IRIAF | News and Discussions

[VEVAK]

How many times should we debunk this cgi overlay?

I really don't see what the big deal is about Russian Su-30's flying to Syria from a military base in Hamedan!
What's the big deal!
It's not like Russia has taken over that base! They just used it as a pit stop!

 

[Muhammed45]

How many times should we debunk this cgi overlay?

What an overlap!!!?
The operator should be marhoom Steve Jobs.

 

[arashkamangir]

I really don't see what the big deal is about Russian Su-30's flying to Syria from a military base in Hamedan!
What's the big deal!
It's not like Russia has taken over that base! They just used it as a pit stop!

No I'm saying this is a computer generated imagery on top of a f-14

 

[PeeD]

I suspect that is the main reason why the intakes have that honeycomb shield because the electric powered fans aren't powerful enough to take a hit from small flying objects like birds & allows for an evenly distributed constant flow of air lessening shockwave they may have been put on the fans....

Your idea about a electric fan is quite good, it is also one of my candidates. We know that the engine is small and it produces a unique noise signature different to any known jet engine. Agreed, a possibility.

However the grid at the intake has just a LO usage + birdstrike protection. At centimetric band the grid acts like a solid surface, a clever and effective solution for subsonic LO/VLO designs. Subsonic aircraft do not have issues with intake air shockwaves and at the fan face.

Unfortunately, Iran's continued insistence on building lighter & cheaper fighters with an absurd fixation on initial production & purchasing cost will be the downfall of an Iranian fighter program!

Everyone wants an all aspect-VLO large, long range fighter which supercruises at mach 1,6-1,8. However today on this earth, only America and Russia could produce something like that, even Britain would the next likely candidate before China.
So you better realize that you need a different approach to fight those next generation fighters. Go figure out which approach would have chances against those monsters.
We are really fortunate that the F-22 does not reach the kinematic performance that was expected and nor is it available in the numbers planned. If it would have in form of a F/A-22C we would not even have to talk about 200 Su-30 etc.
I myself am no friend of light fighters but the F-313 could be an approach or e.g an Iranian Mig-31 afterburning mach 2,5 supersonic cruiser. The target is only to remain survivable against such threats, question is how.

 

[VEVAK]

Your idea about a electric fan is quite good, it is also one of my candidates. We know that the engine is small and it produces a unique noise signature different to any known jet engine. Agreed, a possibility.

However the grid at the intake has just a LO usage + birdstrike protection. At centimetric band the grid acts like a solid surface, a clever and effective solution for subsonic LO/VLO designs. Subsonic aircraft do not have issues with intake air shockwaves and at the fan face.



Everyone wants an all aspect-VLO large, long range fighter which supercruises at mach 1,6-1,8. However today on this earth, only America and Russia could produce something like that, even Britain would the next likely candidate before China.
So you better realize that you need a different approach to fight those next generation fighters. Go figure out which approach would have chances against those monsters.
We are really fortunate that the F-22 does not reach the kinematic performance that was expected and nor is it available in the numbers planned. If it would have in form of a F/A-22C we would not even have to talk about 200 Su-30 etc.
I myself am no friend of light fighters but the F-313 could be an approach or e.g an Iranian Mig-31 afterburning mach 2,5 supersonic cruiser. The target is only to remain survivable against such threats, question is how.

Standard titanium fans on subsonic aircraft being turned by it's own independent turbine & gears will NOT face that problem no!
But we are not talking about a standard engine!
An electric Turbine engine would need to create electricity from the heat & the motion to create enough constant electricity to power probably 3-6 advanced BLDC electric engines to create enough power to turn a large enough fan at high speeds and the fans would likely have to be built with much lighter materials than Titanium that aren't as strong!

As for the F-313 The answer is quite simple! 1st off when your a low budget country that wants to build it's own fighter so the smart thing to do is look at history of fighter and use the experience and knowledge gained by others rather than pick an unconventional design that you know nothing about!

I can tell you by just looking at the F-313 that the Aircraft will have major problems in maneuverability and in Yaw for landing!!!
I can tell you by just looking at it that the nose is too small and you need to widen it so you can fit a real cockpit inside! and it should at least be big enough to fit a Kowsar cockpit inside
The wing design is totally flawed!
The square cracks underneath will not only not reduce RCS but will negatively effect aerodynamics so they need to be rounded off around the edges

No one is stopping Iran from building a larger more powerful engine but Iran it's self and that is a FACT!

And it's not like we don't have Oil & Natural gas to have fuel problems!

And you need to stop seeing the U.S. as Iran's only security challenge! Just because a US Air Force would be stronger than Iran's is not an excuse to not have a real Air Force or a real fighter program!

 

[PeeD]

I can tell you by just looking at the F-313 that the Aircraft will have major problems in maneuverability and in Yaw for landing!!!
I can tell you by just looking at it that the nose is too small and you need to widen it so you can fit a real cockpit inside! and it should at least be big enough to fit a Kowsar cockpit inside
The wing design is totally flawed!
The square cracks underneath will not only not reduce RCS but will negatively effect aerodynamics so they need to be rounded off around the edges

You have a strange approach to judge a design. If it makes no conventional sense to you, they must be design flaws.
How about interpreting it for a different operation regime?

- Maneuverability might be neglected due to high off bore sight AAMs, HMS and a 5 G limitation.
- Landing gear yaw angle might be limited because in a ground effect operation, the yaw angle can me much less for landing ---> GE operation indicator?
- Nose/cockpit section might be slender because the forward landing gear does not fold into that section but the fuselage? Nose area for radar might be small because its optimized for GCI/IADS guidance and not self emitting? Cockpit equipment space might be small because a new generation of such equipment is anticipated at the time of it entering production?
- Wing design might be optimized for low level ground effect flight?
- What if rounded lower fuselage edges with LO/VLO capability would be too expensive to employ? What if aerodynamic penalty of those edges are negligible in subsonic operation regime just like for the F-117?

You remind me of Americans on their forums who find many flaws with the PAK-FA design... Do you guys really have such an aerospace engineering self confidence that you think your smarter than a whole team of aerospace engineers, professionals?
At least say that you don't agree with a certain design solution, but calling such fundamentals flawed???

 

[AmirPatriot]

@VEVAK that video is CGI, I cannot count the number of times it has been brought up and debunked.

There is no reason to talk about something that is classified everywhere. Let me just say that integrated RAM in composite is technically feasible and more so for subsonic design. It's just a question about performance and cost. As said, RAM might only be used for gaps if the target is LO instead of VLO.

Are you trying to tell me that we shouldn't talk about it for OPSEC reasons?

Because without a source or at least knowing the nature of the source, the rumour is has next to no technical credibility.

The F-313 needs to be cost-effective, so if another material is available, even at lower performance, it might get selected for wing boxes and high loaded structures.

What would be great would be if there could be examples and/or proof that using composites for high load structures is feasible from both an engineering and safety standpoint.

Also remember that your aircraft has very weak engines, and therefore needs to be as light as possible. Using a bit of high grade material is lighter than using a lot of lower grade material.

At the bombtruck mission you want no stealth aircraft is stealthy.

I know, but my point is you may have to shape your airframe in unstealthy ways to accommodate this arrangement, and therefore would affect the aircraft even in its stealthy configuration.

You want to carry a high payload with the F-313 outside the w-bay.

And I'm saying if you do that, the weapons will block the weapons bays (because the latter takes up so much surface area given your design). That means you will lose the capacity of those bays, which given their size is up to 2x 2000 lb bombs.

Maybe 50 hours a year plus extensive complex simulator and advanced trainer training.

Which is still only 10 years of peacetime operation given your stated aircraft life. I expect it would only last 1 or 2 years of warfare even if new.

You seriously suggests Iran to join the catch-up game in airpower???

Iran is the first country to have operational ASHBMs. We caught up in precision BM technology.

We caught up in LACM technology with the Soumar.

We caught up in LR AD with the Bavar-373.

We caught up in radar technology with the Najm-802 and Matla ul Fajr 2.

We caught up in tank technology with the Karrar.

We caught up in drone tech with the Shahed-129.

All through that, everyone was doubting us and saying we couldn't do it. They called our drones RC Toys, our missiles Scuds, and our tanks T-72s with cosmetic upgrades.

 

[PeeD]

Are you trying to tell me that we shouldn't talk about it for OPSEC reasons?

Because without a source or at least knowing the nature of the source, the rumour is has next to no technical credibility.

Sometimes there are no examples because of opsec. But feasibility is something else. You might have no professional aerospace experience to judge that.

There is a new generation of airframe technology. It has large seamless outer shell structures which are made completely by composites. They are not applicable to supersonic aircraft because their thermal and max-q properties and their lifetime might be lower.
So I don't give you a source or example, but keep a professional approach before saying: "... has next to no technical credibility"...

What would be great would be if there could be examples and/or proof that using composites for high load structures is feasible from both an engineering and safety standpoint.

There is no debate about this. Carbon fiber is just not used in wingboxes because there are already established conventional materials and methods which achieve the target at lower price.

I'm not anti-titanium but ask any engineer with knowledge: Carbon fiber does everything titanium does, just better, maybe more expensive but better. So let us end this.

Also remember that your aircraft has very weak engines, and therefore needs to be as light as possible. Using a bit of high grade material is lighter than using a lot of lower grade material.

If titanium wingboxes would be too expensive for a $8m airframe and a lower performing solution had to be selected, the weight saving would be done somewhere else. In the end the overall performance matters.

I know, but my point is you may have to shape your airframe in unstealthy ways to accommodate this arrangement, and therefore would affect the aircraft even in its stealthy configuration.

No, the current F-313 shape can do this.

And I'm saying if you do that, the weapons will block the weapons bays (because the latter takes up so much surface area given your design). That means you will lose the capacity of those bays, which given their size is up to 2x 2000 lb bombs.

They don't block them, they would be at the outer, lower edge of the broad fuselage.

Which is still only 10 years of peacetime operation given your stated aircraft life. I expect it would only last 1 or 2 years of warfare even if new.

Moden fighter engines have 50% the lifetime of the airframe. My 500 hour TBO J90s would be overhauled/changed and a 2000 hours rated expendable $8m airframe instead of 8000, could be just replaced with a new one or rebuild.

Iran is the first country to have operational ASHBMs. We caught up in precision BM technology.

We caught up in LACM technology with the Soumar.

We caught up in LR AD with the Bavar-373.

We caught up in radar technology with the Najm-802 and Matla ul Fajr 2.

We caught up in tank technology with the Karrar.

We caught up in drone tech with the Shahed-129.

All through that, everyone was doubting us and saying we couldn't do it. They called our drones RC Toys, our missiles Scuds, and our tanks T-72s with cosmetic upgrades.

All those systems are highly cost effective. Some of them are scientifically extremely advanced but none of them is in production as difficult to master as jet engine technology.

Of those systems, only the Shahed-129 is more fragile than conventional airpower. But the S-129 is expendable, cheap and does not have the immense hurdle of a jet engine.

Iran will certainly spend a smaller portion on airpower as intercontinental hypersonic aircraft of the future will make airpower serious again. Until then, a F-313 to my operational regime is a good solution.

 

[VEVAK]

You have a strange approach to judge a design. If it makes no conventional sense to you, they must be design flaws.
How about interpreting it for a different operation regime?

- Maneuverability might be neglected due to high off bore sight AAMs, HMS and a 5 G limitation.
- Landing gear yaw angle might be limited because in a ground effect operation, the yaw angle can me much less for landing ---> GE operation indicator?
- Nose/cockpit section might be slender because the forward landing gear does not fold into that section but the fuselage? Nose area for radar might be small because its optimized for GCI/IADS guidance and not self emitting? Cockpit equipment space might be small because a new generation of such equipment is anticipated at the time of it entering production?
- Wing design might be optimized for low level ground effect flight?
- What if rounded lower fuselage edges with LO/VLO capability would be too expensive to employ? What if aerodynamic penalty of those edges are negligible in subsonic operation regime just like for the F-117?

You remind me of Americans on their forums who find many flaws with the PAK-FA design... Do you guys really have such an aerospace engineering self confidence that you think your smarter than a whole team of aerospace engineers, professionals?
At least say that you don't agree with a certain design solution, but calling such fundamentals flawed???

Sooner or later once the F-313 starts doing flight test you will see!

If Maneuverability is neglected on a light airframe with low survivability your nothing but target practice because the MAIN reason 5th gen fighter have thrust vectoring is to be used as a countermeasure to incoming missiles so in a modern battlefield maneuverability comes into play as a countermeasure to incoming missiles 1st & Dogfights last!

WHO IN THIER RIGHT MIND would hand off Speed, Range, Maneuverability & Survivability for ground effect in a country where the majority of the terrain is mountains!

A Jet powered ground effect aircraft didn't even make sense over water let alone over land and the Russian proved that! And if F-313 designers had spent a little time researching history they would know that!

And YOU WOULDN'T put your optics underneath the Aircraft if the Aircraft was built for ground effect flight! That's absurd!

And making the aircraft more aerodynamic wouldn't effect cost AT ALL! That's the MOST absurd thing I've heard you say so far!

And the F-117 had MAJOR problems in maneuverability & stability due to it's aerodynamics that required a very advanced fly by wire system so no IT IS NOT negligible AT ALL but they kept it due to it's stealth features but those features only work if you fly straight towards a specific radar & that's why the US only kept a limited number active to be used for specific operations! Iran on the F-313 is trying to solve the stability problem with those absurd wing design but what they clearly haven't figured out is the effect it will have on Yaw which will cause MAJOR problems especially if you wanna fly the aircraft in ground effect mode!
F-117 had swept back wings at 50 degrees with 20,000 lbf of dry trust to achieve high subsonic speeds!

The F-313 low RCS characteristics are nowhere near the F-117, And it's not the design of the F-313 that makes it a low cost aircraft but rather the materials used in the Airframe

And building a low surviving airframe to fly at low altitude makes you susceptible to cheap ground fire, AAA & MANPAD's that can be easily hidden and easily moved so it is an absolute absurd and totally deluded idea!

And to sacrifice Maneuverability, Speed, Combat Radius, Survivability, Situational Awareness, Angle of Attack, Thrust to Weight ratio, aerodynamics, payload capacity, onboard sensor capability, thrust, Yaw, Max G... All to have an aircraft with high ground effect capability & short takeoff capability on a manned aircraft that's susceptible to ground fire & cheap & light AAA & MANPADS IS ABSURD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And to mass produce such an absurd design is absolutely NUTS!

It's absurd for Iran to have one of the lowest military budget per capita & per GDP of the region! Iran has the 2nd largest economy of the region so we should have the 2nd largest military budget as well!
Iran IS the FASTEST growing country in Science & Technology in the world and the ONLY organization in the country that could potentially have the budget to turn that science into products is the MILITARY but because of the governments refusal to invest properly in the defense industry (+ lack of leadership in the IRIAF) to create high tech jobs we have brain drain in the country! And the notion that we don't have the money is absurd! We get more money in Tax's than we get from Oil! And more funding in the defense industry = more JOBs! = More taxes = better Iranian military & none military products

Right now Myanmar with a GDP(nominal) of $75 Billion has added more ships to it's blue water naval fleet than Iran has in the past decade! Even Kuwait is arming it's self with F/A-18's Angola & Algeria are buying Su-30's

And Iran's Navy is fully capable of building more ships & Subs at a much faster pace if funded to do so!
Iran is fully capable of building jet engines with a dry thrust of over 10,000 lbf at 4ft in diameter if funded to do so!
Iran is fully capable of building more advanced Helo's at a much faster pace if funded to do so!
Iran is fully capable of building an F-15 size Fighter with an internal weapons bay & a Low RCS using titanium casting hardened with composites if funded to do so!
Iran is fully capable of building more advanced 3D printers that will speed up & reduce the costs of R&D if funded to do so
Any high school student at home can easily use sea water & a little DC electricity to separate oxygen & hydrogen that are extremely flammable so you have limitless supply of potential fuel source!
etc etc etc

 

[ashool]

The F-313 low RCS characteristics are nowhere near the F-117, And it's not the design of the F-313 that makes it a low cost aircraft but rather the materials used in the Airframe

how do you know what material used in q 313 are you one of designer we dont know i read your things you speak like someone how build or make qaher or anything else . why speak so strongly about q-313 or else the commanders or designer dont say anything about engine or material but you know like that 500 meters cep please dont say anything you dont know its right or say its my idea

 

[PeeD]

If Maneuverability is neglected on a light airframe with low survivability your nothing but target practice because the MAIN reason 5th gen fighter have thrust vectoring is to be used as a countermeasure to incoming missiles so in a modern battlefield maneuverability comes into play as a countermeasure to incoming missiles 1st & Dogfights last!

Yes maneuverability is mainly for missile dodging these days. However it does not mean the F-313 would have to do the same if this capability increases airframe cost by 100%. Evasion by LO/VLO and terrain masking/clutter is another option.

WHO IN THIER RIGHT MIND would hand off Speed, Range, Maneuverability & Survivability for ground effect in a country where the majority of the terrain is mountains!

A Jet powered ground effect aircraft didn't even make sense over water let alone over land and the Russian proved that! And if F-313 designers had spent a little time researching history they would know that!

I wont argue with you about that. There are many indicators that the F-313 is designed to make use of GE. There has never been a GE aircraft that fly above solid ground but many jet powered GE aircraft that fly over water.

And YOU WOULDN'T put your optics underneath the Aircraft if the Aircraft was built for ground effect flight! That's absurd!

No it's not... Even top mounted optics would be next to useless in land GE operation. Optics are used during pop-up, GE for cruise.

And making the aircraft more aerodynamic wouldn't effect cost AT ALL! That's the MOST absurd thing I've heard you say so far!

Any rounded LO/VLO rated airframe surfaces WILL BE more expensive than flat ones. So their use of faceted fuselage could very well be cost driven. The aerodynamic penalty could be acceptable low.

And the F-117 had MAJOR problems in maneuverability & stability due to it's aerodynamics that required a very advanced fly by wire system so no IT IS NOT negligible AT ALL but they kept it due to it's stealth features but those features only work if you fly straight towards a specific radar & that's why the US only kept a limited number active to be used for specific operations! Iran on the F-313 is trying to solve the stability problem with those absurd wing design but what they clearly haven't figured out is the effect it will have on Yaw which will cause MAJOR problems especially if you wanna fly the aircraft in ground effect mode!
F-117 had swept back wings at 50 degrees with 20,000 lbf of dry trust to achieve high subsonic speeds!

The F-313 is aerodynamically much better than the F-117 and likely aerodynamically stable.
I know that you have no basis for your "low yaw performance" claims because you use inappellable examples and comparisons. I give you a story to think about: American T-38 (F-5) trainers with their low power J85 are able to supercruise dry without afterburners. Think about that fact and stop judging complex matters by poor simplistic comparisons.

The F-313 low RCS characteristics are nowhere near the F-117, And it's not the design of the F-313 that makes it a low cost aircraft but rather the materials used in the Airframe

Neither you nor me know that.

And building a low surviving airframe to fly at low altitude makes you susceptible to cheap ground fire, AAA & MANPAD's that can be easily hidden and easily moved so it is an absolute absurd and totally deluded idea!

The F-313 would operate as defensive IADS asset during high intensity warfare. Only in very special cases like a tanker/AWACS hunt over sea surface, it would leave Irans borders. Btw. cruise missiles are then also very easy targets?

And to sacrifice Maneuverability, Speed, Combat Radius, Survivability, Situational Awareness, Angle of Attack, Thrust to Weight ratio, aerodynamics, payload capacity, onboard sensor capability, thrust, Yaw, Max G... All to have an aircraft with high ground effect capability & short takeoff capability on a manned aircraft that's susceptible to ground fire & cheap & light AAA & MANPADS IS ABSURD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And to mass produce such an absurd design is absolutely NUTS!

This is a complex game of margins and I'm sure you have not calculated my F-313 operation regime. Again a poor judgment.

Iran is fully capable of building jet engines with a dry thrust of over 10,000 lbf at 4ft in diameter if funded to do so!
Iran is fully capable of building an F-15 size Fighter with an internal weapons bay & a Low RCS using titanium casting hardened with composites if funded to do so!

Beware of such statements. I even agree to some extend but I suspect you vastly underestimate what monumental task that is. Nor are you able to judge whether doing such a project offers enough bang for the bucks for Iran atm.

 

[VEVAK]

how do you know what material used in q 313 are you one of designer we dont know i read your things you speak like someone how build or make qaher or anything else . why speak so strongly about q-313 or else the commanders or designer dont say anything about engine or material but you know like that 500 meters cep please dont say anything you dont know its right or say its my idea

You don't know me! And you don't know what I do know and what I don't know!
And a 500 meter CEP on a Ballistic Missile that has a range of 1700km for a country that not equipped with various space assets is astonishing!
The reason you think it's not is due to your limited knowledge on the subject!
And it's disrespectful to the kids that worked day and night to achieve it!
Achieving 500 meter CEP means you can target large facilities which allows you to cut that CEP by over 50% with further adjustments & upgrades
And FYI Iran was already working on Emad-2 when they tested the Emad so honestly YOU DON'T KNOW JACK!

As for the Materials used on the Airframe of the Q-313 again if you truly spoke Farsi and had the attention span of an adult you would know that the Airframe was made out of low cost materials based on info given by Iran it's self & what I know and how I know is NONE of your business!

 

[Draco.IMF]

why dont trust in iranian engineers?
I think they know better what they are doing than some forummembers?
If they want to go with Q-313, than there should be good reasons, so let them!
we will see what the final product can.

 

[VEVAK]

Yes maneuverability is mainly for missile dodging these days. However it does not mean the F-313 would have to do the same if this capability increases airframe cost by 100%. Evasion by LO/VLO and terrain masking/clutter is another option..

That's the problem when you look at initial purchasing price with a complete disregard to everything else! Even if your Airframe comes out to $30 Million USD as appose to $7 Million Iran's own history with it's own fleet has shown that it's well worth it!
If designed on a proper platform your Titanium bulkheads & structure just as in the F-14 will not only increase your max G, survivability & potentially speed but it will last you for decades allowing for an expensive airframe to be overhauled & upgraded and improved upon for years on end that's why Airframe are the MOST expensive part of any capable fighter!

I wont argue with you about that. There are many indicators that the F-313 is designed to make use of GE. There has never been a GE aircraft that fly above solid ground but many jet powered GE aircraft that fly over water..

Why do you think aircrafts designed to make use of GE are mainly used on water? The Russian played around with GE for how long until they finally abandoned it? For a low budget country to not take note of other countries experiences in the development of it's own fighter is a colossal mistake!

No it's not... Even top mounted optics would be next to useless in land GE operation. Optics are used during pop-up, GE for cruise..

You basically saying the Aircraft is going to fly blind in terms of sensor capability & fully rely on ground systems for everything from areal targets to ground targets to even the location of every AAA & clearly that means don't comprehend the value of a Fighter! One of the main reasons countries have Aircrafts is because they know hitting an aircraft in the Air as appose to an asset on the ground at long ranges (+300km) is extremely hard & next to impossible!
And one of the main targets in an incoming attack is Radar, Sensors & communication and even if they did survive how deep into enemy territory do you think you can transmit secure information without detection without any space based assets?

Any rounded LO/VLO rated airframe surfaces WILL BE more expensive than flat ones. So their use of faceted fuselage could very well be cost driven. The aerodynamic penalty could be acceptable low..

I'm sorry my friend but that's completely absurd! They made it square to deflect radar to make it look stealthy like the F-117

And you don't have to believe me go ~6min into the video

It has NOTHING to do with cost! It's a miss understanding as to what reduces your RCS & that's the angle of your surfaces not the cracks and until you develop a low RCS Canopy, cockpit & pilot gear what is the POINT? & in fact those cracks will work against you unless you fly straight towards the radar!

And they keep saying it's capable of short takeoff now comparatively with the same engines you can claim that it would require less runway compared to an F-5 for example but it is NOT a short take off aircraft because the engines are just not powerful enough to achieve the speed required in a short time unless assisted with another device or rocket

The F-313 is aerodynamically much better than the F-117 and likely aerodynamically stable.
I know that you have no basis for your "low yaw performance" claims because you use inappellable examples and comparisons. I give you a story to think about: American T-38 (F-5) trainers with their low power J85 are able to supercruise dry without afterburners. Think about that fact and stop judging complex matters by poor simplistic comparisons..

Yes it's more stabile than an F-117 due to it's wings! As I said they tried to solve the stability problem with that absurd wing design! So yes it will be very stable in subsonic flight but it will have problems in Yaw and if it ever reaches production model they'll either have to put controlled surfaces on the tip of the wings OR reduce it in size by at least 50% of more Or completely redesign the wings altogether

The F-313 won't even be able to go transonic let alone supersonic & what limits it from going supersonic is it's design not it's engines! And even with 2 RD-33 it still wouldn't go supersonic! J-85 are capable of supersonic flight everyone knows that! It's engines reduce it's payload, sensor capability, endurance, survivability,..... And the F-313 design is purposely made for subsonic flights ONLY and any 1st year aeronautical engineer would know that!

A single modified J-85 allowed the BD-10 to fly at Mach 1.4 & cruise at almost 1000kph but that doesn't mean it was a good aircraft to be used for combat!

Neither you nor me know that..

Actually I do know that FOR A FACT!

The F-313 would operate as defensive IADS asset during high intensity warfare. Only in very special cases like a tanker/AWACS hunt over sea surface, it would leave Irans borders. Btw. cruise missiles are then also very easy targets?.

Cruise Missiles are easy targets if you don't have the capability to map a correct rout! In fact the major hurdle for Iran's capability to use Land Attack Cruise Missile in large scales effectively is not targeting but rather the lack of space based assets that give you fast and up to date info to map a safe route for your cruise missiles to take to the target! If you fly cruise missiles in a straight line with no regard to land assets they will be easy pickings & nothing but target practice

This is a complex game of margins and I'm sure you have not calculated my F-313 operation regime. Again a poor judgment..

It's poor judgment for Iran to waist it's human resources & facilities on such a platform!

Beware of such statements. I even agree to some extend but I suspect you vastly underestimate what monumental task that is. Nor are you able to judge whether doing such a project offers enough bang for the bucks for Iran atm.

It will only be a huge undertaking if you try to re invent the wheel as Iran is trying to do with an absurd unconventional design like the F-313

Take a lesson from the Chinese & build a design based on known proven designs

The real question is WHY THE HELL doesn't Iran have the 2nd largest Military budget of the region! And I'm not advocating that Iran should go and buy a bunch of toy's to create jobs in other countries! We have the talent at home! We clearly have the money why shouldn't the government spend money to both create high tech jobs at home and make the country stronger!

Choosing a light fighter with small engines because you don't wanna pay the fuel costs in an oil rich country that's constantly under threat is reckless

For the country to compete globally the military needs to take charge and constantly push the boundaries of the countries capabilities or else science and technology growth will remain on theories and scientific papers & the top minds of the country will be recruited from the country to advance other countries capabilities

When you build the MOST advanced fighter, sub, robot,.... within your capability than all the subsystems that go with it and the composites and materials used and the tools, software & hardware developed to build it will all help increase the quality, quantity & variety of your civilian products
So it's not just about having a capable fighter!

As for the cost! Your using mines that are owned by the government for the materials & as long as nothing is imported the cost is irrelevant because whatever you pay as long as it's completely domestic then it's going right back into the countries economy and the key is to not let a single toman leave the country for any component & it will take as long as it takes as long as your pushing the boundaries of technologies to increase the countries capabilities
and any naysayers in your project should be fired and replaced with people that believe

 

[PeeD]

That's the problem when you look at initial purchasing price with a complete disregard to everything else! Even if your Airframe comes out to $30 Million USD as appose to $7 Million Iran's own history with it's own fleet has shown that it's well worth it!

You are too much in history. In 1980, the value and position of the airforce was much different than today with the advent of missiles and drones.

If designed on a proper platform your Titanium bulkheads & structure just as in the F-14 will not only increase your max G, survivability & potentially speed but it will last you for decades allowing for an expensive airframe to be overhauled & upgraded and improved upon for years on end that's why Airframe are the MOST expensive part of any capable fighter!

I claim terrain masking and low level flight + VLO is better than a high-G manouver, for missile evasion. Now what?

Why do you think aircrafts designed to make use of GE are mainly used on water? The Russian played around with GE for how long until they finally abandoned it? For a low budget country to not take note of other countries experiences in the development of it's own fighter is a colossal mistake!

Again you live in the past and take lessons of a technological past. Just like Russian subs were a better alternative than ground effect CM carriers (which is the reason why to didn't go forward with it) conventional airpower has better alternatives today for Iran.
Leaps in computers, memory, sensors totally change today form the 70's.

You basically saying the Aircraft is going to fly blind in terms of sensor capability & fully rely on ground systems for everything from areal targets to ground targets to even the location of every AAA & clearly that means don't comprehend the value of a Fighter! One of the main reasons countries have Aircrafts is because they know hitting an aircraft in the Air as appose to an asset on the ground at long ranges (+300km) is extremely hard & next to impossible!
And one of the main targets in an incoming attack is Radar, Sensors & communication and even if they did survive how deep into enemy territory do you think you can transmit secure information without detection without any space based assets?

The F-313 lacks the capability to be a useful offensive aircraft, hence it will mainly operate in friendly airspace with an advanced IADS. In cruise phase with GE it will be almost blind, but when it does the pop-up for target acquisition, its eyes will open. Irans IADS is more important than its airforce and hence will not be taken out anytime soon.

I'm sorry my friend but that's completely absurd! They made it square to deflect radar to make it look stealthy like the F-117
It has NOTHING to do with cost! It's a miss understanding as to what reduces your RCS & that's the angle of your surfaces not the cracks and until you develop a low RCS Canopy, cockpit & pilot gear what is the POINT? & in fact those cracks will work against you unless you fly straight towards the radar!

... I tell you that faceted stealth is certainly cheaper during airframe manufacturing. This is a fact, anyone with any knowledge in engineering knows this. Advanced curved stealth is harder to manufacture and hence more expensive...

Its stealth features look sound up until now and will improve for the flight prototype.

And they keep saying it's capable of short takeoff now comparatively with the same engines you can claim that it would require less runway compared to an F-5 for example but it is NOT a short take off aircraft because the engines are just not powerful enough to achieve the speed required in a short time unless assisted with another device or rocket

You can't credibly make that judgment. You know nothing about the involved parameters. Again you simplify things and get a distorted picture...

Yes it's more stabile than an F-117 due to it's wings! As I said they tried to solve the stability problem with that absurd wing design! So yes it will be very stable in subsonic flight but it will have problems in Yaw and if it ever reaches production model they'll either have to put controlled surfaces on the tip of the wings OR reduce it in size by at least 50% of more Or completely redesign the wings altogether

Again: You can't credibly make that judgment. You know nothing about the involved parameters. Again you simplify things and get a distorted picture...

At this stage we see 6 large yaw moment producing control surfaces on two wings,

The F-313 won't even be able to go transonic let alone supersonic & what limits it from going supersonic is it's design not it's engines! And even with 2 RD-33 it still wouldn't go supersonic! J-85 are capable of supersonic flight everyone knows that! It's engines reduce it's payload, sensor capability, endurance, survivability,..... And the F-313 design is purposely made for subsonic flights ONLY and any 1st year aeronautical engineer would know that!

A single modified J-85 allowed the BD-10 to fly at Mach 1.4 & cruise at almost 1000kph but that doesn't mean it was a good aircraft to be used for combat!

It is certainty subsonic. But you can't judge its speed, payload, endurance etc.
Just tell me why a T-38 can supercruise on dry J85? In your simplistic world, this should be impossible. A 4-5 ton jet go subsonic on 18KN =~1,8t thrust?
No, you cant make such judgment, aerospace is more complex than that.

Actually I do know that FOR A FACT!

Aha so how do you know the RCS of the F-117? We can approximate both in a paper of the size of a masters or better PhD degree via simulations. I myself think the F-117 has better stealth than the F-313, but I don't claim to know it for fact. You have a very flawed methodic.

Cruise Missiles are easy targets if you don't have the capability to map a correct rout! In fact the major hurdle for Iran's capability to use Land Attack Cruise Missile in large scales effectively is not targeting but rather the lack of space based assets that give you fast and up to date info to map a safe route for your cruise missiles to take to the target! If you fly cruise missiles in a straight line with no regard to land assets they will be easy pickings & nothing but target practice

Iran can have very good topological maps of the country for the F-313 to operate in and that's sufficient.
CMs are never easy to shot down and hard to detected both because of their low altitude and high subsonic speed. Now in Iran terrain masking gets added to this.
Btw. there is even a possibility that topological maps were captured with the RQ-170.

It will only be a huge undertaking if you try to re invent the wheel as Iran is trying to do with an absurd unconventional design like the F-313

Take a lesson from the Chinese & build a design based on known proven designs

They better re-invent the wheel, because they lack the key, a state of the art engine like at the moment just Russians (about to) and Americans have. To compete with a kinematic monster at high altitude, you need that key.
It looks like they just did the best thing possible for a country with inferior engine technology. A completely different approach which keeps it out of the kinematic-altitude game but can kill those.

Chinese at least were never as creative as Iranians in defense. We should be proud about such unconventional solutions.

Choosing a light fighter with small engines because you don't wanna pay the fuel costs in an oil rich country that's constantly under threat is reckless

Come on, it was never about fuel... It is about engines, engines and engines. If the RQ-170 was advanced to boost Iran to the edge of the competition, while to difficult to upscale, they better go for RQ-170 engine copies in the F-313. Its better than playing the 30-40 year old technology catch up game (RD-33/WS-10). A 10 year catch up game could be worth the effort.
I don't know whether the J90 is based on that engine but you mainly build a light fighter if you lack engine tech.
You also build light fighters to just buy the entry ticket into airpower. 100 license built Su-30 have no chance against US airpower, but 800 expandable F-313 might have.
Or more simple: 100 Su-30= joke, 800 F-313= a credible capability (still below IADS capability), 2000 F-313= a serious capability, 2000 Su-30= good way to bankruptcy= TKO.

For the country to compete globally the military needs to take charge and constantly push the boundaries of the countries capabilities or else science and technology growth will remain on theories and scientific papers & the top minds of the country will be recruited from the country to advance other countries capabilities

That unconventional, unproven, never existed in similar form, F-313 might be just that.

As for the cost! Your using mines that are owned by the government for the materials & as long as nothing is imported the cost is irrelevant because whatever you pay as long as it's completely domestic then it's going right back into the countries economy and the key is to not let a single toman leave the country for any component & it will take as long as it takes as long as your pushing the boundaries of technologies to increase the countries capabilities
and any naysayers in your project should be fired and replaced with people that believe

Agreed and fortunately we see just that. Soon a fighter subsystems will be built at home and then we can talk about the serial production of the F-313 (if it is a real project).