What's new

IRIAF | News and Discussions

For god sake Fakour 90 just like AIM 54 use ARH guidance,literary anyone who listened how missile is described at unveling ceremony knows that.
fakour-90 is more like an upgraded mim-23 in the shell of AIM-54
 
.
Well, another imposter on this forum says that the IRIAF is not producing a new engine for the Kowsar. The IRIAF people are building many Kowsars and new versions but will not have engines. What madness here

On another subject, North Korea releases a new submarine and people are whining saying that Iran doesn't produce much. But that they are blind, without intuition and without a good sense of observation. Iran produces a lot of things but now we know that they like to make cocktail effect announcements like they do with drones, boats, missiles etc... You just have to be patient and we will see surprise announcements that will break criticize them for sure. Iran works like this.

Iranian officials often say that they are presenting some of the equipment publicly but instead of understanding this, people speculate anything and make blind criticisms.

Iran produces a lot of things and it's very easy to see and understand

For the navy, I expect new generation seaplanes
 
.
Well, another imposter on this forum says that the IRIAF is not producing a new engine for the Kowsar. The IRIAF people are building many Kowsars and new versions but will not have engines. What madness here

On another subject, North Korea releases a new submarine and people are whining saying that Iran doesn't produce much. But that they are blind, without intuition and without a good sense of observation. Iran produces a lot of things but now we know that they like to make cocktail effect announcements like they do with drones, boats, missiles etc... You just have to be patient and we will see surprise announcements that will break criticize them for sure. Iran works like this.

Iranian officials often say that they are presenting some of the equipment publicly but instead of understanding this, people speculate anything and make blind criticisms.

Iran produces a lot of things and it's very easy to see and understand

For the navy, I expect new generation seaplanes
I.s.i is curropted to it's core , it can not function correctly anymore
 
.
I would sure hope that Iran does go with the R-74 and R-77-1, instead of the older versions. The IRIAF knows first hand how powerful a missile range advantage is

For sure. Iran already has the standard of both those missiles anyway (the R-27 also). It wouldn't make any sense to include the standard missiles with the Su-35 and not the improved versions. It would be akin to cutting one's nose to spite one's face lol.

Plus without the verification from any official announcement as to the validity of the improved missiles with the SU-35 deal, there are ways to visually identify them which I'm sure you already know. I'll post about that a bit later.

What about this? Any truth to this Su-30 claim? If so, then our suggestions were right on the money!


By the way, do you know if the Su-35's L-band arrays in the wing leading edge were part of the Egyptian order, or available for export at all? From what I can gather they're IFF arrays, so I would hope they're included but I guess even if they weren't the Irbis would have some kind of integrated IFF array.

Yes, the L-band arrays in the leading-edge flaps were included in the Egyptian SU-35s and yes they were/are IFF arrays and supposedly complement the IRBIS-E with AESA capabilities.

We were psyched about those features and went into great details about them. But then that story popped out of nowhere of an EAF Rafale had supposedly jammed the IRBIS-E radar with its EW SPECTRA during testing in Egypt causing the EAF to reconsider the radar and request its replacement with the new N036-1-01 AESA radar of the Su-57 in its place.

Turns out the story was false and actually happened during an Indian/French exercise between the IAF's Su-30MKI and a L'Armee de L'Air Rafale which allegedly jammed the Su-30MKI's BARS PESA radar, not the IRBIS-E. Crazy how rumors get crawling legs and turn into Olympic sprinters legs loool.

The policy pursued by the Iranians and Turks against other countries in an attempt to show that they are even better at buying weapons is reflected in the irrefutable facts.

Honestly, I don't think that is a fair label on Iran. They haven't really bought anything significant from outside sources in decades because of the sanctions (maybe the S-300 and some other comparable systems) hence forcing their hands to heavily invest in their domestic military industry and have been quite successful at it. Its efforts are commendable, especially in the UAVs and unmanned systems. Somehow hacking or if it was an accident while getting its hands on the RQ-170 Sentinel and reverse engineering it was history in the making. Getting first-hand US stealth design and tech was huge.

They did implement proxy conditions in Syria and with Hezbollah but that was mostly to keep the Israelis at bay. Nothing wrong with that IMO considering the blatant threats the latter crybaby constantly throws and threatens Iran with. The only thing I had issue with was their support of the Houthis, but there are always disagreements in everything and that's a separate topic. Other than that, it has the right to defend itself from its own, perceived threats.

For example, the KA-52 plane was equipped with better French cameras.

I'm quite aware of all the features on the EGY Ka-52. All its MAWS & RWRS and the President-S and DIRCM etc. No one was questioning that and least of all me.

Also the OLS-52 Electric Optical System is actually a joint effort production between a French and Russian co. which was a great modification for the EAF to add to the Ka-52. It wasn't a complete French product installed and integrated on a Russian-built platform.

The structure was developed, so the Egyptian version has a special name
Nile Crocodile

I think you missed one of my posts where I had mentioned its new Egyptian name.

Let's continue this discussion on the EAF thread ya habibi so we don't pollute our Iranian brothers' thread here. I'll counter some of your points in a little while.
 
Last edited:
.
If an F-14AM releases Fakour missiles after 10 KM each that means from 150 KM to 100 KM away, 4-6 missiles are coming at 4-5 Mach at the enemy aircraft while pulling 15-20G's, they cant be jammed either because of ECM and SARH illumination, they wont loose the track because they are tested against flying wings UCAVs of IRGC ... no aircraft in the world can survive that kind of attack. You will not understand this offcourse.
lol.. all 4-6 missiles will miss, and you'll get shot in the face while trying to keep your nose on the target to make them track. IRIAF is lucky that you're not a pilot

But BVR to me is vastly overrated. Even today ground based radar with air defense missiles much stronger/faster/bigger guidance unit than A2A missile can struggle to down a target outside 75KM+ in war time. There is simple too many options a modern fighter jet has to counter at very long distances of 100KM+
it's more like 45 Km, even that requires a lot of luck.

What you're saying is true, but that doesn't make BVR missiles useless. There's simply no alternative to them. Static ground defenses will be quickly saturated by a determined enemy with or without EW and straight up going for a merge will get you killed at 20 kilometers.
 
Last edited:
. .
lol.. all 4-6 missiles will miss, and you'll get shot in the face while trying to keep your nose on the target to make them track. IRIAF is lucky that you're not a pilot


it's more like 45 Km, even that requires a lot of luck.

What you're saying is true, but that doesn't make BVR missiles useless. There's simply no alternative to them. Static ground defenses will be quickly saturated by a determined enemy with or without EW and straight up going for a merge will get you killed at 20 kilometers.


I genuinely believe that Iran, when strategizing its military doctrine, may not necessarily focus on traditional air-to-air combat scenarios. While the battle may be decided in the skies, it might not be primarily through conventional fighter jets. Consider this: instead of direct aerial confrontations, why not neutralize the threat before it even takes flight? Strategically targeting airbases with missile strikes can effectively ground the majority of the opposing fighter jets. By shifting tactical air defenses to border areas, deploying anti-air drones, and positioning their own fighter aircraft, Iran could then fortify its airspace against remaining enemy drones or any sporadic jets that managed to take off.

Moreover, employing a swarm of low-cost drones could exhaust an adversary's air defenses, rendering them less effective over time. Furthermore, continual assaults on critical infrastructure, such as bridges and railway lines, especially in challenging, mountainous terrains, would wreak havoc on the enemy's supply and logistical chains.

It's food for thought. Rather than traditional warfare, such strategies could reshape how aerial conflicts play out. The key is adaptability and outthinking one's opponent.

---
 
. .
Turkey has drones and missiles too but iran doesnt have an airforce
Turkey has drones and missiles too but iran doesnt have an airforce

Military Point of view:

While your point about Turkey having drones and missiles stands, it's crucial to understand the nuance in Iran's capabilities. While Iran may not have a conventional air force comparable to many global powers, its missile capabilities are not to be underestimated. They possess the ability to operate not just on a tactical level, but strategically as well, and with remarkable precision. Drawing from real-world conflicts and wars over several decades, Iranian missiles have been continually refined and produced in large quantities. This makes them a formidable threat to any adversary in the region.

In the context of drones, Turkey indeed boasts a considerable arsenal of sophisticated drones with impressive technical capacities. However, comparing drones head-to-head might be an oversimplification. Drones, in a battlefield scenario, have adversaries different from other drones – they primarily face threats from fighter jets, anti-air systems, and electronic countermeasures. A Bayraktar drone, for instance, is a significant investment and isn't easily expendable. On the other hand, Iran has a vast and diverse range of drones, many of which are designed specifically to wear down an enemy's defenses and are easily replaceable. The conflict in Ukraine serves as a prime example. In areas where electronic countermeasures and air defenses are robust, the efficacy of drones can be compromised.

In my perspective, the synergistic combination of drones, missiles, and a robust air defense system can be remarkably effective. It's essential to approach this topic with a broader lens and appreciate the complexities involved.
Here's a thoughtful forum post based on the information you provided, summarized and translated into English:


Economic and Diplomatic point of view:

Beyond the military intricacies, it's essential to consider the multitude of factors that determine the outcome of a conflict. Chief among them are diplomatic ties and shared interests. Iran and Turkey share significant economic dependencies, robust trade relations, and mutual interests, particularly concerning the presence of Americans in Kurdish territories and the broader issues surrounding the Kurdish regions in Northern Iraq and Syria. Any direct conflict could jeopardize these shared interests, potentially plunging both sides into unintended chaos.

Let's also not forget the diplomatic dynamics at play. India, for instance, has a vested interest in ensuring the stability of the Armenia corridor, a crucial trade route for them leading to Russia. China would likely side diplomatically with Iran. While Russia, currently embroiled in the Ukraine situation, might diplomatically lean elsewhere. Saudi Arabia, given its recent rapprochement with Iran, would likely remain neutral. As for the USA and the EU, their stance remains speculative. They might offer support in exchange for further NATO alignments.

Conclusion:

All things considered, I perceive Turkey to be in a more precarious position than Iran. However, the culmination is clear: an outright war benefits neither. It's improbable to see Turkey intervening directly or Iran launching a direct assault on Azerbaijan. If a conflict erupts, I suspect it would primarily center around the corridor, with Iran providing technology, training, possibly troops (though unofficially), and other resources. This scenario might mirror situations like the Syrian Civil War, Yemen, or to some extent, Ukraine. That is to say, if an Iranian air defense system were to shoot down an Azeri drone, it'd be attributed to the Armenians; or if missiles immobilize Azerbaijani airstrips, the blame would likely fall on the Armenians, and so forth.

It's crucial to view these potentialities through a broader lens, understanding that war isn't just about missiles and drones, but an intricate dance of diplomacy, shared interests, and regional dynamics.

---
---
 
.
Now this may be a hype post:


But here's my speculation based on the recent events following Russian-Iranian Cooperation:

1. Complete military flight training has been covered
  • Ab Initio class - Mushshaq / SocataTB
  • Basic all piston class - Parastu-14 / F.33 / PC-7 / EMB-312
  • Intermediate jet class - Dorna
  • Advanced jet class - Yasin
  • LIFT class - Yak-130
  • Operational conversion fighter trainer class - FT-7N / Simorgh / Kowsar / MiG29UB / Su25UBK
2. Yasin & Yak-130 will keep IRIAF pilots futureproof with both western and eastern aircrafts, as @AmirPatriot rightfully posted

3. Operating Yak-130 opens the door for Iranian pilots to have multiple options (Su30/Su35/...next gen Su variants) for future procurement

4. An all out Sukhoi cooperation including SSJ-100 (both military & civilian) may result in joint production (gradual infrastructure creation) as seen with aircraft overhauls

5. Like Iran, Ukraine AF deploys MiG29/Su24/Su25. A big chance of having these jets compromised remain. A legitimate concern for an upgrade to latest version highly likely

Sardar Farhi visiting Yassin's training jet testing stages: The Islamic Republic of Iran's aviation developments played an important role in the arrival of the Yak 130 in the country, because the knowledge and technology of making advanced pilot training aircraft has become indigenous in the country.

In fact, providing these planes has a direct relationship with the level of developments in the aviation industry of the Islamic Republic of Iran. All the arrangements needed by the country's pilots have been implemented in Yasin's advanced training jet, and the Yak 130 plane can be considered the completion of the country's pilot training circle.

 
.
I genuinely believe that Iran, when strategizing its military doctrine, may not necessarily focus on traditional air-to-air combat scenarios. While the battle may be decided in the skies, it might not be primarily through conventional fighter jets. Consider this: instead of direct aerial confrontations, why not neutralize the threat before it even takes flight? Strategically targeting airbases with missile strikes can effectively ground the majority of the opposing fighter jets. By shifting tactical air defenses to border areas, deploying anti-air drones, and positioning their own fighter aircraft, Iran could then fortify its airspace against remaining enemy drones or any sporadic jets that managed to take off.

Moreover, employing a swarm of low-cost drones could exhaust an adversary's air defenses, rendering them less effective over time. Furthermore, continual assaults on critical infrastructure, such as bridges and railway lines, especially in challenging, mountainous terrains, would wreak havoc on the enemy's supply and logistical chains.

It's food for thought. Rather than traditional warfare, such strategies could reshape how aerial conflicts play out. The key is adaptability and outthinking one's opponent.

---
In today's world a damaged runway can be repaired in a matter of hours, airbases are heavily protected by point defense systems and we have things like hardened aircraft shelters. Even Russia couldn't keep the ukrainian air force grounded for long. And Ukraine didn't even have much of an air force to begin with.

For YEARS Iranians in this forum told me that a lack of air force was part of the doctrine, this was a strategic choice. This was bullshit. Iranian leaders know damn well the importance of air power. The first chance they get, they are trying to buy Su35s.

Along with Su-35, they will get R-77s and many other Russian missiles.

no matter what the "Fakour STRONK" idiots here say
 
. . . . .
Back
Top Bottom