I don't care what manned airpower Russians operate since WWI to the 90's.
I care which of their weapon systems were game changers. The Oka was one, the Mig-25 not.
... well I don't know how we came back on that topic... Either you don't understand what I write or I write unclear.
1st You claimed the Russian have chosen Air Defense systems like S-400 over fighters because they've built no more than a handful of Su-Pak-Fa!
So I showed you how many fighters they have added to their fleet in the past decade alone!
Then you claimed that the main threat to NATO was a 500km Ballistic Missile produced between 1979 - 1987!
Vs 100's of large supersonic, high altitude bombers they had active each capable of flattening a city or an Air Base! And a 500km Oka missile & today's Iskandar missiles are NOTHING compared to the lethality of those bombers & every weapons has it's use!
Systems like the Oka & today's Eskandar have the capability to cripple enemy Radar, Communication & disrupt operations at bases within RANG!
Even with the USSR's old boarder that missile was not something that could pose a threat to most EU countries it couldn't even fly past Germany! So again your statement is absurd!
Detection depends on the LO or VLO level of the F-313. Only very powerful radars such as the APG-81 might be able to pick up a stealth F-313 from ranges beyond 100km. My open source calculations show that a F-313 with a RCS of 0,02m² would be able to go undetected to around 100km against the APG-81.
But even if it is detected, we talk about distances of 100km range. Which AMRAAM variant do they want to use to catch the F-313 before it shoots and dives down?
OMG your contradicting yourself! 1st ether the Aircraft can go undetected at high altitudes up to 100km or NOT! Which is it! If it can then why the hell do you need GE? It is absurd to have a pilot fly in a high risk environment for NO GOOD reason! If your building a fighter to only fly over your own territory & it's stealth characteristics protect it from detection & targeting up to 100km then you would have to be insane to deploy the added drags of an increased GE capability on your fighter jet!
You said you plan on climbing at 130km sowing your belly & it's a miss calculation on your part to think it would be stealthy!!!!! And what would be the point if they can't detect you at 100km away why the hell would you fly low and then be forced to clime painstakingly slowly to get to an optimal altitude so you can fire your Fakour-90's! 2ndly when a missiles MAX range is 90km that means it has that range when firing it at high altitude at supersonic speeds! The Fakkour-90 Max range fired from F-313 in the most optimal condition possible will at best be 60-70km! In Iran-Iraq war F-14 pilots would hold off firing the AiM-54 until they got to within 30-50km
from 1979 until 1987 So you again know more than anyone else. The belly RCS of the F-313 is too large to counted U.S radars? No. In stealth even larger but featureless area (such as the F-313 belly), can have a lower RCS than a front with intakes and cockpit.
WRONG! Using radar deflection, if the U.S. had made the F-117 any bigger it would have been detected!
So No! The cracks aren't what made the F-117 stealthy it's a miss conception it's was the angle of the surface that gives you the stealth features & the reason the US Air force chose not to make the F-117 more aerodynamic was because they thought it was MAGIC & due to a lack of understanding of what it was that made it stealthy they chose to keep it like that! And now that they do understand those methods they aren't being used anymore
And it's your absolute miss understanding as to how a radars works makes you think that you can somehow show your belly and remain stealth! The F-117, F-22 or the F-313 would not remain stealth by showing their belly the is why the F-22 was made to force the pilot into a straight and stabile flight & this is why the F-117's got pre programed to fly straight & maintain a direct path to their designated target!
Making the aircraft square doesn't effect cost! If anything any structural designers would tell you that you would end up with a weaker Airframe which would in term require you to use more materials which results in an increase cost!
Curved structure is one of reasons why a Turtles shell is strong it is why Soda cans are made round instead of square...
The F-22/-35 also uses deflection + RAM, just in a more advanced manner necessary for its aerodynamic requirements.
Yes the F-22 uses various types of stealth features including but not redistricted to deflection! they use various methods in different parts and I suspect they even use a honeycomb design likely with a mix of ceramic, iridium,.... with an interior honeycomb matrix design to make a bulky but stealthy & high heat resistant TVC
I think I know what you want to say. But it is wrong. F-22 and F-117 stealth work in the same way, no need for straight flight nonsense. Both have RCS management with certain spikes...
WRONG! As explained before, the F-117 uses deflection & the RAM used on it is ONLY for the purpose of getting a clear deflection off the reflective surfaces of the aircraft! NOTHING MORE!
you have a very simplistic, useless view. You want to detect the F-313 starting the pop-up with IRST against a warm ground, in warmer air, at what ranges? 100km? 150km? What would the range be against a afterburner equipped aircraft? 200km?
As long as the non-afterburning F-313 at its pop-up remains undetected till the F-90 shoot, it has won.
Long range known IRST have ~40-50km max range depending on whether its the front or back or weather you have afterburners on or off! Although every advanced country in the world is working to increase that and the most advanced versions of any country is not likely to be made public!
Body heat from a human can be detected on the ground using advanced optics let alone an Aircraft! Here your special RQ-170 engine with the thermal signature of the UAV being detected with Iranian optics
The good thing is, those systems are just expensive and difficult in R&D, production can be very low cost. A very good thing. Unlike engines, which are difficult in R&D AND production AND raw materials...
So Iran better makes max. use of that advantage.
One of the few good point you made. Yes terrain masking will pose a problem. What I want to see are not just com-sats but high flying relay drones in very large numbers, a kind of expandable drone based satcom. Not just for the F-313 but anything.
New avionics like that need to be first developed for the F-313 and then we can think about if it's worth the money to upgrade the IRIAF legacy force with it. In some instances new avionics are implemented.
Whats frontal RCS had the F-5? 1-2m² frontal? What the F-14? 6-8m²? This is 4-8 times RCS difference. In stealth we want to achieve 10-20-25 times less RCS in X-band. At 20 times, things become serious and Americans dream/claim about 35-40 times these days. The Objective for the F-313 should be 20 times.
Your claiming with $8-10Million USD per aircraft Iran can not only build the aircraft but build 100 per year! If building advanced Avionics, electronics & sensor fusing an Aircraft was so cheap and easy they would have done it here
And I'm not saying it's out of Iran's capabilities but what I am saying is the cost will add up to a point that it would not make sense to put a pilot & those electronics on a platform with a cheap airframe & limited payload!
Sorry, I'm not that stupid. No, its about the AMRAAM that does 80km head on at 12km altitude and mach 1,8. But this is for a target which is also at 12km altitude. At 20m, the same AMRAAM shot under the same conditions will have to go down into dense atmosphere and retain G-capability. It means, against a F-313 that AMRAAM would have a range of 50km, while 80km against a Su-35. You are just not aware of such effects...
Why would you think an AMRAM's range would be any different against a F-313 vs a Su-35?
1st you said you plan on taking altitude at 130km away are you changing that? If your planning on staying at 20meters altitude up to 50km even if you could get that close at what range do you plan on taking altitude? Worst case for US fighter is that they see you at 50km but can't lock on using radar base missiles so they'll either turn around make you chase something you can't catch & empty your fuel or speed up and dive for an IRST lock at ~35-40km before you can get within weapons range
But more likely than not they'll lock on using radar based AMRAMS long before you can get within 50km
Good. The F-313 better also uses RAM. But the point is: The Americans spent 2billions an airframe for something that is not survivable on its own? No. They changed it mid during development to offer the low level evasion capability.
It better be escorted by F-22 yes, but it is not completely helpless, it dives down an disappears if the package gets intercepted.
Just like the F-117 the F-313 would have to use RAM coating for a clear Radar deflection! The F-117 didn't use RAM to build the skin or structure it's just paint!
Aha... I didn't say it uses honeycomb composite its just one possibility. But what I say is that you have no idea about composites and manufacturing.
I try to tell you how it works: a rounded F-22 like stealth design computed and tested has very tight form tolerances. If you want to build those parts with say a sandwich composite, the necessary efforts =costs are much higher.
Now imagine how much cheaper a faceted stealth design with even surfaces is...
You have little understanding of composites, structural design & manufacturing if you think that's true!
And again it's Ti used & Ti casting what made the F-22 expensive! It has nothing to do with round vs square
Please, don't repeat yourself about Ti. The Su-57 is about the have equal or better supercruising capabilities than the F-22 by using more composite material...
If the F-313 has a composite based sandwich bodypart design with integrated RAM at lower price than Al or Ti, then everything is fine.
If a sufficiently good facet stealth is developed for major airframe sections, so that those composite bodyparts can be even geometry, even higher cost savings are possible. Bear in mind, as sub-sonic design, there is no need for complex/expensive rounded stealth for aerodynamic reasons.
Long range shoots (needed as F-313 would shoot at 100km), are always at the edge of the envelope, speed won't be mach 4 at 12km altitude and wont be more than mach 2,5 at 50m altitude.
If it becomes reality, expect optical warning sensors for the production F-313.
The F-22 uses 42% Ti + composites + it's Ti casting of large part that removes the need for a bunch of bolts that not only further reduces it's weight but also gives it a smoother surface & that = less drag, higher thrust to weight ratio, more room for fuel!!!! which = Super cruise!
You'll NEVER get a 100km from the Fakour-90 off the F-313! NOT POSSIBLE AT ANY ALTITUDE
The Turks have started a project for a 5th gen. fighter, a 20 billion project until production stage. They will get help on engines from GB and help from various European companies. South Korea is doing another such textbook airpower project, Indians have one such too.
Such projects are immensely difficult and in total too conventional textbook approached for Iran.
-Iran of 1990 was thinking about deterring Israel in future.
-Iran of 2000 could deter Israel and was thinking about wining a conventional war against Israel and deter the U.S.
-Iran of 2010 could force ceasefire (win) in a conventional war upon Israel and had a deterrence against the U.S.
-Iran of 2020 should be able to annihilate Israel and force ceasefire (win) a conventional war against the U.S
-Iran of 2030 should be able to put a high (conventional) destructive risk against U.S mainland.
How can such ambitions afford a 20 billion, 15 years textbook project for manned airpower?
The notion that Iran can't afford to add $1.5 Billion a year towards a fighter program is absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sub systems developed on such a program have wider implications and will result in the growth of the country in various fields both in terms of civilian & military products!
It's NOT just about a fighter!
As for the engine I would say Iran would have to develop it's OWN! It wouldn't matter if the engine is a larger Turbojet engine as long as it's the MOST advanced engine within Iran's capabilities!
Everything from the materials used to the sub components will help the countries economy grow by expanding the production of various alloys and sub systems....
Any Iranian politician, leader or... that thinks that after 40 years of not upgrading the countries Fighter Fleet SHOULD BE SHOOT!
Where is Iranian petrol dollars & tax money going? We have real problem on our hands if we are stuck with leaders who think paying $1.5 Billion a year to develop our own fighter is too high a price to pay especially after almost 40 years of neglect of Iran's Air Force!
$1.5 Billion a year is NOT going to make or break Iran! It won't turn Iran into a super power if spent on increased Missile production & It won't break Iran if spent on a fighter program!
The need to produce various super alloys like Titanium, Iridium, Tungsten, CMC,.... go well beyond the need to produce a fighter!
Even the components that aren't duel use in a fighter are made out of materials that are!
On one hand you claim that Iran can't afford to pay $1.5 Billion for a fighter program & on the other hand you claim we can somehow afford a high cost war against Israel & the U.S. without even needing an advanced Air Force!
And the capability your suggesting Iran will have in the next 3 years without an advanced Air Force is absurd let alone your claims for the next decade!
To win a war against the U.S. in the M.E. and have a true deterrent this is what you'll need in the next decade!
1.A fleet of 500 Su-35/37 (or better) + 60 5th Gen Stealth Air Superiority fighters Su-PAK, J-31 or F-22's & you'll need 4-5 new bases across central Iran with bunkers that are harder to hit & capable of faster deployment.
2.A Fleet of at least 10 Supersonic Bombers B-1 or Tu-22M type
3.A fleet of at least 5 Large size AWACS + 20 Smaller to mid size AWACS + 20 Air born UAV control & command
4.A fleet of 20-50 Small to mid size Air refueling Tankers! (Iran should of attempted to redesign the AN-140 into a more glide capable Airframe strengthened with composites for military use only! equipped with a variant of Iranian Owj engines!
(Basically for your Air Force you'll need to spend $12-$15 Billion a year for the next decade with a mix of purchases and domestic products)
5.1000 armed version of the Simorgh UCAV (or better)
6.1000's of MALE UCAV's
7.You'll need 25 Battalions of S-300 or Bavar-373 spread across the country with at least 500-600 Tel's on top of what Iran already has today
8.You'll need a stock of 10,000 Cruise Missiles & Karrar's & the ability to fire at least 1000 per day
9.You'll need 10,000 MRBM missiles with the ability to fire 1000 per day all with the accuracy of 200 meters or less and you'll need 10,000 Zolfaghar & Fatteh Class missiles CEP 50 meters or less!
10.You'll need 30 Fatteh Class subs or larger for your blue water sub fleet!
And if all you have is 30,000 missiles & you fire 3000 per day you'll just run out in 10 day's or you can just fire 300 per day and you would still run out in 100 day's!!!! It's a delusion to think you can replace an Air force with a bunch of Missiles!