postpone a project for a new fighter plane if you have the Iranian version of the J-79 that could power it in prototypes, pre-series aircraft and even in first Tranche of series aircraft?
 
.
However, if this were not the case and Iran has actually decoded the J-79 (which has a power very close to the RD-33) and can already build it in series, it would be advisable to use it for the new fighter jets which appears to be on. . tables of Iranian designers and engineers, single-engine or better still twin-engine, but having the foresight that this aircraft has a fuselage configuration capable of receiving a new generation engine.
This is because if you really want to build a new completely national fighter plane that avoids any foreign sanctions or embargoes and from the very first steps you want to build both the plane and a turbofan engine from scratch, you run the risk of having to wait many years, perhaps decades. .

The J-79 is an old project = Yes
Consume a lot = Yes
is powerful = Yes
was and is a reliable engine = Yes
it is a well known engine in Iran = Yes
So, if a turbofan isn't available or won't be available in the short or medium term, why postpone a project for a new fighter plane if you have the Iranian version of the J-79 that could power it in prototypes, pre-series aircraft and even in first Tranche of series aircraft?

Because unlike Western countries that have established supply chain and manufacturing in place to support massive amounts of jet engine creation and fighter jets. Iran does not.

The establishment will not invest in the necessary resources to establish a mass production assembly line for a fighter jet and its jet engine if It’s going to be powered by a engine from almost 75 years ago.

This is why you don’t see anything resembling large scale production for Kowsar, only small local manufacturing.

Iran refuses to make the large scale investment necessary that helped kick off Air defense And Navy branches of iran’s armed forces.
 
.
It’s clear you lack the concept of understanding how pieces work together. You can’t just put at a J-79 inside any drone. The drone needs to be built to accommodate the J-79 and it’s size. So the drone will be BIG in order to incorporate the engines and fuel tanks.

Any new jet aircraft is build around its engines. First you have the engines (or at least the engine design), and after that you build the rest.
The opposite is not impossible but it is against good-manners engineering. Extra-cost, extra-time, extra-troubles.

The lack of cockpit, air support system, will be replaced by a full avionics suite/radar/etc.

I think a manned aircraft also has full avionics suite/radar/etc., hasn't it?? :-)
So the net weight loss for an UCAV (no pilot, no co-pilot, no cockpits, no air support systems... is BIG in any case=====> greater range.

Also don’t give me top speed of F-4 from wiki. Give me sustainable top speed. Because a J-79 powered UCAV will be going up against F-22 and F-35 that can supercruise. This is why Chinese drone has supercruise capability.

Supercruise capability for a F-22- F-35 etc is NOT USED in combat. Even less in combat in a contested enemy airspace (above Iran). In combat you go full climbing, full diving, full afterburning.... in order to evade any incoming missile etc etc. All these maneovers DEVOURS the fuel.
Supercruise in combat action is illusional.

Thus you need a drone that can actually do Mach 3+ in order to be anywhere in Iranian airspace at any given time and chase down other fast fighters.

Iran would not need hypersonic UCAVs (would they be better? Yes, but they are not compulsory) in order to be anywhere in iranian aispace at any given time. Iran would need to have enough numbers deployed
in several airbases distributed in Iran geography.

I know having 200 SU-30/SU-35 would be a great option, even better purchasing some scuadrons of SU-57.
But Iranian budget is very limited and iranian air force's needs are in a hurry. So developing own supersonic UCAVs scuadrons, even with old J-79 technology, but with high tech avionics, AESA radar, BVR missiles... would be a tremendous force multiplier for Iran's Air Force.
 
.
Me think Iran holds an ace back and already has at least a function iranian prototype of an powerful fighterjet turbofan engine. So me dont think that Iran will buy lots of fighterjets from Russia or China. Maybe 24-30 to overcome the time till the own fighterjet with own turbofan take off.
 
.
Me think Iran holds an ace back and already has at least a function iranian prototype of an powerful fighterjet turbofan engine. So me dont think that Iran will buy lots of fighterjets from Russia or China. Maybe 24-30 to overcome the time till the own fighterjet with own turbofan take off.

I think also the same: Iran has some aces hidden, at least one project for fighters (don´t know if manned or unmanned). So the purchases from Russia (I discard China in this area of fighters) will be limited.
Also the budget is very limited, so a BIG aircraft purchase it seems extremely complicated.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom