What's new

IRIAF | News and Discussions

.
Which issue is that, is it 06/2023 or another one? Yeah even i, a russian aircraft fanboy, think retiring F-14s even if Su-35 arrives is beyond dumb. 24 Su-35 is a too small number anyway. Only if somehow they get to replace on a one for one basis the F-14, F-4, F-5 etc. (so that is roughly 60 airframes each, 180 in total) with modern russian or chinese aircraft be it Su-35, Su-30, J-10, FC-1, J-31 etc. then retiring them would be justified, but even then what i would do is select the best 30-36 airframes of each, used the rest for spares, either keep then in IRIAF or give them to IRGC and upgrade them as fighter-bombers with all kinds of guided munitions, anti-ship and cruise missiles, even getting to F-14 armed with hypersonics like i suggested elsewhere.
f-14 is really not designed for that , for that you need a strategic bomber like Tu-160 or B-52 or Tu-22m only other aircraft that can carry it is specially modified Mig-31k that has a lot more sturdier air-frame than f-14
 
.
It was a very interesting read, good to see a lot of info collated in one place. Thanks for your effort and looking forward for the updated version.
I will comment on a few things later on, for now though, what is your assessment of this missile below? It doesn't seem to be present in your file, at least there is no picture of it.
DrMeson says this is the Azaraksh-1 all-aspect CCD dogfight missile (this seems to be different from the Azaraksh-2X AIM-9X like missile in your file). I'm very curious how the rear end looks like.
 
.

Based on this, I expect IRIAF to unveil something this Iranian calendar year (till March 2024).

Sounds like Kowsar-II or “mass production” of Yasir.

Very very low chance of Iranian ‘Next Gen’ Fighter, but not zero %.
to me sound like those Kowsar-1 airframe we saw previously probably are finished or some of them are finished we see them delivered
 
.
It was a very interesting read, good to see a lot of info collated in one place. Thanks for your effort and looking forward for the updated version.
I will comment on a few things later on, for now though, what is your assessment of this missile below? It doesn't seem to be present in your file, at least there is no picture of it.
DrMeson says this is the Azaraksh-1 all-aspect CCD dogfight missile (this seems to be different from the Azaraksh-2X AIM-9X like missile in your file). I'm very curious how the rear end looks like.
Thank you.

I have some pics of one-off Iranian WVR AAMs. Saw it once and not again.

Remembered these and therefore did not assign a - number to the CCD capable Azaraksh. I think my thought at the time was, rather let it slip than assigning an incorrect - number to it. I will certainly try and dig this image out. It was two missiles side by side but with different designations. It think that the one ended with XXA and the other with XXB. Can't swear by this until I unearth this image though.

The seeker cone of Azaraksk-1 looks larger to me than that of Fatter. Could this perhaps be it:
vlcsnap-2019-04-26-21h27m26s780.jpg

The rear and front stabilizers seems to differ from that of Azaraksk-2 for instance.


I have not seen many great pics of Fatter, but the seeker cone of it appears to be smaller than that of the above one. Something that have always tickled me is what happened to Azaraksk-1 if it started with -2 ? We could in all probability be looking at it. DrMeson could just have solved this puzzle.

Have uploaded the updated paper dated today to the same drop box URL. It is now posted as IRI FCA2 Parts 1 -5. I have also left the previous version up if someone perhaps wants to refer back. Enjoy
 
.
Thank you.

I have some pics of one-off Iranian WVR AAMs. Saw it once and not again.

Remembered these and therefore did not assign a - number to the CCD capable Azaraksh. I think my thought at the time was, rather let it slip than assigning an incorrect - number to it. I will certainly try and dig this image out. It was two missiles side by side but with different designations. It think that the one ended with XXA and the other with XXB. Can't swear by this until I unearth this image though.

The seeker cone of Azaraksk-1 looks larger to me than that of Fatter. Could this perhaps be it:
vlcsnap-2019-04-26-21h27m26s780.jpg

The rear and front stabilizers seems to differ from that of Azaraksk-2 for instance.


I have not seen many great pics of Fatter, but the seeker cone of it appears to be smaller than that of the above one. Something that have always tickled me is what happened to Azaraksk-1 if it started with -2 ? We could in all probability be looking at it. DrMeson could just have solved this puzzle.

Have uploaded the updated paper dated today to the same drop box URL. It is now posted as IRI FCA2 Parts 1 -5. I have also left the previous version up if someone perhaps wants to refer back. Enjoy
That-is Ghamar-e-Bani-Hashem , the missile while can be used against aerial targets was actually built to be something like HellFire and target surface vehicles
 
. . . .
That-is Ghamar-e-Bani-Hashem , the missile while can be used against aerial targets was actually built to be something like HellFire and target surface vehicles
Thank you for the info.
 
. .

Iran's Defense Minister said:​

This report is Media speculation
It is mostly spread by Turkish media, i think that they do it on purpose.

Dragging sensitive military deals to media before even confirming it by state officials, makes negative margins. And allows third parties to exploit it.
 
. .
. .
Back
Top Bottom