Then license production is not the same as 100% TOT. OWJ is 100% Iranian. We are not relying on Americans to give us components and we screw then together while the most difficult and state secrets are not provided.
License production is not the same as 100% TOT.
Lol ok now you’re just talking nonsense. India still can’t make an engine with Russian giving them the key parts. Sweden’s Grippen is more foreign supplied than it is an actual Swedish invention. Turkey….well lol let’s not even go there.
As I predicted, you have zero understanding of IP/Patent rights and yet absolute stubbornness toward learning something new. Now I am wondering do you even know what a patent actually is and how it operates.
Since it went above your head last time, I will copy-paste my previously posted difference between TOT and LP again, I understand totally why you can't fathom it, but other members obviously will.
In terms of the transfer of manufacturing procedure, TOT and LP can mean the
SAME thing. These are loose overlapping terms and have nothing to do with the manufacturing process of a multi-component machine where one component can be made from raw materials by the client while others are assembled from CKD kits in the client's premises. Rather, the difference is more about Intellectual Property Rights and sharing of Profit $$ from further business. Loosely but legally speaking:
Technology Transfer
1) Transfer of manufacturing process
2) Transfer of P
atent/IP rights to do the following:
(a) Permission to upgrade
(b) Re-designate the components and final products
(c) Sell the products
(d) Keep the profits
Licensed Production
1) Transfer of manufacturing process
2) None or less than full P
atent/IP rights
(a) Not-Permitted to upgrade without consultation with original IP owner
(b) Can not Re-designate since IP owner owns the design+label
(c) Can sell the product
(d) But will share the profits with IP owner
China, India, and Iran can make Russian Turbofans under either "licensed production" or "TOT" depending upon Lyulka-Saturn's extent of "IP" sharing with CAC (China), HAL(Indos), TEM/MAPNA/OWJ (Iran) respectively. Where in the assembly line the production starts in the client country depends upon that client's own understanding of national industrial capability and level of IP sharing by vendor based upon how much $$ based autonomy the vendor (Lyulka-Saturn) awards to the client (OWJ, TEM, MAPNA).
In theory, OWJ can hypothetically use a local metallurgical/material manufacturing base to manufacture blades, the compressor, turbine, and shaft at home but if Lyulka/Saturn does not transfer the IP to do so then its a meager licensed production where the label of the end product will be maintained as Saturn AL-31. On the other hand, Saturn can initially provide CKD kits with Russian blades, compressors, turbine, shaft, body, etc
but allows Iran to own the IP/Patent, twist the patent data, sell the product on its own, upgrade it as per its wishes, modify it locally, and re-designate it then it's a TOT despite the fact that initial production was just CKD kits based. Like I said overlapping terms.
At the end of the day if Russia or Americans withdraw from India or Turkey (respectively) neither country can build that engine. I provided you article that admit India’s tech transfers all were devoid of anything meaningful. That was one big reason why India left SU-57 project—Russia would not provide sensitive ToT.
Neither the article author nor you have seen the contract between Lyulka/Saturn and HAL. You can sit here and pass your made-up terms like 100% TOT vs 51.8995% TOT but in real-world contracts are not assembled like that. They are built the way I explained above. IP rights matter and final $ sharing matters.
Indian decision to get on with Safran and GE has nothing to do with Lyulka-Saturn not giving them full rights to patent, it has lots more to do with changing politics of India moving towards the Western alliance. India is becoming more of a client of Western tech then Russian now. Their Tejas flies on Western engines, avionics, and armaments, Rafale is replacing the entire soviet era fleet. India is just not interested in Russian tech that much anymore.
Yes the prize engine tech is the sensitive components, the metallurgy techniques, and the engine computer.
Then provide evidence in the form of a written contract between two organizations where it is stated (your quote)
"sensitive components, the metallurgy techniques, and the engine computer" will not be shared. This is your direct quote
"No country gives away its prized jet engine tech to anyone. Period." A simple way to prove yourself right will be through
evidence like how I do.
Those are rarely handed over.
Which means those countries are kind of like assembly bots in my opinion.
Hmm, your opinion matters as much as toilet paper in front of Giant Tech Organizations doing hundreds of millions and billions of USD business with each other.
Hint: Swedish Volvo RM-12 is GE F-404 with even the blades, FAEDEC modified.
Iran also makes spare parts and components for a variety of engines that I cannot reverse engineer from scratch.
What are you on about?
I provided articles that show India has been devoid of meaningful tech transfer. Which you did not address and ran away from.
Indian TEJAS fighter for which they needed Turbofan is barely 10-15 % of the Indian fighter fleet so the political will to develop homegrown tech has been weak resulting in less funds and less dedication of expertise. This is one of the reasons behind an unreliable/weak product called Kaveri Turbofan. The same case is with Iranian attitude towards Fighters jets overall. It has less to do with the country's capability but more to do with what leadership wants.
Still to this day, which existing aircraft in the Indian fleet will be powered by local Turbofan is a mystery since
That is why they are now negotiating with the Americans.
- The deal with GE + SAFRAN is for commercial Turbofans not military
- Except for Tejas (10-15% of fleet), none of the Indian AF is flying on America engines.
If you are happy getting an AL-31 kit from Russia and putting the screws together and making some spare parts in house that’s fine. But then there is nothing Iranian about that engine. Tomorrow if Russia leaves we still cannot build AL-31 from scratch. We are lucky we will be able to maintain the engine.
I provided article that mentioned India was never given meaningful tech by any of the jet engine giants including Russia. Which you didn’t answer in your rebuttal. Now India is asking US for “100% TOT”, remains to be seen. Doubtful.
Just because you are technically illiterate (Simulation vs real-life, no knowledge of IP/Patent rights, measuring TOT/LP in %, no understanding of RCS importance), you seem to think that in the modern world where countries like China and then Korea, Japan, India, Iran, Brazil, Turkey are producing millions of STEM grads, giving out massive Engineering R&D output, some half a century old metallurgy technique is "national secret" now that these countries can not have? Say this to scientists in materials lab in China with H-Index exceeding ~200 each, that they can not replicate the 45 years blades of AL-31 from the 1970s they will laugh in your face. It is a matter of political will and $$, nothing else, which dictates allocated resources.
It is just like saying that because technologically advanced countries like Japan has no Nuclear weapon or Ballistic missile so Japan must be lacking the technology to build a century-old fission warhead and a projectile to deliver it. In reality, this means Japan so far
had none or weak reasons to spend a HUGE amount of resources on that technology. Political will was not there because the need was not considered urgent. Hence;
- Local R&D was not invested in
+
- Weak effort was put in acquiring Foreign IP/Patent rights from $$ hungry corps in West/Russia
This was the case with China till 1990s-2000. Chinese entered the game late but when they deemed their air arm needed modernization, their progress rate exceeded everyone else's
First mass-produced Chinese Turbofan = Late 1990s-Early 2000s
First mass-produced American Turbofan = 1960s
First mass-produced British Turbofan = 1960s
First mass-produced Russian Turbofan = 1970s
First mass-produced French Turbofan = 1970s
There is a GAP of ~30-40 years of combat aviation experience between China and Western countries forget India and Iran. Still Chinese produced some 300-400 x WS-10 Turbofans which are in use of PLAAF. Usually, I give markers like R&D H-Index + $$ + Industrial output etc in the relevant field but you are naive in the matter so I will pass.
Anything can happen between now and 2026. I still remember the claims Manteghi made with respect to Iranian space program. You put Manteghi on a pedestal and act like his word his gospel. I disagree with that.
Zero evidence also exists that we will get license production or 100% TOT or 50% TOT of AL-31
Evidence exists in the form of
An Iranian official, head of a national prestigious organization showing AL-31 as an Iranian future product.
and finally admit you have no idea what Iran is getting other than a poster with a picture on it.
Oh I have an excellent idea that Manteghi is a decorated official speaking on behalf of IRI-State.
Between Mantheghi (decorated national tech veteran, academician) and challenged-memory troll (you), I believe in him. I am sure no one will blame me for this bias towards tech veterans compared to illiterate trolls on the internet with no understanding of how simulation correlates to real-life values, how patents work etc.
No it doesn’t mean the same unless it’s specifically specified. Iran makes Coca-Cola via license. Do you believe Iran has Coca-Cola’s famous recipe? For years they bought Concentrate from Coke Subsidiary.
Irrelevant example. Iran did not bargain full autonomy of IP-Rights based upon whatever reasons were there, which could be cost, logistics, brand value, vendor's high cost of some of the Patent clauses, 10 different reasons.
Ask India. Ask Turkey. None of them can build their licensed engines by themselves. The knowledge and sensitive tech is rarely supplied. Why part with a lucrative rare cash cow when you can have a country pay you to assemble your engine?
Iran, India, and Turkey so far had no reason to have a national drive to produce a turbofan. They purchased aircraft in bulk and had weak local fighter jet programs. Iran never seriously tried to have a totally local fighter hence the rebuilt F-5 program. Indian effort was weak (MIG-21-93 still flying). Turkey is a baby in combat aviation, they are making strides though with an amazing formula of procuring Western products + propoganda.
The day push comes to shove, nations acquire technology one way or another. PRIME EXAMPLE is Pakistan which ranks at a hilarious ~40 position in Engineering R&D in the last two decades. Their Per Capita Income is lower than Cameroon, but because their survival was in danger they acquired nuclear weapons. Stole and smuggled G2, CNOR centrifuges from Nederland, modified them indigenously, homegrown the bulk production and now they have what 180 weapons?
For 50-60 years no country outside Major western powers+USSR had any strong reason to have a national drive for domestic turbofans so the gap existed for decades but the gap has decreased in last 10-15 years because R&D is no longer an exclusive western-dominated game as it used to be. Again the markers are there for those who understand, not you offcourse. For you, the markers of advancements will become "mental gymnastics" "google" "chatgpt" "blah blah" "over-complicated".
You are over complicating things (like usual). India cannot build AL-31 by themselves and not because a contract specifies that they cannot build AL-31 due to some IP restriction or whatever reason.
- India did not have the extreme level drive to develop a local turbofan equivalent to AL-31, they do not even have a existant local fighter jet that needs 30000 lbf wet thrust
- China needed it so WS series came (400 units deployed). The way things are going in R&D + $$$ Chinese will dominate the turbofan market in coming decade.
They physically can’t build AL-31. I have given you articles, it’s on the web. Consensus is India has been devoid of critical engine tech transfer during its license agreements.
Where is it written in the conjecture-based article that India was dying for starting the manufacturing process from ores being extracted out of mountains? Nobody knows what HAL bargained for from Saturn/Lyulka, so keep guessing.
What does OWJ have to do with Saturn IP TOT? Explain this part.
And if Russia pulls out of Iran or one day is Iran’s enemy, you now cannot produce anything on your own, but hopefully you can at least maintain the engines you did produce under license. Now you have to scramble and try to make an engine on your own. Back to square one.
I feel like I am talking to a chimp who somehow learned to type.
I was
explaining/teaching (Bold, underlined parts) how Patent/IP/Manufacturing transfer works using a future hypothetical Iran-Russia example. You being stupid thought I am suggesting the idea lol. I will make it simple for you to read (you will forget in next 15 mins?).
"
In theory, OWJ
can hypothetically use local metallurgical/material manufacturing base to manufacture blades, the compressor, turbine, and shaft at home but if Lyulka/Saturn does not transfer the IP, and selling rights then its meager licensed production where the label of the end product
will be maintained as Saturn AL-31. On the other hand, Saturn
can provide CKD kits with Russian blades, compressors, turbine, shaft, body, etc but allows Iran to own the IP/Patent, Twist the patent data, sell the product on its own, upgrade it as per its wishes, modify it locally, and re-designate it then
it will be a TOT."
Depends what you mean by “manufacturing” capabilities.
These are already well-established fields. Had you studied the relevant discipline you would know.
Example: Simplistic Process for making Blades (most crucial component).
Mined ores => Refining of ores (Unit Operations=>Unit Processes) => Alloy formation => Grain boundary treatment / FCC Crystal Growth (Iran mastered this in Jahesh) / Re-treatment to remove BCC => Casting => Milling/Machining => Coatings
Where a client enters this process, which is registered and secret IP/Patent of tech vendor, depends upon the % of IP/Sharing + $$ transferred from Client to Vendor.
Two Extreme Examples
1) Volvo-GE. Volvo entered the manufacturing process early so they could even modify the blades, FAEDEC etc and product got re-designated.
2) HALF-Lyulka/Saturn and HAL-Klimov. HAL entered the process late so the product being made are exact replicas of Russian patents probably, until we know details of contract we cant be sure.
Building spare parts, building non critical components, or being given the knowledge to build every from start to finish. The last part is rarely given.
"Financial planners + legal teams from both sides evaluate where in the middle they can meet"
If you say you never implied 100% TOT. Than a license production with some assembly leaves Iran stuck at square one if Russia were to ever leave.
That has been my point. Now to you it might not make a difference if Iran can’t do it, but to me it means that we are at the mercy of Russia. At any time they can withdraw the critical components supply, license, etc and leave Iran paddling up s***s creek.
American culture of "Karen got her feelings hurt and now wants to talk to the manager" is not how the international relations work. Iranian dependency upon Russia for blades is not a Russian concern, it is the Iranian decision where they want to meet the Russians in the manufacturing process. More IP sharing = More money demanded. Companies sell clauses of Patents. Does Iran have that much drive for owning the tech? Remains to be seen.
Leadership needs to show the same will and drive they showed for Solid fueled Missile programs or Air defense. Nobody shared TVC solid-fueled motors with Iran either. We have them now because like I said above push came to shove.
Russia has not handed over 100% TOT of AL-31 tech. Not to the Chinese. Not to the Indians.
Show me the contract between Lyulka/Saturn and CATIC China. Unless we know the level of IP sharing, any comment will be a naive conjecture.
But the Iranians get this breakthrough?
We actually did.
Is there a political will in Tehran to enlarge this Single Crystal marvel with R&D $$ + Assembly line $$ + Best Technicians + Best industrial manager? that's politics. Nothing to do with "This country can't make it". That is considered chimp-level logic in academic circles. Scientists are not their country, they are individuals, they think and behave like individuals. A lab in tehran can be more innovative than a lab in Moscow based upon individuals working in that lab and $ available (IRI's problem: brain leaves)
Destroyed maybe in your twisted mind Doctor.
You did get destroyed by me like usual (A list exists now).
You were initially claiming
"No country gives away its prized jet engine tech to anyone. Period" and
"It never shares its premier engine tech with anyone either. Can you show an example it has? I’m still waiting."
It turned out dozen examples exist
- F404 production in the Republic of Korea
- F-404 production in Sweden
- F110 production in Japan
- F110 production in Turkey
- RD-33MK production in India
- RD-93 production in China
- Spey production in China
- AL-31F production in India
Where in the assembly line the production starts in the client country depends upon that country's industrial capability and level of IP sharing based upon how much $$ based autonomy the vendor awards to client.
Two extremities
- Swedes completely got F404 LP/TOT from GE yet modified the metallurgy of the blades completely in their modified Volvo M12for Gripen.
- India makes RD-33MK and AL-31F I believe as it is (not that anybody has seen the contract between them)
Turks build an engine from scratch? Please I do not even need evidence for that. It’s called common sense.
Nobody in this thread is discussing Turkish domestic aerospace capabilities except you. They do have local license for GE-TEI license for F110 though. Do they make some components at home or import CKD or partial-KD kits ? no one knows.
Did you forget your meds today?
Hmm. The only one on this board in need of genuine help/meds is you, considering your constant misquotations of others and complete disregard/lack of understanding of technical details.
How do you know Iran has had zero interest? Did you talk to IRIAF?
Please provide evidence of Iranian will for domestic RD-33 production.
Show some visual or verbal evidence in form of comments by some official (e.g. Manteghi showing AL-31) to confirm that Iran wanted RD-33 domestic production.
Hint: None exists.
Clearly Iran showed interest in RD-33 as part of their earliest joint venture production program for an Iranian Fighter jet. It was selected as the engine to power their future fighter (at the time).
Please provide evidence of Iranian will to produce RD-33 locally for (you direct quote)
"their earliest joint venture production program"
Hint: RD-2500/5000 non-afterburning turbofan
from Klimov Russia was selected. ZERO intention of local production.
They had a virtual monopoly on selling foreign arms to Iran and yet even with this monopoly Iran wasn’t even a major client compared to the Arabs/China/India/Etc.
This wasn’t due to a lack of trying by Iran. As we very well know.
Oh so all those UN Security Council sanctions Russia voted for against Iran when they had veto power were what then?
If Russia didn’t vote for UN Security Council sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program and utilized its veto than the arms embargo would have NEVER gone into effect.
What strategic alliance? We haven’t even gotten anything yet. We sold Russia some drones and ammo. For all we know all we are getting is cash.
Russia came out and said they would supply NATO member Turkey with SU-57 and help with their 5th Gen fighter program.
What have they said publicly about helping their “strategic ally” Iran?
Did you already forget the Zionist news you posted yourself? Russia is closer to Israel than it is Iran. Israel also gave Russia drone tech years ago.
Russia is not responsible for the sanctions on Iran, nor is Iran's international politics a Russian concern. Just like how the Russian war on Ukraine is not Iranian responsibility. Countries look for their own even when they are in strategic pacts and alliances. NATO bigwigs lock horns against each other all the time. Russia has provided Iran with weapons and Tech when no one was doing so. If SU-35S comes, it will further boost the alliance.
More laughable claims. Just like the “Turkey isn’t a Russian client”. Yes I guess they woke up one day and S-400 was in Erodgan’s parking lot.
Please provide evidence that Turkey is at the same level of being a Russian Client as Iran has been for 30 years?
I will do a comparison and leave the rest to you
Russian Military Exports to IRI in last ~3 decades
Combat jets
- MIG-29 9.12 Fighter
- SU-24MK Attack/Bomber
- SU-25 Attack/Bomber
Turbofans
- RD-33 Turbofans for MIG-29
Missiles
- R-27T BVR
- R-73E WVR
- R-60 WVR
Transport
- IL-76 Heavy Transport
- AN-74 Military Transport
Attack Submarines
- Kilo Class Attack Submarines
Tanks/Armoured Vehicles
- T-72 Tanks
- BMP2 IFV
- BM-27 MLRS
Air Defence
- S-300PMU2 HIMAD
- Pantsir-S1 SHOROAD
- Tor-M1 SHORAD (Transferred to Syria?)
- SA-5 Vega HIMAD
- SA-6 HIMAD
Radars/ELINT
- Rezonas-NE Radar TOT
- 67N6E 3D (designated Falaq?)
- Avtobaza ELINT EW
Helicopters
- Mi-8 Helis
- Mi-17 Helis
Torpedoes
- VA-111 Shkval Super Cavitation Torpedoes TOT
ATMs
- Metis ATM
- Konkurs ATM
- Kornet ATM (Possible Help in Dehlavieh?)
Future Transfers
- SU-35 Fighter
- R-77 BVR missile
Russian Military Exports to Turkey by end of 2023
(PLEASE MAKE A LIST)
Production amount is what exactly? How do we know the Kowsar being built aren’t using original engines that have been overhauled? No Google articles to tell you this?
Because of low-IQ/weak memory, you fail to follow up on a point you tried to make before and were destroyed instantaneously.
here goes,
Your claim: (a direct quote )
"Since J-700 has been revealed how many have we seen produced?"
My rebuttal: "
Jahesh-700 is designated as a powerplant of what? for what aircraft/vehicle should the assembly line be established?"
Your answer:
NONE
OWJ (Newly Built/Rebuilt) is officially designated as the powerplant for Kowsar which is inducted and in production so its assembly is established. Jashesh-700 has no appropriate vehicle in Iran to power so no orders, no assembly. Simple matter of common sense.
Well you are an expert on Iranian Aviation….doctor
Another weak memory-induced failure of yours.
here goes,
Your claim "
You had claimed at one that J-700 would power Kowsar."
My answer:
"Another misquotation. I had said "2 x Jahesh-700's derivatives on lines of FJ44-4 with Afterburners""
Result: Misqotation proven
Further claim by you
"Now you say demand is not there for it since it’s only useful for UCAV"
My Counter Claim: Jahesh-700 is designated as a powerplant of what? for what aircraft/vehicle should the assembly line be established?
Your answer: None
Yeah no s*** you have not seen contracts. You have as much engineering expertise as a kid building a sand castle. DrMeson GPT you are a peculiar one.
I see that you are smashing your keyboard against your head now. I am known to get under the skins of self-conflicted trolls pretty bad and you happen to be just another one.
You,
- misquote people (because of weak memory/Schizophrenia/voices in the head)
- misquote research papers (because of illiteracy on the subject, incapable of complex thinking)
- do not understand the difference between simulation and real life (lack of common sense)
- do not understand Patents/IP ownership (lack of real-life professional experiences)
- think academically decorated veteran MDs/CEOs use googled images (Lack of understanding of academic R&D culture)
- think science, logic, and common sense are "mental gymnastics" "ChatGPT" "complicated" "googling" (struggle/hatred for technical details).
Why? (Possible reasons)
- Classical symptoms of schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder.
- Raised in a low intellect environment where reasoning and use of evidence were discouraged (often happens in American households)
- Weak short-term memory hence the excessive habit of misquoting others. Talking before thinking/seeking evidence.
BT tweets sprinkled with some news articles.
You are doing the same thing you did to Manteghi before. What is your problem with accomplished technical people?
BT is a qualified engineer who has worked for
- IRIAF on Mirage-F1, SU-24MK, F-5-driven programs (pictorial, published evidence exists)
- Written books on multinational AFs, modernization programs, and aviation history.
- Writes for 4 International aviation magazines.
- Roughly 80-90% of the time, he is proven right about the technical facts he writes.
- Hates IRI, IRGC and Basij and is a Shahist. Matters none in his technical analysis.
Like Manteghi before, between BT (a credible IRIAF info source) and you (a troll who hates details), I will offcourse believe in BT. Again, sane people will understand my bias.
If you implied that Iran was going to produce AL-31 completely in house then you said no where did I say.
Another misquotation, please provide evidence that I said "Iran was going to produce AL-31 completely in-house".
Hint: No country can completely build something "in-house". The manufacturing process at any point can be dependent upon foreign procurement of raw materials even for front-line superpowers. Do we know where Volvo, Safran, and Saturn are getting their alloys?
Then I say okay is it going to be license production without meaningful (FULL) tech transfer and you pander back and forth and word play like the narcissist you are
Your struggle to understand Patents/IP ownership is not my responsibility.
the DPRNK PL-10 all over again)
Please provide evidence that the showed missile is not similar to the Chinese PL-10.
The seeker, the wings, the fins, and the dimensions agree with me and so does the author of this article below (and everyone who saw the pic)
https://www.38north.org/2022/10/air-to-air-missiles-could-be-the-north-korean-defense-sectors-next-breakthrough-why-it-matters/
Correction: Man of evidence and technical details.
So what strategic value or insight is it claiming F-5 is RCS 1m2 “clean”? Who cares what it is clean? What are you going to do with a clean F-5? Ram it into the enemy plane?
You misquoted me, claiming that I said
"F-5 with drop tanks and fully loaded armament is going to be at 1m2 RCS".
I am still waiting for evidence of this statement from me
Now answer my question. What is RCS of a loaded F-5 since in combat it will be loaded?
I have never ever talked of
"RCS of a loaded F-5 since in combat it will be loaded?"
My assumption of low RCS of N-156 family of airframes and their descendants has
always come from facts such as:
-N-156 airframe, despite being tracked/shot at has not been shot at BVR ranges by same A2A missiles that took down F-4, F-14 at distances in the same conflicts, namely R-40 and R-23. It faced MIG-25PD, MIG23ML both armed with SARH R-40 and R-23 Med-BVR missiles that took down multiple F-4, even F-14 (Hashem Ale Agha). IRIAF deployed F-5 multiple times even across the borders (diversion attack for H-3). The bulk of its shootings came from ground Track radars illumination from below which is just unavoidable. Even in conflicts against Mig-25PD, MIG-23ML, MIG-21F it came out victorious.
- The F-18 itself is a N-156 driven design, recorded by USN to have a RCS of 1-3 m^2. (Peter Grinning, USN historian).
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/2300/Articles/PG/PGSA.htm
clean! when did a F-18 fly into enemy airspace with no weapons or drop tank?
RCS lists are relative, the same list with F-18 at 1-3m2 and an F-16 at 1-2 m2 will have both the aircraft wearing same combat suit unless it is mentioned otherwise.
I said Israeli and US fighters have not fought a near peer adversary in the air in last 20 years.
In response to my lists of F-5, F-16, F-18 never been shot at BVR ranges despite being shot at,
You claimed that
"The common theme among these is Intel, ECW, Support system of a superpower vs Russian aircraft in various states of condition and the opposing country."
My answer:
- None of the examples had any "ECW" specifically Iranian F-5E/F did not even have any ECM package, it does not have one even today.
- None of the countries involved in examples are Superpowers with your claimed
"Support system of a superpower",
-
Iranian F-5E/F (ECM less), despite being detected/tracked/shot at has not been shot at BVR ranges by same A2A missiles that took down
Iranian F-4, F-14 at distances in the same conflicts, namely R-40 and R-23. It faced
Iraqi MIG-25PD, MIG23ML both armed with SARH R-40 and R-23 Med-BVR missiles that took down multiple F-4, even F-14 (
Iranian Pilot Hashem Ale Agha).
IRIAF deployed F-5 multiple times even across the borders (diversion attack for
Iranian attack on
Iraqi base H-3). The bulk of its shootings came from ground Track radars illumination
Iraqi Ground batteries from below which is just unavoidable. Even in conflicts against
Iraqi-AF's Mig-25PD, MIG-23ML, MIG-21F it came out victorious.
- Israeli F-16 has fought against BVR carrying
Syrian MIG-25, MIG-23, MIG-29 in Israel-Syria conflicts, Never got shot at BVR ranges.
-
Pakistani F-16 fought against BVR armed
Indian Mirage-2000H, SU-30MKI, MIG-29UPG, MIG-21-93 in
Indo-Pak conflict, ended up bombing the enemy, harassing the Sukhoi interceptors into escaping the zone (yes, SU-30 did nothing).
-
Turkish Block 30 F-16 engaged electronically superior
Greek Mirage-2000 in
Turk-Greek theatre dozens of times but the only time it was shot was at WVR ranges through Magic Sidewinder which
Turkish pilots fault not the machine's. This plane has massacred the entire 3rd / 4th generation aircraft of the world but has never been caught at BVR ranges.
Please provide evidence of the "Support system of a superpower" in the above examples?
F-14 looks like a balloon on radar and so does F-4. Not a good comparison comparing a massive non stealth fighter like F-14 or a bomb truck loaded up on munitions to prove how “hard” it is to shoot down F-5.
- F-4E/D has an RCS of 6-10 m2 (USN measured). It was shot many times at BVR ranges by MIG-25PD using R-40 BVR missiles. F-4 has also been shot by AIM-7. The same never happened to F-5 in the same theatres. This is a good indicator of F-5's all-aspect RCS << F-4's 6-10 m2.
A huge part of their survival against BVR attacks comes from their LOW RCS. Both have an exemplary record in A2A combat. Upgraded F-16 and F-5 driven Hornet family are aerial menaces. F-20 would have been no different.
Second you say it’s pilot error when they do something wrong. But no credit to pilot when he does something right? Only machine gets credit? Rock on Dr Meson.
Nontechnical stupidity again. RCS is not controlled by piloting skills. Hashem Ale Agha was shot with R-40 because F-14 has a huge RCS for SARH/ARH attack. Was Hashem Ale Agha, an ace, a bad pilot?
An F-22/F-35 that is clean and an F-22/F-35 carrying internal munitions have the same RCS. What is there to prove? Word play again?
No one said this. I said a clean F-22/35 and one that carries their munitions inside their internal weapon bay have the same RCS.
You said stealth fighters can
"maintain their frontal RCS"
to which I asked "
Please provide evidence that stealth fighters can "maintain their frontal RCS"
You failed to answer that!
You claimed that F-22/35 would suffer increased RCS from carrying weapons
Please provide evidence that I said "F-22/35 would suffer increased RCS from carrying weapons"
Hint: My implication was angular illumination leading to larger RCS since aircraft are rarely flying frontal towards oscillators all the time. This is why All-Aspect RCS is averaged term composed of maximas and minimas in a plot of RCS vs coordinates of airframe. An F-22 is not 0.0001 m2 all the time. When it changes angle between its axis to axis of enemy tracking oscillator its RCS changes (increases).
The point is SU-35 is not as useless and defenseless within Iranian air space as you seem to imply.
The point is Iran is on defensive in any war and needs to protect its IADS. That is the whole point of having an SU-35 or any air superiority fighter. They complement one another and ensure they each survive.
85 Million USD for 1 x SU35S
IRBIS-E PESA tracking 1 m2 target at 100 KM
R-77ER BVR max range 100 KM
RCS = 10-14 m^2 (SU-27/30 airframe)
85 Million USD for 3 x MIG-29M
Zhuk-M PESA tracking 3-5 m2 target at 130 KM
R-77ER BVR max range 100 KM
RCS = 5 m^2
You were saying?
F-14 also operated in Iranian air space during the Iran-Iraq and protected Iran’s territory.
Protected Iranian territory against MIG-25, MIG-23, Mirage F1, SU-22 ? F-14A/AM can fight large RCS 1970s airframes like Tornado, F-15, SU-27/30/35, MIG-29, and MIG-31 tracking them at some ~110-130 KM and delivering Fakour-90s but against smaller RCS modern crafts like euro canards with ECM heavy AESA packages, its AWG-9 will be blinded from 100+ KM while it will be tracked and shot at from LR-BVR ranges.
Less than 10 MIG-35’s exist. Get real.
- Hundreds of MIG-29M/M2 exist
- MIG-35 is just another designation of modified MIG-29M/M2/KR called "Fulcrum F". If the order is placed, it will be produced just like how MIG-29 was produced for IRIAF post order.
The S-200 was never made to intercept fighter jets. What do you not understand? If an S-200 can intercept a low flying F-16, then a fighter jet with a BVR can. It’s quite simple. Don’t overcomplicate things “Doctor”
It is maybe "simple" in your simple world but the
Ground AD Network is supported by multiple powerful tracking radars with 10K+ T/Rs on average to keep illuminating the target Syrian S-200 acquires its targets from a powerful SARH illuminator called 5N62B. In BVR combat The same can not be said about an ARH/SARH airborne interception where T/R elements are usually <1000"
Your initial argument failed brutally so you are twisting the argument. You were trying to challenge low RCS advantage of an F-16 by saying
"Even Syria managed to hit an Israeli F-16 (masters of ECW) with a freaking S-200."
BVR combat is between aircraft in the sky not SAMS vs aircraft and
F-16 has never been shot at BVR while it has been fighting BVR armed fighters for decades namely SU-30MK, Mirage-2000C/H, MIG-29, MIG-21-93, MIG-25PD, MIG-23ML.
www.news9live.com
hackaday.com
What? Did you forget your meds today?
