Doesn't Iran own Krashuka-4?As I predicted, you have zero understanding of IP/Patent rights and yet absolute stubbornness toward learning something new. Now I am wondering do you even know what a patent actually is and how it operates.
Since it went above your head last time, I will copy-paste my previously posted difference between TOT and LP again, I understand totally why you can't fathom it, but other members obviously will.
In terms of the transfer of manufacturing procedure, TOT and LP can mean the SAME thing. These are loose overlapping terms and have nothing to do with the manufacturing process of a multi-component machine where one component can be made from raw materials by the client while others are assembled from CKD kits in the client's premises. Rather, the difference is more about Intellectual Property Rights and sharing of Profit $$ from further business. Loosely but legally speaking:
Technology Transfer
1) Transfer of manufacturing process
2) Transfer of Patent/IP rights to do the following:
(a) Permission to upgrade
(b) Re-designate the components and final products
(c) Sell the products
(d) Keep the profits
Licensed Production
1) Transfer of manufacturing process
2) None or less than full Patent/IP rights
(a) Not-Permitted to upgrade without consultation with original IP owner
(b) Can not Re-designate since IP owner owns the design+label
(c) Can sell the product
(d) But will share the profits with IP owner
China, India, and Iran can make Russian Turbofans under either "licensed production" or "TOT" depending upon Lyulka-Saturn's extent of "IP" sharing with CAC (China), HAL(Indos), TEM/MAPNA/OWJ (Iran) respectively. Where in the assembly line the production starts in the client country depends upon that client's own understanding of national industrial capability and level of IP sharing by vendor based upon how much $$ based autonomy the vendor (Lyulka-Saturn) awards to the client (OWJ, TEM, MAPNA).
In theory, OWJ can hypothetically use a local metallurgical/material manufacturing base to manufacture blades, the compressor, turbine, and shaft at home but if Lyulka/Saturn does not transfer the IP to do so then its a meager licensed production where the label of the end product will be maintained as Saturn AL-31. On the other hand, Saturn can initially provide CKD kits with Russian blades, compressors, turbine, shaft, body, etc but allows Iran to own the IP/Patent, twist the patent data, sell the product on its own, upgrade it as per its wishes, modify it locally, and re-designate it then it's a TOT despite the fact that initial production was just CKD kits based. Like I said overlapping terms.
Neither the article author nor you have seen the contract between Lyulka/Saturn and HAL. You can sit here and pass your made-up terms like 100% TOT vs 51.8995% TOT but in real-world contracts are not assembled like that. They are built the way I explained above. IP rights matter and final $ sharing matters.
Indian decision to get on with Safran and GE has nothing to do with Lyulka-Saturn not giving them full rights to patent, it has lots more to do with changing politics of India moving towards the Western alliance. India is becoming more of a client of Western tech then Russian now. Their Tejas flies on Western engines, avionics, and armaments, Rafale is replacing the entire soviet era fleet. India is just not interested in Russian tech that much anymore.
Then provide evidence in the form of a written contract between two organizations where it is stated (your quote) "sensitive components, the metallurgy techniques, and the engine computer" will not be shared. This is your direct quote "No country gives away its prized jet engine tech to anyone. Period." A simple way to prove yourself right will be through evidence like how I do.
Hmm, your opinion matters as much as toilet paper in front of Giant Tech Organizations doing hundreds of millions and billions of USD business with each other.
Hint: Swedish Volvo RM-12 is GE F-404 with even the blades, FAEDEC modified.
What are you on about?
Indian TEJAS fighter for which they needed Turbofan is barely 10-15 % of the Indian fighter fleet so the political will to develop homegrown tech has been weak resulting in less funds and less dedication of expertise. This is one of the reasons behind an unreliable/weak product called Kaveri Turbofan. The same case is with Iranian attitude towards Fighters jets overall. It has less to do with the country's capability but more to do with what leadership wants.
Still to this day, which existing aircraft in the Indian fleet will be powered by local Turbofan is a mystery since
- The deal with GE + SAFRAN is for commercial Turbofans not military
- Except for Tejas (10-15% of fleet), none of the Indian AF is flying on America engines.
Just because you are technically illiterate (Simulation vs real-life, no knowledge of IP/Patent rights, measuring TOT/LP in %, no understanding of RCS importance), you seem to think that in the modern world where countries like China and then Korea, Japan, India, Iran, Brazil, Turkey are producing millions of STEM grads, giving out massive Engineering R&D output, some half a century old metallurgy technique is "national secret" now that these countries can not have? Say this to scientists in materials lab in China with H-Index exceeding ~200 each, that they can not replicate the 45 years blades of AL-31 from the 1970s they will laugh in your face. It is a matter of political will and $$, nothing else, which dictates allocated resources.
It is just like saying that because technologically advanced countries like Japan has no Nuclear weapon or Ballistic missile so Japan must be lacking the technology to build a century-old fission warhead and a projectile to deliver it. In reality, this means Japan so far had none or weak reasons to spend a HUGE amount of resources on that technology. Political will was not there because the need was not considered urgent. Hence;
- Local R&D was not invested in
+
- Weak effort was put in acquiring Foreign IP/Patent rights from $$ hungry corps in West/Russia
This was the case with China till 1990s-2000. Chinese entered the game late but when they deemed their air arm needed modernization, their progress rate exceeded everyone else's
First mass-produced Chinese Turbofan = Late 1990s-Early 2000s
First mass-produced American Turbofan = 1960s
First mass-produced British Turbofan = 1960s
First mass-produced Russian Turbofan = 1970s
First mass-produced French Turbofan = 1970s
There is a GAP of ~30-40 years of combat aviation experience between China and Western countries forget India and Iran. Still Chinese produced some 300-400 x WS-10 Turbofans which are in use of PLAAF. Usually, I give markers like R&D H-Index + $$ + Industrial output etc in the relevant field but you are naive in the matter so I will pass.
Evidence exists in the form of An Iranian official, head of a national prestigious organization showing AL-31 as an Iranian future product.
Oh I have an excellent idea that Manteghi is a decorated official speaking on behalf of IRI-State.
Between Mantheghi (decorated national tech veteran, academician) and challenged-memory troll (you), I believe in him. I am sure no one will blame me for this bias towards tech veterans compared to illiterate trolls on the internet with no understanding of how simulation correlates to real-life values, how patents work etc.
Irrelevant example. Iran did not bargain full autonomy of IP-Rights based upon whatever reasons were there, which could be cost, logistics, brand value, vendor's high cost of some of the Patent clauses, 10 different reasons.
Iran, India, and Turkey so far had no reason to have a national drive to produce a turbofan. They purchased aircraft in bulk and had weak local fighter jet programs. Iran never seriously tried to have a totally local fighter hence the rebuilt F-5 program. Indian effort was weak (MIG-21-93 still flying). Turkey is a baby in combat aviation, they are making strides though with an amazing formula of procuring Western products + propoganda.
The day push comes to shove, nations acquire technology one way or another. PRIME EXAMPLE is Pakistan which ranks at a hilarious ~40 position in Engineering R&D in the last two decades. Their Per Capita Income is lower than Cameroon, but because their survival was in danger they acquired nuclear weapons. Stole and smuggled G2, CNOR centrifuges from Nederland, modified them indigenously, homegrown the bulk production and now they have what 180 weapons?
For 50-60 years no country outside Major western powers+USSR had any strong reason to have a national drive for domestic turbofans so the gap existed for decades but the gap has decreased in last 10-15 years because R&D is no longer an exclusive western-dominated game as it used to be. Again the markers are there for those who understand, not you offcourse. For you, the markers of advancements will become "mental gymnastics" "google" "chatgpt" "blah blah" "over-complicated".
- India did not have the extreme level drive to develop a local turbofan equivalent to AL-31, they do not even have a existant local fighter jet that needs 30000 lbf wet thrust
- China needed it so WS series came (400 units deployed). The way things are going in R&D + $$$ Chinese will dominate the turbofan market in coming decade.
Where is it written in the conjecture-based article that India was dying for starting the manufacturing process from ores being extracted out of mountains? Nobody knows what HAL bargained for from Saturn/Lyulka, so keep guessing.
I feel like I am talking to a chimp who somehow learned to type.
I was explaining/teaching (Bold, underlined parts) how Patent/IP/Manufacturing transfer works using a future hypothetical Iran-Russia example. You being stupid thought I am suggesting the idea lol. I will make it simple for you to read (you will forget in next 15 mins?).
"In theory, OWJ can hypothetically use local metallurgical/material manufacturing base to manufacture blades, the compressor, turbine, and shaft at home but if Lyulka/Saturn does not transfer the IP, and selling rights then its meager licensed production where the label of the end product will be maintained as Saturn AL-31. On the other hand, Saturn can provide CKD kits with Russian blades, compressors, turbine, shaft, body, etc but allows Iran to own the IP/Patent, Twist the patent data, sell the product on its own, upgrade it as per its wishes, modify it locally, and re-designate it then it will be a TOT."
These are already well-established fields. Had you studied the relevant discipline you would know.
Example: Simplistic Process for making Blades (most crucial component).
Mined ores => Refining of ores (Unit Operations=>Unit Processes) => Alloy formation => Grain boundary treatment / FCC Crystal Growth (Iran mastered this in Jahesh) / Re-treatment to remove BCC => Casting => Milling/Machining => Coatings
Where a client enters this process, which is registered and secret IP/Patent of tech vendor, depends upon the % of IP/Sharing + $$ transferred from Client to Vendor.
Two Extreme Examples
1) Volvo-GE. Volvo entered the manufacturing process early so they could even modify the blades, FAEDEC etc and product got re-designated.
2) HALF-Lyulka/Saturn and HAL-Klimov. HAL entered the process late so the product being made are exact replicas of Russian patents probably, until we know details of contract we cant be sure.
"Financial planners + legal teams from both sides evaluate where in the middle they can meet"
American culture of "Karen got her feelings hurt and now wants to talk to the manager" is not how the international relations work. Iranian dependency upon Russia for blades is not a Russian concern, it is the Iranian decision where they want to meet the Russians in the manufacturing process. More IP sharing = More money demanded. Companies sell clauses of Patents. Does Iran have that much drive for owning the tech? Remains to be seen.
Leadership needs to show the same will and drive they showed for Solid fueled Missile programs or Air defense. Nobody shared TVC solid-fueled motors with Iran either. We have them now because like I said above push came to shove.
Show me the contract between Lyulka/Saturn and CATIC China. Unless we know the level of IP sharing, any comment will be a naive conjecture.
We actually did.
Is there a political will in Tehran to enlarge this Single Crystal marvel with R&D $$ + Assembly line $$ + Best Technicians + Best industrial manager? that's politics. Nothing to do with "This country can't make it". That is considered chimp-level logic in academic circles. Scientists are not their country, they are individuals, they think and behave like individuals. A lab in tehran can be more innovative than a lab in Moscow based upon individuals working in that lab and $ available (IRI's problem: brain leaves)
You did get destroyed by me like usual (A list exists now).
You were initially claiming "No country gives away its prized jet engine tech to anyone. Period" and "It never shares its premier engine tech with anyone either. Can you show an example it has? I’m still waiting."
It turned out dozen examples exist
- F404 production in the Republic of Korea
- F-404 production in Sweden
- F110 production in Japan
- F110 production in Turkey
- RD-33MK production in India
- RD-93 production in China
- Spey production in China
- AL-31F production in India
Where in the assembly line the production starts in the client country depends upon that country's industrial capability and level of IP sharing based upon how much $$ based autonomy the vendor awards to client.
Two extremities
- Swedes completely got F404 LP/TOT from GE yet modified the metallurgy of the blades completely in their modified Volvo M12for Gripen.
- India makes RD-33MK and AL-31F I believe as it is (not that anybody has seen the contract between them)
Nobody in this thread is discussing Turkish domestic aerospace capabilities except you. They do have local license for GE-TEI license for F110 though. Do they make some components at home or import CKD or partial-KD kits ? no one knows.
Hmm. The only one on this board in need of genuine help/meds is you, considering your constant misquotations of others and complete disregard/lack of understanding of technical details.
Please provide evidence of Iranian will for domestic RD-33 production.
Show some visual or verbal evidence in form of comments by some official (e.g. Manteghi showing AL-31) to confirm that Iran wanted RD-33 domestic production.
Hint: None exists.
Please provide evidence of Iranian will to produce RD-33 locally for (you direct quote) "their earliest joint venture production program"
Hint: RD-2500/5000 non-afterburning turbofan from Klimov Russia was selected. ZERO intention of local production.
Russia is not responsible for the sanctions on Iran, nor is Iran's international politics a Russian concern. Just like how the Russian war on Ukraine is not Iranian responsibility. Countries look for their own even when they are in strategic pacts and alliances. NATO bigwigs lock horns against each other all the time. Russia has provided Iran with weapons and Tech when no one was doing so. If SU-35S comes, it will further boost the alliance.
Please provide evidence that Turkey is at the same level of being a Russian Client as Iran has been for 30 years?
I will do a comparison and leave the rest to you
Russian Military Exports to IRI in last ~3 decades
Combat jets
- MIG-29 9.12 Fighter
- SU-24MK Attack/Bomber
- SU-25 Attack/Bomber
Turbofans
- RD-33 Turbofans for MIG-29
Missiles
- R-27T BVR
- R-73E WVR
- R-60 WVR
Transport
- IL-76 Heavy Transport
- AN-74 Military Transport
Attack Submarines
- Kilo Class Attack Submarines
Tanks/Armoured Vehicles
- T-72 Tanks
- BMP2 IFV
- BM-27 MLRS
Air Defence
- S-300PMU2 HIMAD
- Pantsir-S1 SHOROAD
- Tor-M1 SHORAD (Transferred to Syria?)
- SA-5 Vega HIMAD
- SA-6 HIMAD
Radars/ELINT
- Rezonas-NE Radar TOT
- 67N6E 3D (designated Falaq?)
- Avtobaza ELINT EW
Helicopters
- Mi-8 Helis
- Mi-17 Helis
Torpedoes
- VA-111 Shkval Super Cavitation Torpedoes TOT
ATMs
- Metis ATM
- Konkurs ATM
- Kornet ATM (Possible Help in Dehlavieh?)
Future Transfers
- SU-35 Fighter
- R-77 BVR missile
Russian Military Exports to Turkey by end of 2023
(PLEASE MAKE A LIST)
Because of low-IQ/weak memory, you fail to follow up on a point you tried to make before and were destroyed instantaneously.
here goes,
Your claim: (a direct quote ) "Since J-700 has been revealed how many have we seen produced?"
My rebuttal: "Jahesh-700 is designated as a powerplant of what? for what aircraft/vehicle should the assembly line be established?"
Your answer: NONE
OWJ (Newly Built/Rebuilt) is officially designated as the powerplant for Kowsar which is inducted and in production so its assembly is established. Jashesh-700 has no appropriate vehicle in Iran to power so no orders, no assembly. Simple matter of common sense.
Another weak memory-induced failure of yours.
here goes,
Your claim "You had claimed at one that J-700 would power Kowsar."
My answer: "Another misquotation. I had said "2 x Jahesh-700's derivatives on lines of FJ44-4 with Afterburners""
Result: Misqotation proven
Further claim by you "Now you say demand is not there for it since it’s only useful for UCAV"
My Counter Claim: Jahesh-700 is designated as a powerplant of what? for what aircraft/vehicle should the assembly line be established?
Your answer: None
I see that you are smashing your keyboard against your head now. I am known to get under the skins of self-conflicted trolls pretty bad and you happen to be just another one.
You,
- misquote people (because of weak memory/Schizophrenia/voices in the head)
- misquote research papers (because of illiteracy on the subject, incapable of complex thinking)
- do not understand the difference between simulation and real life (lack of common sense)
- do not understand Patents/IP ownership (lack of real-life professional experiences)
- think academically decorated veteran MDs/CEOs use googled images (Lack of understanding of academic R&D culture)
- think science, logic, and common sense are "mental gymnastics" "ChatGPT" "complicated" "googling" (struggle/hatred for technical details).
Why? (Possible reasons)
- Classical symptoms of schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder.
- Raised in a low intellect environment where reasoning and use of evidence were discouraged (often happens in American households)
- Weak short-term memory hence the excessive habit of misquoting others. Talking before thinking/seeking evidence.
You are doing the same thing you did to Manteghi before. What is your problem with accomplished technical people?
BT is a qualified engineer who has worked for
- IRIAF on Mirage-F1, SU-24MK, F-5-driven programs (pictorial, published evidence exists)
- Written books on multinational AFs, modernization programs, and aviation history.
- Writes for 4 International aviation magazines.
- Roughly 80-90% of the time, he is proven right about the technical facts he writes.
- Hates IRI, IRGC and Basij and is a Shahist. Matters none in his technical analysis.
Like Manteghi before, between BT (a credible IRIAF info source) and you (a troll who hates details), I will offcourse believe in BT. Again, sane people will understand my bias.
Another misquotation, please provide evidence that I said "Iran was going to produce AL-31 completely in-house".
Hint: No country can completely build something "in-house". The manufacturing process at any point can be dependent upon foreign procurement of raw materials even for front-line superpowers. Do we know where Volvo, Safran, and Saturn are getting their alloys?
Your struggle to understand Patents/IP ownership is not my responsibility.
Please provide evidence that the showed missile is not similar to the Chinese PL-10.
The seeker, the wings, the fins, and the dimensions agree with me and so does the author of this article below (and everyone who saw the pic)
https://www.38north.org/2022/10/air-to-air-missiles-could-be-the-north-korean-defense-sectors-next-breakthrough-why-it-matters/
Correction: Man of evidence and technical details.
You misquoted me, claiming that I said "F-5 with drop tanks and fully loaded armament is going to be at 1m2 RCS".
I am still waiting for evidence of this statement from me
I have never ever talked of "RCS of a loaded F-5 since in combat it will be loaded?"
My assumption of low RCS of N-156 family of airframes and their descendants has always come from facts such as:
-N-156 airframe, despite being tracked/shot at has not been shot at BVR ranges by same A2A missiles that took down F-4, F-14 at distances in the same conflicts, namely R-40 and R-23. It faced MIG-25PD, MIG23ML both armed with SARH R-40 and R-23 Med-BVR missiles that took down multiple F-4, even F-14 (Hashem Ale Agha). IRIAF deployed F-5 multiple times even across the borders (diversion attack for H-3). The bulk of its shootings came from ground Track radars illumination from below which is just unavoidable. Even in conflicts against Mig-25PD, MIG-23ML, MIG-21F it came out victorious.
- The F-18 itself is a N-156 driven design, recorded by USN to have a RCS of 1-3 m^2. (Peter Grinning, USN historian).
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/2300/Articles/PG/PGSA.htm
RCS lists are relative, the same list with F-18 at 1-3m2 and an F-16 at 1-2 m2 will have both the aircraft wearing same combat suit unless it is mentioned otherwise.
In response to my lists of F-5, F-16, F-18 never been shot at BVR ranges despite being shot at,
You claimed that "The common theme among these is Intel, ECW, Support system of a superpower vs Russian aircraft in various states of condition and the opposing country."
My answer:
- None of the examples had any "ECW" specifically Iranian F-5E/F did not even have any ECM package, it does not have one even today.
- None of the countries involved in examples are Superpowers with your claimed "Support system of a superpower",
- Iranian F-5E/F (ECM less), despite being detected/tracked/shot at has not been shot at BVR ranges by same A2A missiles that took down Iranian F-4, F-14 at distances in the same conflicts, namely R-40 and R-23. It faced Iraqi MIG-25PD, MIG23ML both armed with SARH R-40 and R-23 Med-BVR missiles that took down multiple F-4, even F-14 (Iranian Pilot Hashem Ale Agha). IRIAF deployed F-5 multiple times even across the borders (diversion attack for Iranian attack on Iraqi base H-3). The bulk of its shootings came from ground Track radars illumination Iraqi Ground batteries from below which is just unavoidable. Even in conflicts against Iraqi-AF's Mig-25PD, MIG-23ML, MIG-21F it came out victorious.
- Israeli F-16 has fought against BVR carrying Syrian MIG-25, MIG-23, MIG-29 in Israel-Syria conflicts, Never got shot at BVR ranges.
- Pakistani F-16 fought against BVR armed Indian Mirage-2000H, SU-30MKI, MIG-29UPG, MIG-21-93 in Indo-Pak conflict, ended up bombing the enemy, harassing the Sukhoi interceptors into escaping the zone (yes, SU-30 did nothing).
- Turkish Block 30 F-16 engaged electronically superior Greek Mirage-2000 in Turk-Greek theatre dozens of times but the only time it was shot was at WVR ranges through Magic Sidewinder which Turkish pilots fault not the machine's. This plane has massacred the entire 3rd / 4th generation aircraft of the world but has never been caught at BVR ranges.
Please provide evidence of the "Support system of a superpower" in the above examples?
- F-4E/D has an RCS of 6-10 m2 (USN measured). It was shot many times at BVR ranges by MIG-25PD using R-40 BVR missiles. F-4 has also been shot by AIM-7. The same never happened to F-5 in the same theatres. This is a good indicator of F-5's all-aspect RCS << F-4's 6-10 m2.
A huge part of their survival against BVR attacks comes from their LOW RCS. Both have an exemplary record in A2A combat. Upgraded F-16 and F-5 driven Hornet family are aerial menaces. F-20 would have been no different.
Nontechnical stupidity again. RCS is not controlled by piloting skills. Hashem Ale Agha was shot with R-40 because F-14 has a huge RCS for SARH/ARH attack. Was Hashem Ale Agha, an ace, a bad pilot?
You said stealth fighters can "maintain their frontal RCS"
to which I asked "Please provide evidence that stealth fighters can "maintain their frontal RCS"
You failed to answer that!
Please provide evidence that I said "F-22/35 would suffer increased RCS from carrying weapons"
Hint: My implication was angular illumination leading to larger RCS since aircraft are rarely flying frontal towards oscillators all the time. This is why All-Aspect RCS is averaged term composed of maximas and minimas in a plot of RCS vs coordinates of airframe. An F-22 is not 0.0001 m2 all the time. When it changes angle between its axis to axis of enemy tracking oscillator its RCS changes (increases).
85 Million USD for 1 x SU35S
IRBIS-E PESA tracking 1 m2 target at 100 KM
R-77ER BVR max range 100 KM
RCS = 10-14 m^2 (SU-27/30 airframe)
85 Million USD for 3 x MIG-29M
Zhuk-M PESA tracking 3-5 m2 target at 130 KM
R-77ER BVR max range 100 KM
RCS = 5 m^2
You were saying?
Protected Iranian territory against MIG-25, MIG-23, Mirage F1, SU-22 ? F-14A/AM can fight large RCS 1970s airframes like Tornado, F-15, SU-27/30/35, MIG-29, and MIG-31 tracking them at some ~110-130 KM and delivering Fakour-90s but against smaller RCS modern crafts like euro canards with ECM heavy AESA packages, its AWG-9 will be blinded from 100+ KM while it will be tracked and shot at from LR-BVR ranges.
- Hundreds of MIG-29M/M2 exist
- MIG-35 is just another designation of modified MIG-29M/M2/KR called "Fulcrum F". If the order is placed, it will be produced just like how MIG-29 was produced for IRIAF post order.
It is maybe "simple" in your simple world but the Ground AD Network is supported by multiple powerful tracking radars with 10K+ T/Rs on average to keep illuminating the target Syrian S-200 acquires its targets from a powerful SARH illuminator called 5N62B. In BVR combat The same can not be said about an ARH/SARH airborne interception where T/R elements are usually <1000"
Your initial argument failed brutally so you are twisting the argument. You were trying to challenge low RCS advantage of an F-16 by saying "Even Syria managed to hit an Israeli F-16 (masters of ECW) with a freaking S-200."
BVR combat is between aircraft in the sky not SAMS vs aircraft and F-16 has never been shot at BVR while it has been fighting BVR armed fighters for decades namely SU-30MK, Mirage-2000C/H, MIG-29, MIG-21-93, MIG-25PD, MIG-23ML.
IRIAF | News and Discussions
- Thread starter SOHEIL
- Start date
Very interesting post. Pertaining to an F-5 developed L-M-W combat a/c, this hit all the right cords as far as I've concerned.....................
How designers stuffed a modern IRST + PESA/AESA Nemesis Radar (100+ KM Track range) + 4+ generation avionics in the frontal part of F-5E is some tight engineering.
F-5AT/N are dangerous machines for localized combat.
IRST in IRIAF domestic programs is a must as much as HMD slaved HOBS WVR+ ARH BVR.
What was of interest to me on personal level was the pic of airframe 02 with what appears to be an IRST (circled in red). Also the cockpit instrumentation layout. Very 4.5- ish generation. Plus of course the Nemesis FCR (ASEA). PESA is not what this a/c needs.
I believe that these images portray an 5AT/N fighter. With an ASEA radar, fighting over home soil within AD-cover and C4ISR, carrying NBVR AAM's will make for a huge distraction for incoming strike packages.
P
drmeson
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2016
- Messages
- 2,002
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Thanks
Yes, this should be the blueprint for a proper light-combat domestic fighter for IRIAF. Not that I believe $$ will be allocated for anything serious but from the specs POV this machine means business. Easily the most advanced F-5 derivative ever.
Nemesis has both PESA/AESA antennas.
With a boosted dry thrust of 10000-12000 lbf and some RCS reduction in airframe <1 m2. A BVR-armed F-5AT/N can create an A2/AD in conjunction with data-linked IADs.
Good post. Not something one sees everyday.....................
How designers stuffed a modern IRST + PESA/AESA Nemesis Radar (100+ KM Track range) + 4+ generation avionics in the frontal part of F-5E is some tight engineering.
F-5AT/N are dangerous machines for localized combat.
IRST in IRIAF domestic programs is a must as much as HMD slaved HOBS WVR+ ARH BVR.
I will post an updated version of part 4 of my paper to Dropbox this evening. I think that it would be good to look at as it contained quite a few additions. Same URL.
In future I think that I will update this paper say every 30 days.
Enjoy.
P
Muhammed45
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2015
- Messages
- 10,321
- Reaction score
- -18
- Country
- Location
If my guess about delaying/canceling the possible SU-35 deal by Russia was true, then i advice our Russian friends to prepare themsleves for insane flow of ballistic missiles into Ukraine, as Zelenskyy has already mentioned it.
Because Iran doesn't want ballistic missiles from Russia, therefore, there would be nothing remaining to be used as a leverage.
No blame on Russians, they pu their interests in the first place. But, at the very least, they should have learnt from the past that west won't back off even for 1 cm if you compromise.
However, i hope iwas wrong and the deal with IRIAF is underway.
Because Iran doesn't want ballistic missiles from Russia, therefore, there would be nothing remaining to be used as a leverage.
No blame on Russians, they pu their interests in the first place. But, at the very least, they should have learnt from the past that west won't back off even for 1 cm if you compromise.
However, i hope iwas wrong and the deal with IRIAF is underway.
Last edited:
Mr Iran Eye
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2019
- Messages
- 529
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Freeze at 22 seconds and it looks like the new F-5 augmented fighter model.
TheImmortal
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2017
- Messages
- 7,091
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
sahureka2
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,480
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
But also froze at 03 to 06 seconds and notice they are making a new section towards the tail for the second Simorgh
drmeson
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2016
- Messages
- 2,002
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Some information on Radar Bayyenat-I on F-4E/D Dowran. Its a 10+ years old product, and was very impressive for its time when Dowran project was started some 15 years ago.
First Shown: 2015
Maker: SSJ (Mehrabad)
Descent: AN/APQ-120 (??)
Antenna: Slotted Flat Array with Dual Axis mechanical scanning.
Antenna Stabilisation: Stab-In (to compensate for pitch, yaw), Stab-out (fixed)
T/R elements = ~550-600 (??)
Interface: Multi-Functional Display (MFD) + Control Panel
Type: Multimode Pulse Doppler
Band: X
Look down shoot down: Yes
SAR capability: Yes
ECM/Jamming: Yes
Moving Target Identification: Yes ??
Amplification Gain: Yes
Target Prioritizing Control: Yes
Modes: Air-Air, Air-Surface, Air-Sea, RWS, TWS, Velocity Search, Manual-Search, MTI, Beaconing
Tracking Aspects: Nose (target moving in), Tail (Target Moving out), Beam (Target out of LOS)
Range (Detection/Tracking)
Air to Surface/Sea ~270/220 KM ?? (Ghader + Nasr AShCM, Possible Ya-Ali LACM)
Air to Air Between 150/100+ KM a fighter size target??
Implementation: Upgrade program "Dowran" on ~35 jets
Sources:
Tasnim
Mashregnews
BT, said that radar's true capabilities was not unvieled for security reasons
First Shown: 2015
Maker: SSJ (Mehrabad)
Descent: AN/APQ-120 (??)
Antenna: Slotted Flat Array with Dual Axis mechanical scanning.
Antenna Stabilisation: Stab-In (to compensate for pitch, yaw), Stab-out (fixed)
T/R elements = ~550-600 (??)
Interface: Multi-Functional Display (MFD) + Control Panel
Type: Multimode Pulse Doppler
Band: X
Look down shoot down: Yes
SAR capability: Yes
ECM/Jamming: Yes
Moving Target Identification: Yes ??
Amplification Gain: Yes
Target Prioritizing Control: Yes
Modes: Air-Air, Air-Surface, Air-Sea, RWS, TWS, Velocity Search, Manual-Search, MTI, Beaconing
Tracking Aspects: Nose (target moving in), Tail (Target Moving out), Beam (Target out of LOS)
Range (Detection/Tracking)
Air to Surface/Sea ~270/220 KM ?? (Ghader + Nasr AShCM, Possible Ya-Ali LACM)
Air to Air Between 150/100+ KM a fighter size target??
Implementation: Upgrade program "Dowran" on ~35 jets
Sources:
Tasnim
Mashregnews
BT, said that radar's true capabilities was not unvieled for security reasons
sahureka2
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,480
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
https://rahbordemoaser.ir/fa/amp/news/191568
هواپیمای مسافربری سیمرغ ۷۵ نفره e طول آن از هواپیمای ایران ۱۴۰ بلندتر است.
in this passage of the article the number of passengers for the Simorgh is indicated as 75, but when the greater length of the aircraft compared to the AN-140 is indicated, my automatic translator indicates 140 meters, since this is impossible, I think the translation correct is 1.40 meters, i.e. it is longer than 1.40 meters. therefore I ask if my interpretation is correct thanks in advance for the answer
Last edited:
aryobarzan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2019
- Messages
- 4,586
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
هواپیمای مسافربری سیمرغ ۷۵ نفره و طول آن از هواپیمای ایران ۱۴۰ بلندتر است.
Simorgh Passenger aircraft is 75 seats and its length is longer than IR 140.
The article does not give the actual the length increase of the passenger simorgh..we can guess by the number of the seats added (25) if considering 5 seat on a row and one meter separation my not very educated guess is 5 extra meters of length!!
Last edited:
TheImmortal
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2017
- Messages
- 7,091
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
sahureka2
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,480
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Maybe he posted in the wrong thread ?
Deino
INT'L MOD
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
- Messages
- 12,780
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
Similar threads
- Article
