It is actually within Iran’s realm of technology. You forget Bavar required millions of lines worth of code to function. Building a supersonic wing design that can carry 1000-2000lb payloads is not as difficult as you think.
A flying wing or delta wing has already been mastered by Iran. Enlargement is no problem. Radar absorbing paint has been demonstrated at university level years ago. Honeycomb design was recently unveiled less than 2 years ago.
The only issue is a supersonic drone engine.
The issue with your thinking (and
@PeeD) is your imagining a supersonic engine that needs to last hundreds if not thousands of hours. That is true for manned fighter jets and bombers. For a supersonic drone an engine that last <100 hours is sufficient, especially in the beginning.
Thus the issue is engine and as
@EvilWesteners has said. There are retired engineers in Iran who worked in the West on top of the line engines for RR and others. If the will is there, IRGC can tap a significant education base to build a supersonic drone engine.
Trust me when I say this. What you think is very very far away, is actually within reach. The will and effort is what is missing.
In my opinion, excellent points of discussion by
@TheImmortal @AmirPatriot @PeeD @Sina-1 - and others who have had some very good points regarding this in the past.
Reading these scenarios and potential uses, both in fighter jets as well as potential use in supersonic UAV and future needs and potential capability, Iran needs to select ONE GOOD engine platform and use it again and again.
The benefits (so much more) out weighs the negatives. In so many ways. Standardization may have been a word from 1990s, but it is still VERY applicable for countries that are not cash rich and/or trying to catch up.
Yes, it would be ideal to have a great turbofan (believe me, I would love that for Iran, since this is what I worked on most of my career), but it is more reasonable, quicker, faster, and more probable for Iran to have only one engine and standardize on this. Hence why I had suggested something like an R35.
No I don't love this engine, and yes it does have high fuel consumption in standard configuration, although I know some German friends of mine just love this engine to death (quite a few of these engines sitting around in Germany), but it offers many different things that ARE DECEPTIVE and hence allow Iran to get to a certain point, QUICKLY.
First, lets start with the (what I can only call) racist and biased (to the point of deliberate ignorance), how the Western media and so called aviation experts regard everything Iran builds as ... "copy, or crap, or junk, or 1970s, ..." etc. etc. You all know what I am talking about.
Great. I cannot ask for more than to be underestimated. Glad they put Iran down, and regard it with little to no regard for its defense capabilities, despite having their @$$ handed to them in Ayn al-Asad, and Erbil. The CIA station chief in Netherlands quit and moved back to Spain as he had protested that killing Sulleimani will only force Iran to demonstrate what "we already know" about Iran's balastic missile, and then "you can't put that cat back into the bag again".
So, at least I am glad that Iran is underestimated.
I would much prefer Iran does not fall into the trap of Western media coordination with the U.S. military to force Iran's ego to divulge things that may not be ready to divulge so they can go after the sourcing and suppliers and distributed funding structure. But I am sure and I hope, the Iran acquisition structure is much smarter than me.
If Iran tried to build a "so-called" 1970s technology turbojet, there wouldn't be any warning lights going off. They can do this within a year (the infrastructure setup), and get help from out of work engineers in Russia, setup many factories they need. None of this would be a significant worry to anyone that may usually care.
If anything, this is somewhat deceptive as these same groups would even prefer that Iran is "investing" in old technology rather than new.
But in reality it is not true. The truth, that I was remind of, almost every single freaking meeting I ever had at RR, ... "that engine is lower cost of manufacturing vs. that other one, and it is much easier to build than this other one, and maintenance is much lower than that other one ...".
Turbojets are CHEAP to design, manufacture, and (unbeknown to many people) it is much easier to build than turbofans. Yes, aviation industry has made an ART out of manufacturing high bypass commercial airliner jet engines, BUT that is not so true with low bypass fighter jet class jet engines.
I ran into someone in a conference in Las Vegas a few years ago, and he use to work in Germany on EuroJet. He is an exceptional French engineer. He works in U.S. on the F35 engine. He was cursing in French how difficult the engine development had been in the F35 program, he was at one point, involved in it. Because they really wanted to iron out many issues that maintenance crew had to suffer through with other U.S. aircraft engines. I should know. Always barking at me, for so many things. If you ever meet someone who has worked on A4, ask them what they like about the aircraft. They would reply, the engine, the engine, the engine.
I believe there are very few engines (no matter what they seem like to the public) that are as good of a quality and reliability and performance as the EuroJet. The Americans wanted to catch up, and I think they have even surpassed the Eurojet and now Eurojet is coming up (have been working on for quite some time) that is pretty awesome on paper. Borderline thrust to weight ration of 11 with incredible fuel efficiency, lower heat signature with exhaust cooling, and some pretty good materials engineering. It's good. Really good.
Every project is about compromise, and what you can sacrifice and what you cannot.
If Iran can sacrifice fuel consumption and lower lifespan of an engine, and get in return high thrust (both afterburner and military), a reliable, self-sufficient with parts and repair and manufacturing, and a well tested (relatively) technology that it has many known knowns so they get up and running really fast, THEN (all together) Iran would be foolish to ignore and pass on this.
This level of incompetence with such an opportunity is borderline suicide and at this level, it will not suffer fools.
R35 can be standardized (if not, then Al21), and an engine with almost 30k/20k pounds of thrust is highly flexible and useful with a variety of applications, and offer single engine, twin, or even four engines for some bombing platforms.
Even a non afterburner engine can produce supersonic (supercruise) speed for relatively small aircraft, say something the size of a MAKO the project proposed by EADS before the breakup and their fighting and bickering which the Swedish picked up and ran with.
Yes, I still remember that it is a turboJET - not forgotten. But it also offers some great benefits. Iran has tested J79 platform with altitude enhancers for F4 back in 1977. It knows (I hope still) how to use distilled water and oxidizers to boost engine to go to higher altitude and still keep the engine cool. Higher altitude is what everyone use to talk about in late 1980s.
It has many benefits, one in particular, is better radar performance against stealth (bombers).
With F-14 deeply ingrained in Iran's veins now, it is not that difficult for Iran to produce something similar to F-111B or even FB-111A. I worked on that aircraft, it was not (structurally) - even avionics actually come to think of it - that much different than F-14. That is what was used to bomb Libya killing Ghadafi's baby (how people forgive Western genocide so quickly).
Iran also has had one of the best pedigrees in all the air forces in the world, when it comes to aerial refueling. I don't know what level they are now at this time, I don't have any information regarding that. But I would assume they can still hold their own, and somehow still can ramp up if needed.
TU-22M is quite impressive bomber. But I don't see how Iran needs this anytime soon, considering the size of its land, unless it starts to have bases further away.
But if Iran could build enough titanium then may be, just may be, it is possible for Iran to build a 4-engine similar weight class aircraft, if needs be.
Finally, I hope Iran knows how to implement 3 engine tricks for performance boosting. 1) distilled water with oxidizers for high altitude flight (as I mentioned before), 2) laser welding, of a particular level, like the German project as in Siemens, which Russians were blamed for espionage actives, 3) high strength cobalt manufacturing. Cobalt (which aviation media almost never talks about for whatever the reason) can be made to be 6 times stronger than titanium, (also great for landing gear since it is also non-brittle) which Iran 'HAS' all the 'THINGS' it needs to 'MANUFACTURE IT' to that level. Just needs the know how. Also a great additive. Essential additive. Practically impossible to be without the 2nd tier additive for alloy manufacturing. All other 'stuff' not a problem. Iran has many universities and those great Chem Eng graduates and metallurgic specialists can do the job.
One high thrust engine, even a reliable turbojet, that is manufactured economically at large quantities in Iran, used in multiple practical platforms, can overnight change the way Iran WOULD HAVE TO BE TREATED by the superpowers. It is almost as essential as having nukes.
One thing that all war planners have been thinking of for thousands of years: COST OF WAR.
Iran should make others THINK VERY CAREFULLY of cost of war, as they did when Iran retaliated for Sulleimani's assassination.
Iranian aviation military specialists do review this forum from time to time. But then, so do CIA and Mossad and other intelligence agencies.
The question is: which of the top level government officials can be convinced to act and act quickly for the sake of an essential project.
