What's new

IRIAF | News and Discussions

people tends to confuse the capabilities of Su-35 and Su-30 with each other
su-30 is a waste o money for Iran . by the way I'm not a fan a flanker and I'm biased there, several years ago I would have supported the Idea of big airplanes , but now I believe the technology and dynamic of the war have changed now I'm fan of medium sized multirole fighter like Mig-35, J10-c or Grippen and F-16 and if they have some datalink capabilities that's a lot better


we were not talking about JF-17 we were talking about L-159 Alca what it have over Kowsar except that more efficient engine

who said buy Swedish airplane !? I said the strategy of a lot of airfield with small amount of equipment in each (AKA BAS-90, that's not an airplane name) instead 5-6 underground fortified fields that enemy can put out of commission in first strike for at least weeks , do we also have to buy the airfields from west ??
you very well can implement that strategy with airplanes such as J-10C, Mig-35 or even our own Kowsar.

by the way you also put the taught of Russia or china transfer some meaningful aviation technology to Iran before we ourself manage to build something of equal capabilities out of your head
SU-30SM2 allows for SU-35 capabilities and avionics in 2 seated platform. Iran should procure SU-35s first, as Russia still has some they desperately want to sell. Than get SU-30SM2, customized with a datalink that allows it to control drones
 
.
You think 200 small base is cheaper than 5 mountain bases?

You do realize those 200 small bases would need security, air defense systems, and supporting facilities, not to mention personnel. The Roads and nightmare of logistics of resupplying 200 bases with jet fuel and armaments.
our air defense is supposed to be distributed around our country , about logistic the amount of it won't change they need to change their distribution policy.
Building long enough runways to allow large jets to land to resupply the base with fuel and armaments.
Not all those bases are supported to host big jets , most of them only support small and medium size jets
Def not a good a idea. The mountain airbase is damn near impenetrable without high KT nuclear weapons. Makes much more logistics sense.
your problem is that you think they need to destroy the base completely , not they need to destroy the outlet of the base and that don't need nukes , some bunker buster fired from 100km away . big bases are outdated and not in line with Iran asymmetrical warfare. also if we are going to have kowsar for foreseeable future , then better to distribute them around country to compensate for the lack of range , your 5 base means all those kowsar and f-5 derivate won't reach combat zone or if they reach they could not carry meaningful amount ammunition or they don't have enough fuel to participate in anything
 
.
SU-30SM2 allows for SU-35 capabilities and avionics in 2 seated platform. Iran should procure SU-35s first, as Russia still has some they desperately want to sell. Than get SU-30SM2, customized with a datalink that allows it to control drones
as I said I believe medium sized multirole fighters suits us better . if you want you can get some for hauling bombs to the target , but the backbone of our airforce must be something in class of J-10c or Mig-35 or if people don't jump and say west won't sell us anything f-16 i put them here to show the class of the fighter these fighters have easier maintenance are cheaper to fly and can be procured in higher number as they are cheaper to build and if linked together or ground station can even surpass larger fighters in lethality.
 
.
engine aside in every metric that airplane is inferior to Kowsar
Your reply is doesn't make sense in anyway conceivable because the point of my suggestion is to design affordable advanced light multi-role fighter jet with L-159 Alca as being reference for specifications then adapt to the needs of IRIAF.

With success of Jahesh-700 has proven that it can in near future design much larger medium bypass turbofan for which that kind of aircraft would have nearly twice the range of Kowsar regardless of loadout with comparable carrying capacity of ordnance while overall consuming less jet fuel with new aircraft design then can avoid limitations that Kowsar has that it inherited from F-5 Tiger II with one of most notable aside jet engine being nosecone that limits size of radar antenna.
 
.
Your reply is doesn't make sense in anyway conceivable because the point of my suggestion is to design affordable advanced light multi-role fighter jet with L-159 Alca as being reference for specifications then adapt to the needs of IRIAF.

With success of Jahesh-700 has proven that it can in near future design much larger medium bypass turbofan for which that kind of aircraft would have nearly twice the range of Kowsar regardless of loadout with comparable carrying capacity of ordnance while overall consuming less jet fuel with new aircraft design then can avoid limitations that Kowsar has that it inherited from F-5 Tiger II with one of most notable aside jet engine being nosecone that limits size of radar antenna.
You can modify the kowsar fuselage to put the engine there and have the benefit of both plan just look at the design it's clear that f5 designed to be able to go supersonic while the philosophy behind Alca won't allow such things.
 
.
your problem is that you think they need to destroy the base completely , not they need to destroy the outlet of the base and that don't need nukes , some bunker buster fired from 100km away . big bases are outdated and not in line with Iran asymmetrical warfare. also if we are going to have kowsar for foreseeable future , then better to distribute them around country to compensate for the lack of range , your 5 base means all those kowsar and f-5 derivate won't reach combat zone or if they reach they could not carry meaningful amount ammunition or they don't have enough fuel to participate in anything
I don't understand your logic behind this. Would you like to store them above ground on the airfield waiting for the opponent to launch low RCS cruise missiles at them? Can you show a better idea to protecting your airbase from a Coalition of PG airforces who will be provided with prime intelligence and weapons or US/NATO itself?

Once your aircraft is destroyed their is no recovering them, the worse case of a mountain base is the blocking of the entrance, which can be cleared. Losing your inventory of aircraft is not replaceable, same goes with missile bases, drones bases, and anti-shipping missiles bases and tunnel networks (the same that China, Hezbollah, and Gaza strip groups use) . If you are saying all these are "not in line with Iran asymmetrical warfare" then I guess all that work they did was useless for years and building bases all over the country was wrong and we should just store them in above ground warehouse waiting to be destroyed in a first strike
 
.
I don't understand your logic behind this. Would you like to store them above ground on the airfield waiting for the opponent to launch low RCS cruise missiles at them? Can you show a better idea to protecting your airbase from a Coalition of PG airforces who will be provided with prime intelligence and weapons or US/NATO itself?

Once your aircraft is destroyed their is no recovering them, the worse case of a mountain base is the blocking of the entrance, which can be cleared. Losing your inventory of aircraft is not replaceable, same goes with missile bases, drones bases, and anti-shipping missiles bases and tunnel networks (the same that China, Hezbollah, and Gaza strip groups use) . If you are saying all these are "not in line with Iran asymmetrical warfare" then I guess all that work they did was useless for years and building bases all over the country was wrong and we should just store them in above ground warehouse waiting to be destroyed in a first strike
Wrong the important thing is not the aircraft themselves is the ability to mount retaliation .

If your aircraft are in 5 deep underground bases then it's not important if they are flight worthy or not if the entrance to those bases are destroyed with 10 bunker buster that 5 enemy aircraft fired at you

In case of what I proposed enemy needs hundreds of aircraft to destroy your equipment. You can put 5 aircraft in each bases and put them separately . You can complement them with drones .
And by the way for protecting your asset always dispersing them is better than gathering them at one location .

What I suggest give you second strike capabilities by what you suggest after first strike by enemy your sky will be their turf and you only have your air defense and only short range air defense because you had nothing to protect long range and early warning radars.

And a missile base is operating a lot different than an air base and in airbase you don't store fighters you operate them
 
.
You can modify the kowsar fuselage to put the engine there and have the benefit of both plan just look at the design it's clear that f5 designed to be able to go supersonic while the philosophy behind Alca won't allow such things.
You are overrating ability to go supersonic as we have seen in past 30 years that it is irrelevant when fighters get loaded to maximum acting as missile and bomb trucks.

Alca type airframe would allow gliding incase of engine faliure or engine being hit and disables unlike F-5 series.
 
.
You are overrating ability to go supersonic as we have seen in past 30 years that it is irrelevant when fighters get loaded to maximum acting as missile and bomb trucks.

Alca type airframe would allow gliding incase of engine faliure or engine being hit and disables unlike F-5 series.
if engine get hit there won't be any gliding because of the structural damage to the tail section , the gliding is applicable only in case of engine failure , the F5 can continue its flight with a single engine if one fail and its not just going supersonic , its the amount of ammunition it can carry and many other things , please tell me engine aside on what metric its superior to F5
 
.
if engine get hit there won't be any gliding because of the structural damage to the tail section , the gliding is applicable only in case of engine failure , the F5 can continue its flight with a single engine if one fail and its not just going supersonic , its the amount of ammunition it can carry and many other things , please tell me engine aside on what metric its superior to F5
Both engines of F-5 are next to each other, its not Su-25 nor Mig-29 nor Su-27/30/33/35 or Su-57 where there is adequate spacing that considerably reduces change of both engines being damaged if one is hit by SAM or AAM.

Even if tail is not damaged on F-5, it would fall like a rock unlike Alca.

Iran needs a decent turbofan engine that would reduce jet fuel consumption of the airforce to have more reserves in case of war or to increase flight hours of their pilots.
 
.
Both engines of F-5 are next to each other, its not Su-25 nor Mig-29 nor Su-27/30/33/35 or Su-57 where there is adequate spacing that considerably reduces change of both engines being damaged if one is hit by SAM or AAM.

Even if tail is not damaged on F-5, it would fall like a rock unlike Alca.

Iran needs a decent turbofan engine that would reduce jet fuel consumption of the airforce to have more reserves in case of war or to increase flight hours of their pilots.
as i said that glide feature only work if its engine fail not if it hit by sam .
in case of hitting by sam both airplane will fall , in case of engine failure , the remaining engine made F-5 fly home , the glide feature make Alca fly 10km away and hit the ground there .

by the way I wonder what you are insist on , we unveiled Yasin jet in 2017 and tested it in 2019 and then airforce was not impressed and decided it preferred Kowsar , it was heavier could carry less weapon and was slower


it could only carry 1100km of ammunition , Kowsar could carry twice
it could carry 1600kg of fuel, Kowsar could carry 2800kg
because it was smaller it could only house non-afterburning version of OWJ
max speed was 1000km , in case of Kowsar it was more than 1600km
range was 900km while Kowsar had a range of 1100km
ferry range was 1200km while Kowsar ferry range was 2900km
service ceiling was 11km in case of Kowsar more in line of 15km (without external fuel and weapons)

on plus side it had larger wings , larger flight control surface , all these my seems good to you but not for us as we lack suitable engines for these feature , and it only added to the resistance to air and hindered its maneuverability , that's why we had to scrap twine tail Saeqeh project our Owj engine is underpowered and until our more powerful engine become available we can't use those features . I only hope for an engine developed from Jahesh-700 in class of more powerful version of FJ-44-3 so the fuel economy become better for our light fighter and trainer program
 
Last edited:
.
A few dozen Su-35s and Su-30s would still be a great boost for Iran's aging Airforce. Su-30 is still a great, proven multirole fighter.

Yes Iran needs mountain bases for its Airforce I agree. Any other fighter other than the J-10 or Flanker platform is out of the question for Iran.

people tends to confuse the capabilities of Su-35 and Su-30 with each other
su-30 is a waste o money for Iran . by the way I'm not a fan a flanker and I'm biased there, several years ago I would have supported the Idea of big airplanes , but now I believe the technology and dynamic of the war have changed now I'm fan of medium sized multirole fighter like Mig-35, J10-c or Grippen and F-16 and if they have some datalink capabilities that's a lot better


we were not talking about JF-17 we were talking about L-159 Alca what it have over Kowsar except that more efficient engine

who said buy Swedish airplane !? I said the strategy of a lot of airfield with small amount of equipment in each (AKA BAS-90, that's not an airplane name) instead 5-6 underground fortified fields that enemy can put out of commission in first strike for at least weeks , do we also have to buy the airfields from west ??
you very well can implement that strategy with airplanes such as J-10C, Mig-35 or even our own Kowsar.

by the way you also put the taught of Russia or china transfer some meaningful aviation technology to Iran before we ourself manage to build something of equal capabilities out of your head

It's still a great trainer and Iran likely builds it for peanuts..great stepping stone for Iran. If not for the rise of drone technology Iran could have probably sold these to improvised countries like Ethiopia.

as i said that glide feature only work if its engine fail not if it hit by sam .
in case of hitting by sam both airplane will fall , in case of engine failure , the remaining engine made F-5 fly home , the glide feature make Alca fly 10km away and hit the ground there .

by the way I wonder what you are insist on , we unveiled Yasin jet in 2017 and tested it in 2019 and then airforce was not impressed and decided it preferred Kowsar , it was heavier could carry less weapon and was slower


it could only carry 1100km of ammunition , Kowsar could carry twice
it could carry 1600kg of fuel, Kowsar could carry 2800kg
because it was smaller it could only house non-afterburning version of OWJ
max speed was 1000km , in case of Kowsar it was more than 1600km
range was 900km while Kowsar had a range of 1100km
ferry range was 1200km while Kowsar ferry range was 2900km
service ceiling was 11km in case of Kowsar more in line of 15km (without external fuel and weapons)

on plus side it had larger wings , larger flight control surface , all these my seems good to you but not for us as we lack suitable engines for these feature , and it only added to the resistance to air and hindered its maneuverability , that's why we had to scrap twine tail Saeqeh project our Owj engine is underpowered and until our more powerful engine become available we can't use those features . I only hope for an engine developed from Jahesh-700 in class of more powerful version of FJ-44-3 so the fuel economy become better for our light fighter and trainer program
 
.
A few dozen Su-35s and Su-30s would still be a great boost for Iran's aging Airforce. Su-30 is still a great, proven multirole fighter.
what ever as I said , Iran don't need flankers as airplanes like J-10, F-16, Mig-35 ..... can take over their role easily and for a lot cheaper. and let say if equipped with datalink a lot better
Yes Iran needs mountain bases for its Airforce I agree. Any other fighter other than the J-10 or Flanker platform is out of the question for Iran.
no Iran don't need Mountain base as they will be make inoperable in first day of war .
they were good at 50s,60,s and probably 70s but advance in technologies and rise of satellite and guided and glide ammunition made them obsolete nobody is building them anymore.
It's still a great trainer and Iran likely builds it for peanuts..great stepping stone for Iran. If not for the rise of drone technology Iran could have probably sold these to improvised countries like Ethiopia.
why build it when a f-5 based trainer can do the same thing for you and you don't need to have two production line and more importantly if your fighters are going to fly Kowsar why not train them in two sit version of Kowsar ? you think we build the two sit version of it for what purpose ?
 
.
So underground mountain bases and airbases are useless ? Then I guess that Iran should give up building them for missiles as well ?

How is Ukraine still flying it's helicopters and planes then ? The truth is that underground, bases, fortified with military, industrial grade concrete layers can keep assets alive. This is less true against a superpower like the USA but against regional allies they're worth building imo.

I don't know what u have against SU-30 and SU-35 but I think that they're great multirole fighters that would greatly benefit Iran. 70 J-10s, 70 SU-30s and 40 SU-35s would be a great addition to Iran Airforce.

However Iran needs to keep working on drones and missiles as well, full steam ahead, so that in case of a war, especially against a regional foe, IRAN absolutely brings its adversary to its knees within weeks if not days.

what ever as I said , Iran don't need flankers as airplanes like J-10, F-16, Mig-35 ..... can take over their role easily and for a lot cheaper. and let say if equipped with datalink a lot better

no Iran don't need Mountain base as they will be make inoperable in first day of war .
they were good at 50s,60,s and probably 70s but advance in technologies and rise of satellite and guided and glide ammunition made them obsolete nobody is building them anymore.

why build it when a f-5 based trainer can do the same thing for you and you don't need to have two production line and more importantly if your fighters are going to fly Kowsar why not train them in two sit version of Kowsar ? you think we build the two sit version of it for what purpose ?
 
.
So mountain bases and underground are useless ? Then I guess that Iran should give up building them for missiles as well ?
you don't get it , the fighter must come out of the mountain , at flying speed , those missiles don't need to do so . also we can fire the missile from inside the base , we don't have such luxury for aircraft , the enemy bomb the door to the base , those aircrafts are as good as Saddam buried aircraft under the ground until several day that you can clear the door and in these time enemy have air dominance and can bomb the crew who are clearing the door to the base
How is Ukraine still flying it's helicopters and planes then ? The truth is that enderground, bases, fortified with military, industrial grade concrete layers can keep assets alive. This is less true against a superpower like the UuS but against regional allies they're worth building imo.
I yet to see Ukraine flying airplane and you can hide helicopter in barns , by the way can you point me to some of these under ground Ukrainian airbases ?
industrial grade concrete layers can keep assets alive. This is less true against a superpower like the UuS but against regional allies they're worth building imo.
and you must put aircraft in shelters made of military grade concert not under tent or such nonsense but you must disperse such facility to bases around country and each base must not hold more than 5-6 aircraft also airplane shelters must be at different part of the base not lined beside each other also you must not park several airplane in in one shelter. thats the key to survivability .

I don't know what u have against SU-30 and SU-35 but I think that they're great multirole fighters that would greatly benefit Iran. 70 J-10s, 70 SU-30s and 40 SU-35s would be a great addition to Iran Airforce.
very simple when i look at wargames around the world , they are not that impressive anymore , t6heir radars are old their sensors are old . in short russia is 1-2 decade behind the rest of the world when it come to electronic . that's my problem with them and they are expensive.
and Russia downgrade its export version of the military products too much ,
for example russian air force will get its mig-35 with Zhuk A/AM radar export version will get Zhuk-m , foreign buyers of Su-30 get Baes radar , Russians version will be equipped with Ibris-E. about engine Russia will get Al-41 , the rest of the world AL-31
and as I said I believe you for example can fly two medium fighters like j-10 instead of one Su-35

a su-30mk cost you 47million a su-35 cost you 85million a j10-c is 50 million now tell me which is better j-10c or su30-mk
 
Last edited:
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom