Qaher F313 l News & Discussion

[VEVAK]

Interesting, what's the difference between Kowsar-1 & Kowsar-88? I know the latter is the trainer jet that was shown last year.

It may simply be the difference between full size 1:1 prototype and a production model or a trainer only vs combat version with more advanced avionics and PGM capability

 

[PeeD]

Aircrafts with long ranges and high speeds can be stationed deep inside Iranian territory allowing you time to scramble them before cruise missiles or invading aircrafts reach those locations
That's why you have early warning sensors!

U.S. is not the only threat facing Iran and yes against the U.S. I would NOT send a fleet of Su-30's up to intercept F-22's over the Persian Gulf that would be absurd!
But by the most part the decision to send Su-30 to intercept F-22's would depend on the location of the F-22's how deep they are inside Iranian territory, what aircraft they are escorting or if I have Air Defense systems over that area or not! So it depends! F-22's are not indestructible and if they are deep inside Iranian territory and I have a verity of SAM providing cover then yes I would send Su-30's up to back up my Air Defense even against F-22's

Let the air defense so its own job. If the load is too great, send some F-313 into the area and wait for a opportunity to set a trap for the attacker with LR-BVRAAM. In that way you take the load off the shoulders of the ground based IADS, just what Iran needs fighters for.

How exactly are F-313's going to launch BVR missiles?
And do you know how big a missile is going to have to be to achieve BVR when fired from a low altitude subsonic aircraft? Such a missile would have to be as big as the Sayyad-2 missile with a very advanced radar seeker & data link.... and even then unless Iran has developed scram jet technology your looking at a range of 40-50knot (70-100km) for a missile the size of the Sayyad-2

Good enough, 100km range is good enough and just two of those 5m long LR-BVRAAM, too. Design goal is a 5mx1m central weapon bay. I know you want more AAM and higher speed and higher altitude and large radar aperture. However this is not a game about prestige. I can't offer you all those capabilities without a monster like the Su-57/F-22.
But I can offer a less heroic assassin doctrine --> persistence/endurance and low probability of detection. This is the skill set that our economy can handle and meaningful in numbers.

And launching them from the internal weapons bay of an F-313 from low altitude is just not realistic the missile would need to achieve a good distance from your aircraft before it turns on it's engines or else the hot gas from the engine would easily burn the skin off the F-313

Do a small or larger pop-up for the shot until the launch is technically feasible.

Putting BVR missiles on an F-313 is nothing but a delusion! The F-313 is nothing more than Iran's low cost version of the F-117 and they were built to deliver 2 1000lb bombs and come home NOTHING MORE! which in my opinion is absurd because your using a single J-85 engine for each 1000lb bomb on a light airframe with low survivability and maneuverability

The F-117 was a striker. Main mission for a fighter for Iran would be air defense.
As a sole striker of high value targets, I agree with you, payload is of great importance for economic use.
Irans would only use the F-313 as striker of the enemy air defense is sufficiently degraded, despite being "stealth".
Bombardment like Russians do in Syria is better done via something that makes economical sense for Iran. Such as two enlarged, twin engine RQ-170 unmanned bombers as wingmans for a highly automated F-313 pilot to tell what to strike. Such a capability sounds like fiction, but is technologically of lower risk/easier for Iran to achieve than large fighters with high performance engines.

Talking about F-117 like subsonic, low payload aircraft: The USN was close to buy the A-12 stealth aircraft in the early 90's. Instead they now have the F/A-18.

Same argument can be made for your BVR variant if your building a platform that so reliant on ground data you might as well just build a UAV at a much lower cost powered by a single J-85 or a multi stage SAM missile that's powered by a far cheaper turbojet engine by merging the karrar and Shahin SAM into one missile.....

A twin stage SAM with turbojet reusable stage is actually a unconventional and economic idea I like.
A BVRAAM equipped UCAV is also one such idea but this is really too far away as advances in AI are necessary. We need to work into that direction but for now a manned fighter with the skill set I described for the F-313 is good enough.
Having a human which can make decisions at any frontline that needs support is what a manned fighter is there for today. The weak point of a small nose, small aperture size and reliance on a intact IADS is a weakpoint as of today. However in future the situation can become better with advanced IRST and a new radar generation. A UAV AEW aircraft like that enlarged RQ-170 with plenty of aperture space could be a alternative solution for the future.

And how big of an F-313 fleet do you plan on having????? And where exactly did you wanna station them?

The variant I outline previously in this thead: 500-1000. Basing in existing/expanded bases and moved to mobile highway operation in wartime.

As for Ballistic Missiles against airbases how many Ballistic missiles do think Iran would need to fire at bases such as these to have a real effect? (each located +1200km from Iran)
I can promise you that if Iran fired 200 Ballistic missiles with a CEP of 100 meters at each of these bases we still wouldn't be able to take out even close to half the fighters stationed at these bases

Just disrupt operations from those bases. If you are successful, you can send a swarm of cheap TP-drones or even S-129 to take out specific targets. Or a RQ-170 bomber, or CM's in future. Or your desired force of a few dozen Su-30... yes if there is no serious threat anymore because runway damage, FOD-risk, risk of unexploded submunitions, damaged systems etc. due to submunition warhead equipped BMs... yes then anything can be used as bomb trucks to take out those fancy bunkers.
What I would prefer? Soften the airbase with periodic submunition BM strikes and use cheap Ya Ali like CM's to kill important soft structures. Then use Emad or better more advanced terminal guided next-gen BM's to take out hardened structures. After base is taken out that way, keep 10 S-129 continuously on the base to take out what remains alive.
Those Israeli and Saudi superbases look impressive and are in fact, but how many of them do they have? Israel 5? Saudis 10? Their complete backbone is based on them, so yes, hard nut to crack but even the use of 500 MRBM would be justified against those strongholds. Once they are out, their conventional warfighting capability is basically taken out.

Ballistic Missiles alone are not sufficient nor does Iran produce enough of them nor can Iran launch enough of them simultaneously at targets beyond 1200km for them to be a sufficient retaliatory weapon!

I see things differently. We have produced a huge arsenal at prices no one in the west would believe.

Focusing on building a large fleet of low cost F-313's is both a waist of time and money!
Iran should purchase a fleet of ~100 of the most advanced Air Superiority fighter it can get it's hands on until we can build our own
As for a domestic project Iran should instead focus on building a smaller fleet of 40-60 heavy long range fighters capable of delivering a large payload to complement it's Ballistic Missiles, Cruise Missiles and UAV's

Anything large will require a large, high-power engine. This is a fundamental problem. The best solution is a high lift RQ-170 like design, enlarged, flying at 50-60k feet. In that way you can get payload.
However, even with LO capabilities of the original RQ-170: It won't be survivable if the sent into an fully intact enemy IADS... and even that is a huge task because again the (small, subsonic) engines are still hard to master.

The missile approach, especially next generation multi-warhead, terminal guidance MRBM and CMs will allow Iran to break 80% of the enemy warfighting capability. We are getting there and upgrading existing arsenal to future pin-point strike capability. This has never been demonstrated in the world, but Iran is doing it. Strike wise we will get there sooner or later, what I want primary is a fighter to flexibly strengthen airdefense frontlines under pressure.

 

[Stryker1982]

What I would prefer? Soften the airbase with periodic submunition BM strikes and use cheap Ya Ali like CM's to kill important soft structures. Then use Emad or better more advanced terminal guided next-gen BM's to take out hardened structures. After base is taken out that way, keep 10 S-129 continuously on the base to take out what remains alive.

The problem with this is that these BM's and CM's are not accurate enough to be effective, and as you said, the next gen of Irans missiles must be more effective than its current stockpile to hit hardened shelters. This should be Irans priority. We are well behind the Russians and Americans in this field.

 

[TheImmortal]

The problem with this is that these BM's and CM's are not accurate enough to be effective, and as you said, the next gen of Irans missiles must be more effective than its current stockpile to hit hardened shelters. This should be Irans priority. We are well behind the Russians and Americans in this field.

Missiles are deterrence and used against HVT. They will not be able to replace fighter aircraft.

Iran should work on developing long range hypersonic as well as subsonic cruise missiles that can be launched in mass not more BMs.

People like to complain about the support that fighter aircraft need (repairs,refueling,crews, maintenance, training, etc). Well BMs also require support teams, Training TEL crews, a TEL(last I checked Iran doesn’t have unlimited TELS), maintenance crews for the missiles/TELS, specialists.

Also with no fighter aircraft...How are you going to fire missiles when your airspace has been penetrated and the enemy has 24/7 dominance of your skies?

It’s a flawed stratergy.

Iran needs to work Cruise missile technology and fighter aircraft technology alongside AA technology or else it will have a glaring weakness in its military.

 

[Stryker1982]

Missiles are deterrence and used against HVT. They will not be able to replace fighter aircraft.

Iran should work on developing long range hypersonic as well as subsonic cruise missiles that can be launched in mass not more BMs.

People like to complain about the support that fighter aircraft need (repairs,refueling,crews, maintenance, training, etc). Well BMs also require support teams, Training TEL crews, a TEL(last I checked Iran doesn’t have unlimited TELS), maintenance crews for the missiles/TELS, specialists.

Also with no fighter aircraft...How are you going to fire missiles when your airspace has been penetrated and the enemy has 24/7 dominance of your skies?

It’s a flawed stratergy.

Iran needs to work Cruise missile technology and fighter aircraft technology alongside AA technology or else it will have a glaring weakness in its military.

I complete agree, that missiles cannot replace aircraft, but precise missiles are also incredibly important and the U.S first strike on Iraqi Airbases with cruise missiles in 2003 , and that cruise missiles strikes on the Syrian Shayrat airbase shows its importance in history. And Yes, cruise missiles is also a priority or should be one. Iran's CM's are not known really well at all.

 

[TheImmortal]

I complete agree, that missiles cannot replace aircraft, but precise missiles are also incredibly important and the U.S first strike on Iraqi Airbases with cruise missiles in 2003 , and that cruise missiles strikes on the Syrian Shayrat airbase shows its importance in history. And Yes, cruise missiles is also a priority or should be one. Iran's CM's are not known really well at all.

People think that Iran can achieve pinpoint accuracy <50 meters with a long range BM without GLONASS or GPS is folly. (Even with that pinpoint accuracy is not a sure thing).

Even the latest CM don’t have pinpoint accuracy at all times and they have the benefit of flying low, using gps, terrain mapping, and target imaging confirmation.

The processor needed to guide a warhead to a target and account and adjust for all the variables affecting accuracy through the flight of the missile (wind, atmospheric resistance, etc etc) May not even exist at this point.

Iran needs to focus on hypersonic CMs one that use the air in the atmosphere as fuel these eliminating the need for a fuel tank and stockpile CMs in the thousands.

Furthermore, Iran needs to start a full force interceptor and multi role fighter project using all the resources at its disposal. For interceptor Iran could try to build a next gen F-14, even if it’s not “stealth” that’s fine as it will be operating in its own airspace.

The multi-role fighter would be a bomber and all around fighter that would aim for reduced RCS that could fly sorties to neighboring countries if need be, but not a long distance fighter aircraft.

 

[VEVAK]

Let the air defense so its own job. If the load is too great, send some F-313 into the area and wait for a opportunity to set a trap for the attacker with LR-BVRAAM. In that way you take the load off the shoulders of the ground based IADS, just what Iran needs fighters for.



Good enough, 100km range is good enough and just two of those 5m long LR-BVRAAM, too. Design goal is a 5mx1m central weapon bay. I know you want more AAM and higher speed and higher altitude and large radar aperture. However this is not a game about prestige. I can't offer you all those capabilities without a monster like the Su-57/F-22.
But I can offer a less heroic assassin doctrine --> persistence/endurance and low probability of detection. This is the skill set that our economy can handle and meaningful in numbers.



Do a small or larger pop-up for the shot until the launch is technically feasible.



The F-117 was a striker. Main mission for a fighter for Iran would be air defense.
As a sole striker of high value targets, I agree with you, payload is of great importance for economic use.
Irans would only use the F-313 as striker of the enemy air defense is sufficiently degraded, despite being "stealth".
Bombardment like Russians do in Syria is better done via something that makes economical sense for Iran. Such as two enlarged, twin engine RQ-170 unmanned bombers as wingmans for a highly automated F-313 pilot to tell what to strike. Such a capability sounds like fiction, but is technologically of lower risk/easier for Iran to achieve than large fighters with high performance engines.

Talking about F-117 like subsonic, low payload aircraft: The USN was close to buy the A-12 stealth aircraft in the early 90's. Instead they now have the F/A-18.



A twin stage SAM with turbojet reusable stage is actually a unconventional and economic idea I like.
A BVRAAM equipped UCAV is also one such idea but this is really too far away as advances in AI are necessary. We need to work into that direction but for now a manned fighter with the skill set I described for the F-313 is good enough.
Having a human which can make decisions at any frontline that needs support is what a manned fighter is there for today. The weak point of a small nose, small aperture size and reliance on a intact IADS is a weakpoint as of today. However in future the situation can become better with advanced IRST and a new radar generation. A UAV AEW aircraft like that enlarged RQ-170 with plenty of aperture space could be a alternative solution for the future.



The variant I outline previously in this thead: 500-1000. Basing in existing/expanded bases and moved to mobile highway operation in wartime.



Just disrupt operations from those bases. If you are successful, you can send a swarm of cheap TP-drones or even S-129 to take out specific targets. Or a RQ-170 bomber, or CM's in future. Or your desired force of a few dozen Su-30... yes if there is no serious threat anymore because runway damage, FOD-risk, risk of unexploded submunitions, damaged systems etc. due to submunition warhead equipped BMs... yes then anything can be used as bomb trucks to take out those fancy bunkers.
What I would prefer? Soften the airbase with periodic submunition BM strikes and use cheap Ya Ali like CM's to kill important soft structures. Then use Emad or better more advanced terminal guided next-gen BM's to take out hardened structures. After base is taken out that way, keep 10 S-129 continuously on the base to take out what remains alive.
Those Israeli and Saudi superbases look impressive and are in fact, but how many of them do they have? Israel 5? Saudis 10? Their complete backbone is based on them, so yes, hard nut to crack but even the use of 500 MRBM would be justified against those strongholds. Once they are out, their conventional warfighting capability is basically taken out.



I see things differently. We have produced a huge arsenal at prices no one in the west would believe.



Anything large will require a large, high-power engine. This is a fundamental problem. The best solution is a high lift RQ-170 like design, enlarged, flying at 50-60k feet. In that way you can get payload.
However, even with LO capabilities of the original RQ-170: It won't be survivable if the sent into an fully intact enemy IADS... and even that is a huge task because again the (small, subsonic) engines are still hard to master.

The missile approach, especially next generation multi-warhead, terminal guidance MRBM and CMs will allow Iran to break 80% of the enemy warfighting capability. We are getting there and upgrading existing arsenal to future pin-point strike capability. This has never been demonstrated in the world, but Iran is doing it. Strike wise we will get there sooner or later, what I want primary is a fighter to flexibly strengthen airdefense frontlines under pressure.

Your entire argument is flawed! And a bit absurd!
The fuel cost of a Su-30 for the about the same flight hours is just over 30% more then a F-5 during peace time (without extensive use of afterburners)
So even if we calculate it at 50% (1000 Gallons on a Su-30 for every 500 gallons on an F-5 for the same flight hours)
Your looking at paying the fuel cost of 500 Su-30's for a fleet of 1000 F-5 while in terms of capability 500 Su-30's are equivalent to the capability of over 3000 F-5's or F-313's

& FYI J-85's engines or owj engines on the F-313 are a small diameter limited airflow turbojet engines and they are NOT suited for a thick winged high drag subsonic aircraft for military use so in terms of range your looking at a consumption rate in terms of cost that's more equivalent to a Su-30 than an F-5!

For Iran to accommodate such an absurd idea of 500-1000 F-313 would require Iran to abandon it's missile program altogether!

1.In terms of capability 100 Su-30's are Superior to 600 F-313's
2.In terms of fuel cost 100 Su-30's are by far cheaper then even 200 F-313 during peace time training let alone 600 or more and in less than 2 decades they would make up the difference in the cost of the aircrafts with their fuel costs alone!
3.In terms of training your looking at building ground simulator and various other training equipment to accommodate pilots and maintenance crews for 100 Su-30's as appose to 600 F-313's
4.In terms of housing your aircraft your looking at upgrading a hand full of current bases to accommodate 100 Su-30's as appose to building various new facilities across the country to accommodate 600 F-313's.
5.In terms of maintenance equipment, facilities & crews on the ground 100 Su-30's is easily within Iran's current capabilities while 600 F-313 would require Iran to vastly increase the number of tools, facilities and maintenance personal just to keep those aircraft operational.

And all this for an Aircraft that's fully reliant on ground sensors for detection and targeting and with it's limited maneuverability it's no better than a Jet powered UAV and at beyond visible range your pilot is NOT making the decisions on whether to fire on a target or NOT because it's ground equipment that detect and target and choose to fire on any target beyond the pilots visible range so there is no human factor here and within visible range your aircraft lacks the maneuverability and speed required to have any success against any 4th gen fighter

The F-313 is by the most part a flawed project and would have very limited use so yes if Iran has extra money to throw around producing them in very limited numbers would have some use
No more than 50 F-313's 4 deployed across 10 bases + 1 base that houses 10 and is mainly responsible for maintenance and upkeep that can deploy those 10 to other bases where they will be needed during war time
Half built for specific strike missions & half built as small, cheap, very short range tankers to operate in and around the base they are deployed at.

Best option for Iran is a heavy reliance on Missiles and UCAV + a small fleet of force multipliers
100 Su-30's (80 active during peace time) + 60 Iranian built long range, high payload heavy fighter bombers (40 Active during peace time)
Paying the operating cost of any more than 150 fighters during peace time is pointless and would force Iran to cut back from it's Missile and UAV programs

Fact is using 2 jet engines on a manned aircraft to deliver 2 1000lb payloads is ABSURD you might as well build 2 cruise missiles with cheaper low lifespan engines

And this Idea that Iran can't a build larger long range supersonic bomber is beyond absurd!!!!!!!! The French built the Mirage IV in the early 60's and if Iran truly invests in it they can easily build something far superior than the Mirage IV today
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_IV#Design

To make it more simple for you
Even at an absurdly low operation costs as low as $6000 per flight hour for 1000 F-313 to have 100 flight hours a year that's what? $600 Million USD a year and after 2 decades that's $12 Billion USD and that's just simple operation cost!
So we might as well just buy 100 Su-30's!

 

[Ich]

Iran needs to focus on hypersonic CMs

Thats right. Hyper sonic vehicles are the standard in near future. They will also shift AD from missiles to laser.

 

[PeeD]

Your entire argument is flawed! And a bit absurd!
The fuel cost of a Su-30 for the about the same flight hours is just over 30% more then a F-5 during peace time (without extensive use of afterburners)
So even if we calculate it at 50% (1000 Gallons on a Su-30 for every 500 gallons on an F-5 for the same flight hours)
Your looking at paying the fuel cost of 500 Su-30's for a fleet of 1000 F-5 while in terms of capability 500 Su-30's are equivalent to the capability of over 3000 F-5's or F-313's

& FYI J-85's engines or owj engines on the F-313 are a small diameter limited airflow turbojet engines and they are NOT suited for a thick winged high drag subsonic aircraft for military use so in terms of range your looking at a consumption rate more equivalent to a Su-30 than an F-5!

Fuel cost is less important than maintenance costs of a 4th gen supersonic fighter, so I don't know why you concentrate on fuel.
You seem to like the word absurd and I feel honored that my/Irans ideas are innovative, so that some can't comprehend.

Please inform yourself about the dimensions involved here first: My F-313 has half the maintenance effort of the supersonic but simple F-5. The F-5 had 1/4 the maintenance effort of the F-4. The F-4 has around 1/3 the maintenance effort of a F-14 or 1/2 of a F-15/Su-30.
So what we learn? The life-cycle costs of my F-313 minus factors such as fuel and pilot costs are hence 5-10% of that of a Su-30. Sounds great doesn't it?
This is the goal for such a design such as the F-313. You may not believe it, but yes.

]1.In terms of capability 100 Su-30's are Superior to 600 F-313's

And still I have 1/5 the airframe cost and 1/10 the system life-cycle cost. I still win the cost game.

2.In terms of fuel cost 100 Su-30's are by far cheaper then even 200 F-313 during peace time training let alone 600 or more and in less than 2 decades they would make up the difference in the cost of the aircrafts with their fuel costs alone!

My F-313 is heavily automated, a much higher amount of pilot training is done in the simulator.
My F-313 uses J-90 turbofan engines optimized for the point of operation (speed, altitude), it has a very good SFC.

3.In terms of training your looking at building ground simulator and various other training equipment to accommodate pilots and maintenance crews for 100 Su-30's as appose to 600 F-313's

The maintenance effort, 1/10th of that of the Su-30, compensates that, as well as the much lower hours of live training flights.

4.In terms of housing your aircraft your looking at upgrading a hand full of current bases to accommodate 100 Su-30's as appose to building various new facilities across the country to accommodate 600 F-313's.

We have about 10 huge airbases from the Shah, the F-313 would fill them up, no huge investments necessary.

5.In terms of maintenance equipment, facilities & crews on the ground 100 Su-30's is easily within Iran's current capabilities while 600 F-313 would require Iran to vastly increase the number of tools, facilities and maintenance personal just to keep those aircraft operational.

Already explained in 3.

And all this for an Aircraft that's fully reliant on ground sensors for detection and targeting and with it's limited maneuverability it's no better than a Jet powered UAV and at beyond visible range your pilot is NOT making the decisions on whether to fire on a target or NOT because it's ground equipment that detect and target and choose to fire on any target beyond the pilots visible range so there is no human factor here and within visible range your aircraft lacks the maneuverability and speed required to have any success against any 4th gen fighter

Manouverability of 4g is sufficient there days. No dreams of dodging most modern enemy AAMs. The Su-30SM with TVC might be able to dodge a AIM-120C at the edge of its kinematic envelope (60km long range shot), where the AMRAAM does not more than 15g. Its a capability, good to have for this special case, just like LO design helps in some cases. But If you don't have it, the world does not crumble as no manned
aircraft can evade a AMRAAM in the 20km range.

My F-313 has a radar, but it relies on external EW data to get in radar detection range.
Again, no dreams: we simply can't play the radar aperture size game, as we can't built large high-end fighters.
The pilot gets to the area and tries to find the bandit, he is there to do the job, even if communication with IADS is unavailable. This is what I called decision making and again no dreams: If the bandits are not found, he returns to sectors with intact communication, he doesn't play the hero and trys to find the bandit. Just wait for the next opportunity to assassinate.

The F-313 is by the most part a flawed project and would have very limited use so yes if Iran has extra money to throw around producing them in very limited numbers would have some use
No more than 50 F-313's 4 deployed across 10 bases + 1 base that houses 10 and is mainly responsible for maintenance and upkeep that can deploy those 10 to other bases where they will be needed during war time
Half built for specific strike missions & half built as small, cheap, very short range tankers to operate in and around the base they are deployed at.

I really not know why you want to use that small air frame as a tanker...

Best option for Iran is a heavy reliance on Missiles and UCAV + a small fleet of force multipliers
100 Su-30's (80 active during peace time) + 60 Iranian built long range, high payload heavy fighter bombers (40 Active during peace time)
Paying the operating cost of any more than 150 fighters during peace time is pointless and would force Iran to cut back from it's Missile and UAV programs

A acceptable force structure. But I replace Su-30 with at least 4x F-313, gives our aircraft industry a serious shape. I also replace your heavy bomber with a heavy double size unmanned RQ-170 variant with low level escort and data-link to a manned F-313. I have no illusion that the bomber would not survive in a intact enemy IADS environment, but as a bomb truck for a already paralyzed enemy (via missiles).

And this Idea that Iran can't a build larger long range supersonic bomber is beyond absurd!!!!!!!! The French built the Mirage IV in the early 60's and if Iran truly invests in it they can easily build something far superior than the Mirage IV today

Please say good bye to old concepts. What is developed today will remain in service for 30-50 years. We need novel ideas to which Irans enemies are not used.

 

[Blue In Green]

Fuel cost is less important than maintenance costs of a 4th gen supersonic fighter, so I don't know why you concentrate on fuel.
You seem to like the word absurd and I feel honored that my/Irans ideas are innovative, so that some can't comprehend.

Please inform yourself about the dimensions involved here first: My F-313 has half the maintenance effort of the supersonic but simple F-5. The F-5 had 1/4 the maintenance effort of the F-4. The F-4 has around 1/3 the maintenance effort of a F-14 or 1/2 of a F-15/Su-30.
So what we learn? The life-cycle costs of my F-313 minus factors such as fuel and pilot costs are hence 5-10% of that of a Su-30. Sounds great doesn't it?
This is the goal for such a design such as the F-313. You may not believe it, but yes.



And still I have 1/5 the airframe cost and 1/10 the system life-cycle cost. I still win the cost game.



My F-313 is heavily automated, a much higher amount of pilot training is done in the simulator.
My F-313 uses J-90 turbofan engines optimized for the point of operation (speed, altitude), it has a very good SFC.



The maintenance effort, 1/10th of that of the Su-30, compensates that, as well as the much lower hours of live training flights.



We have about 10 huge airbases from the Shah, the F-313 would fill them up, no huge investments necessary.



Already explained in 3.




Manouverability of 4g is sufficient there days. No dreams of dodging most modern enemy AAMs. The Su-30SM with TVC might be able to dodge a AIM-120C at the edge of its kinematic envelope (60km long range shot), where the AMRAAM does not more than 15g. Its a capability, good to have for this special case, just like LO design helps in some cases. But If you don't have it, the world does not crumble as no manned
aircraft can evade a AMRAAM in the 20km range.

My F-313 has a radar, but it relies on external EW data to get in radar detection range.
Again, no dreams: we simply can't play the radar aperture size game, as we can't built large high-end fighters.
The pilot gets to the area and tries to find the bandit, he is there to do the job, even if communication with IADS is unavailable. This is what I called decision making and again no dreams: If the bandits are not found, he returns to sectors with intact communication, he doesn't play the hero and trys to find the bandit. Just wait for the next opportunity to assassinate.




I really not know why you want to use that small air frame as a tanker...



A acceptable force structure. But I replace Su-30 with at least 4x F-313, gives our aircraft industry a serious shape. I also replace your heavy bomber with a heavy double size unmanned RQ-170 variant with low level escort and data-link to a manned F-313. I have no illusion that the bomber would not survive in a intact enemy IADS environment, but as a bomb truck for a already paralyzed enemy (via missiles).




Please say good bye to old concepts. What is developed today will remain in service for 30-50 years. We need novel ideas to which Irans enemies are not used.

Please forgive my ignorance but I have one question that has been haunting me ever since I heard of the F-313. Is this jet real? honestly, Is Iran actually trying to make it?

 

[N_Al40]

Please forgive my ignorance but I have one question that has been haunting me ever since I heard of the F-313. Is this jet real? honestly, Is Iran actually trying to make it?

Yeah man, look at my earlier post on here for the most recent update!!

 

[PeeD]

Please forgive my ignorance but I have one question that has been haunting me ever since I heard of the F-313. Is this jet real? honestly, Is Iran actually trying to make it?

Unknown at this point of time. Sure is only that its landing gear looks real and professional. All the rest is speculation. My F-313 outlined in this thread is just inside the frame of whats visible. Some details like heavy use of cheap composites are obvious, others like a large internal weapon bay that has LR-BVRAAAMs is just my optimistic view.

 

[TheImmortal]

Long range BMs are becoming an outdated technology. At some point Iran will reach a point where improving its Ballistic missiles any further will become cost prohibitive.

Iran has already mentioned they have begun work on supersonic CMs, but research needs to start on hypersonic CMs in order to achieve deterrence.

Imagine if Iran’s adversaries field hypersonic CMs and Iran is still relying on BMs for deterrence. It will not even be a close fight.

Hypersonic CMs will penetrate Iran’s airdefense with ease and attack major HVTs in the first hours of any war along with mass subsonic CM attacks.

Again Iran needs to work on next gen technologies if it wants to be a world military power one day.

 

[VEVAK]

Please forgive my ignorance but I have one question that has been haunting me ever since I heard of the F-313. Is this jet real? honestly, Is Iran actually trying to make it?

Yes it is a real jet! But Iranians Air Force commanders are not so miss informed and deluded to accept a large purchase of such an absurd design!

 

[VEVAK]

Fuel cost is less important than maintenance costs of a 4th gen supersonic fighter, so I don't know why you concentrate on fuel.
You seem to like the word absurd and I feel honored that my/Irans ideas are innovative, so that some can't comprehend.

Please inform yourself about the dimensions involved here first: My F-313 has half the maintenance effort of the supersonic but simple F-5. The F-5 had 1/4 the maintenance effort of the F-4. The F-4 has around 1/3 the maintenance effort of a F-14 or 1/2 of a F-15/Su-30.
So what we learn? The life-cycle costs of my F-313 minus factors such as fuel and pilot costs are hence 5-10% of that of a Su-30. Sounds great doesn't it?
This is the goal for such a design such as the F-313. You may not believe it, but yes.


And still I have 1/5 the airframe cost and 1/10 the system life-cycle cost. I still win the cost game.



My F-313 is heavily automated, a much higher amount of pilot training is done in the simulator.
My F-313 uses J-90 turbofan engines optimized for the point of operation (speed, altitude), it has a very good SFC.



The maintenance effort, 1/10th of that of the Su-30, compensates that, as well as the much lower hours of live training flights.



We have about 10 huge airbases from the Shah, the F-313 would fill them up, no huge investments necessary.



Already explained in 3.




Manouverability of 4g is sufficient there days. No dreams of dodging most modern enemy AAMs. The Su-30SM with TVC might be able to dodge a AIM-120C at the edge of its kinematic envelope (60km long range shot), where the AMRAAM does not more than 15g. Its a capability, good to have for this special case, just like LO design helps in some cases. But If you don't have it, the world does not crumble as no manned
aircraft can evade a AMRAAM in the 20km range.

My F-313 has a radar, but it relies on external EW data to get in radar detection range.
Again, no dreams: we simply can't play the radar aperture size game, as we can't built large high-end fighters.
The pilot gets to the area and tries to find the bandit, he is there to do the job, even if communication with IADS is unavailable. This is what I called decision making and again no dreams: If the bandits are not found, he returns to sectors with intact communication, he doesn't play the hero and trys to find the bandit. Just wait for the next opportunity to assassinate.




I really not know why you want to use that small air frame as a tanker...



A acceptable force structure. But I replace Su-30 with at least 4x F-313, gives our aircraft industry a serious shape. I also replace your heavy bomber with a heavy double size unmanned RQ-170 variant with low level escort and data-link to a manned F-313. I have no illusion that the bomber would not survive in a intact enemy IADS environment, but as a bomb truck for a already paralyzed enemy (via missiles).




Please say good bye to old concepts. What is developed today will remain in service for 30-50 years. We need novel ideas to which Irans enemies are not used.

100 Su30's as appose to 1000 F-313's means what? means 300 landing gears as appose to 3000
it means 400 engines as appose to 4000 and that's for an engine with over 4 times the life span of a Turbojet engine!

It means 100 airframe who will easily last Iran for over 2 decades as appose to 1000 Airframes that won't even last a decade
It means requiring fuel tanks, fuel reserves,..... for 100 aircrafts as appose to 1000!
It means 100 Su-30 pilots having to practicing on live ordinance as appose to 1000 and unless your just practicing with dumb bombs with dummy warheads that is in it's self a major cost!
etc etc

So even with 1/20th the Airframe cost your still wouldn't win this argument due to life span and various other factors

And a jet Aircraft is a Jet aircraft whether they are subsonic transport aircraft or fighter jets they require a lot of fuel and engine maintenance after each flight on the ground with various ground equipment and facilities required to support them!

And lets see what's more logical producing 1000 UAV's that can do the same mission the F-313 can who can be stored and pilot training for the vast portion of the fleet can be simulated on the ground during peace time as appose to 1000's of F-313 pilots that would require years of actual flight hours & training on various aircraft including on the F-313

Just the Fuel cost of the F-313 would bankrupt Iran's military let alone anything else the fuel cost alone with standard engine maintenance will be upwards of half a billion USD a year let alone anything else "Ghatreh Ghatreh jam gardad vangahi darya shaved"



Do you know how irresponsible it is of a government not to acquired Air Superiority fighters in 4 decades!!!!!
And to complain about the purchasing of only 80-100 Air Superiority fighters for defensive purposes after 4 decades is boarding on treason!

And yes I agree that Iran should not buy anything it can produce it's self like Tanks, APC, Light and mid size helo's,...... But Air Superiority fighters is something we can't currently produce and we also need a major infuse of modern tech in our Air Force to increase our own tech!

It's absolute treason! Bunch of crooks that see Iran buying 100 Fighters after 4 decades as money going out of their personal pockets!

An I don't blame the Rahbar I just think he has been surrounded by crooks and is being misinformed!

I can promises you that Iran will not be producing 500 F-313 let alone 1000 even if all Iranian Air Force commanders were drugged and or replaced by delusional officers that are delusional enough to accept this and such a delusional plan was put into place after the 1st 100 batch it would be cancelled