Qaher F313 l News & Discussion

[Blue In Green]

another little air intake to supply air of cockpit

the othe change between first prototype and last one is that last one has s flaps on both sides of back wings

and this is important that last version that rouhani unveiled is 8th operational one .... it means it will have so many modifications in future
and look at the stick in the cockpit
it means that it is probable that iran will use fly by wire system in this aircraft

Iran is working on heavy turbo fan engines

because of it i think iran weill use stornger and bigger engines in operational version of f313 and operational version will be bigger than this one
just look at the number of this prototype .... its is 8th experimental and i repeat it experimental version
and they just use two owj engines in it just for simple flight tests it is operational version ... i think operational one is bigger and will have stronger engines .... i think iran unveil this version just to show that iran continue this project

It will be a good 5 years before we see the final product I think.

 

[PeeD]

We can set two boundary conditions and check if the methodical design result would be the Qaher.

1. Your engine technology is 3-4 decades behind that of your opponents.

2. Your country to defend has one of the most mountainous topographies on this planet, where mountain chains are 2000m on average.

The resulting design can be independent and no foreign companies or mainstream idol designs have influence on it.

In such a case a result could be the following:

Make use of the mountainous terrain to avoid detection by radar, IR and ESM. The design has to fly low in valleys to mask it. I wont go for the high altitude high speed game of air superiority fighters, hence no long range radar-tech/engine-tech driven BVR engagements. Now difference of speed at sea level is at best around 30% for a subsonic fighter and a advanced opponent fighter with advanced engine-tech due to the high drag. This lower speed difference compared to low engine-tech vs. high engine-tech engagements at high altitude helps to compensate.

As for the deficits with the engine, a physical effect, the ground effect is taken into the design, which effectively creates more thrust. A possible turbofan variant of the J85 at 70s tech level without afterburner, optimized for low altitude, plus the bonus by the ground effect, decreases the gap in engine-tech. It may provides mach 0,9 for a draggy internal weapon VLO design.
In a hunt, the opponents high engine-tech fighter, far from home base on short afterburner might do mach 1,3 with or without internal weapons, a short-lived difference of 30% for 30 years difference in engine technology.
Its clear that this 1:1 hunt scenario is not everything and the opponents fighter will try to shot it down from higher altitude, look-down. However the topographie will always force it to get close in order to have a direct line of sight for radar/IR and weapons and the VLO design will futher hinder long rnage shots from look-down positions. With a intact IADS and LR-SAMs the initial engagements could be limited to that low-altitude hunt scenario where the kinematic advantage of the modern fighter is decreased.

The Qaher is surely designed to make use of ground effect, its WIG like wingtips clearly point to it. Here is a technology where no experienced metallurgy is necessary, benefit by a physical effect affecting kinematics by developing a terrain avoidance system with digital maps and multiple redundant sensors. A mature terrain avoidance system for very low altitudes, state of the art. Ground effect was used on sea surface because land operation would be too dangerous but with today's technology this limitation can be eliminated.
Additional advancing communication technology with data-links and sensor-fusion/IADS could provide the Qaher with the necessary situational awareness to do its low level operation, approach a target, pop-up, attack and dive back and leave the battle. This dive/low-level subsonic escape is also a method used by the B-2 to out run interceptors that have detected it.

The tandem wing design is also noteworthy for the ground effect optimization. A question is what range performance would be possible for such a ground effect operating aircraft with an non-afterburning J-85 turbofan variant. Would the ground effect operation at mach 0,9 max. provide it with the same range performance as a medium to high altitude operating fighter?
The tandem wings have a interesting design, the forward wing/canard is conventional for a fighter, but the rear wing has a very thick leading edge. The benefit for such a thick wing profile is foremost the fuel that can be carried inside it, especially for a design that has internal weaponbays in the fuselage occupying space. The forward-wing apparently "breaks" the high speed airflow, so that the thick rear wing is just confronted with a low pressure region at the leading edge which could result into a thick wing as a airflow design result.
The decision not to go with a supersonic VLO design and stick to a low-level mach 0,9 design would also be a brave one, supersonic sounds good but in a operation regime hypothesized for the Qaher the effort-benefit ratio would be too low. In high subsonic operation the design gets much cleaner and more efficient.

Then there are always questions about the cost effectiveness. How much cheaper would be two turbofan modifications of the J-85 compared to modern engines (1/10 of a F404?)? How much cheaper is a small aperture low power AESA for 80km max. range against a 1m² target? How much easier design and hence cheaper is a VLO inlet like that of the Qaher? Just due to positioning it could provide the same VLO effect in its operation regime as complex fan-face avoiding supersonic designs. What high angle of attack penalties are expected for the inlet and how important are high AoA for its operation regime?
If all these trade-offs and design elements are clarified we can judge if the methodical design result of the Qaher makes sense or not.

Iranian defense industry are known for such unconventional designs and operation regimes, so this hypothesis might not be that far from reality.

At this point the project remains up for debate, neither IRGC nor IRIAF have shown support for it and development seems to be slow. Lets see if we see a airworthy prototype soon.

 

[sobhan]

ma red arrow is on iranian clone of russian engine bro

 

[Penguin]

and look at the stick in the cockpit
it means that it is probable that iran will use fly by wire system in this aircraft

What exactly could one tell from the stick and why?

 

[Penguin]

2. Your country to defend has one of the most mountainous topographies on this planet, where mountain chains are 2000m on average.

The Qaher is surely designed to make use of ground effect, its WIG like wingtips clearly point to it. Here is a technology where no experienced metallurgy is necessary, benefit by a physical effect affecting kinematics by developing a terrain avoidance system with digital maps and multiple redundant sensors. A mature terrain avoidance system for very low altitudes, state of the art. Ground effect was used on sea surface because land operation would be too dangerous but with today's technology this limitation can be eliminated.

A ground effect vehicle (GEV) (aka WIG) is a vehicle that is designed to attain sustained flight over a level surface (usually over the sea), by making use of ground effect. Although they may look and have related technical characteristics similar to seaplanes, ground effect vehicles are not aircraft, as they are unable to fly freely in the air. They are also dissimilar from hovercraft or hydrofoils, as they do not have any contact with the surface of the water. Ground effect vehicles constitute a completely unique class of transportation.

A ground effect vehicle needs some forward velocity to produce lift dynamically and the principal benefit of operating a wing in ground effect is to reduce its lift-dependent drag. The basic design principle is that the closer the wing operates to an external surface such as the ground, said to be in ground effect, the more efficient it becomes.

An airfoil passing through air increases air pressure on the underside, while decreasing pressure across the top. The high and low pressures are maintained until they flow off the ends of the wings, where they form vortices which in turn are the major cause of lift-induced drag—normally a large portion of the drag affecting an aircraft. The higher the aspect ratio of the wing (that is, the longer and skinnier it is), the less induced drag created for each unit of lift and the greater the efficiency of the particular wing. This is the primary reason gliders have long and skinny wings.

Placing the same wing near a surface such as the water or the ground has the effect of greatly increasing the aspect ratio, but without having the complications associated with a long and slender wing, so that the short stubs on an Ekranoplan can produce just as much lift as the much larger wing on a transport aircraft, though it can only do this when close to the earth's surface. Once sufficient speed has built up, some GEVs may be capable of leaving ground effect and functioning as normal aircraft until they approach their destination. The distinguishing characteristic is that they are unable to land or take off without a significant amount of help from the ground effect cushion, and cannot climb until they have reached a much higher speed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle

IMHO, Qaher 313 is not a Ground Effect Vehicle.

Principle of ground effect
When an aircraft flies at a ground level approximately at or below the length of the aircraft's wingspan or helicopter's rotor diameter, there occurs, depending on airfoil and aircraft design, an often noticeable ground effect. This is caused primarily by the ground interrupting the wingtip vortices and downwash behind the wing. When a wing is flown very close to the ground, wingtip vortices are unable to form effectively due to the obstruction of the ground. The result is lower induced drag, which increases the speed and lift of the aircraft. A wing generates lift by deflecting the oncoming airmass (relative wind) downward. The deflected or "turned" flow of air creates a resultant force on the wing in the opposite direction (Newton's 3rd law). The resultant force is identified as lift. Flying close to a surface increases air pressure on the lower wing surface, nicknamed the "ram" or "cushion" effect, and thereby improves the aircraft lift-to-drag ratio. The lower/nearer the wing is with regards to the ground, the more pronounced the ground effect becomes. While in the ground effect, the wing requires a lower angle of attack to produce the same amount of lift. If the angle of attack and velocity remain constant, an increase in the lift coefficient ensues, which accounts for the "floating" effect. Ground effect also alters thrust versus velocity, where reduced induced drag requires less thrust in order to maintain the same velocity.

Low winged aircraft are more affected by ground effect than high wing aircraft. Due to the change in up-wash, down-wash, and wingtip vortices there may be errors in the airspeed system while in ground effect due to changes in the local pressure at the static source.

Another important issue regarding ground effect is that the makeup of the surface directly affects the intensity; this is to say that a concrete or other smooth hard surface will produce more effect than water or broken ground..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_(aerodynamics)

Did someone just suggest this is a low level penetrator? Like the Panavia Tornado, a multirole, twin-engined aircraft designed to excel at low-level penetration of enemy defences?

Variable wing geometry had been desired from the project's start. Advanced navigation and flight computers, including the then-innovative fly-by-wire system, greatly reduced the workload of the pilot during low-level flight and eased control of the aircraft. The Tornado incorporates a combined navigation/attack Doppler radar that simultaneously scans for targets and conducts fully automated terrain-following for low-level flight operations; being readily able to conduct all-weather hands-off low-level flight was considered one of the core advantages of the Tornado

If F313 is designed to make use of ground effect, why not a low wing design, like F5, HESA Azarakash (model 2007) or HESA Saeqeh, or even a mid-body wing like HESA Azarakash (model 2008)?

To use ground effect, it needs to fly at 8-10 meters (F-5 and F16 span) altitude continuously..... in Iran's mountenous terrain.

This is Tornado flying low at high speed (probably about 80 m).

Here Typhoon (with flight heights mentioned)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-jets-fly-formation-each.html#v-3084998485001

F-111 low level oops

 

[PeeD]

I don't get what you try to say penguin.

The Qaher rear wingtips are a typical design to make use of ground effect and its tandem wing configuration is another design to benefit from ground effect.
It's not a ground effect vehicle, it's a unique aircraft optimised to make use of ground effect, either on see or in a vally, it's the same.

 

[arashkamangir]

We can set two boundary conditions and check if the methodical design result would be the Qaher.

1. Your engine technology is 3-4 decades behind that of your opponents.

2. Your country to defend has one of the most mountainous topographies on this planet, where mountain chains are 2000m on average.

The resulting design can be independent and no foreign companies or mainstream idol designs have influence on it.

In such a case a result could be the following:

Make use of the mountainous terrain to avoid detection by radar, IR and ESM. The design has to fly low in valleys to mask it. I wont go for the high altitude high speed game of air superiority fighters, hence no long range radar-tech/engine-tech driven BVR engagements. Now difference of speed at sea level is at best around 30% for a subsonic fighter and a advanced opponent fighter with advanced engine-tech due to the high drag. This lower speed difference compared to low engine-tech vs. high engine-tech engagements at high altitude helps to compensate.

As for the deficits with the engine, a physical effect, the ground effect is taken into the design, which effectively creates more thrust. A possible turbofan variant of the J85 at 70s tech level without afterburner, optimized for low altitude, plus the bonus by the ground effect, decreases the gap in engine-tech. It may provides mach 0,9 for a draggy internal weapon VLO design.
In a hunt, the opponents high engine-tech fighter, far from home base on short afterburner might do mach 1,3 with or without internal weapons, a short-lived difference of 30% for 30 years difference in engine technology.
Its clear that this 1:1 hunt scenario is not everything and the opponents fighter will try to shot it down from higher altitude, look-down. However the topographie will always force it to get close in order to have a direct line of sight for radar/IR and weapons and the VLO design will futher hinder long rnage shots from look-down positions. With a intact IADS and LR-SAMs the initial engagements could be limited to that low-altitude hunt scenario where the kinematic advantage of the modern fighter is decreased.

The Qaher is surely designed to make use of ground effect, its WIG like wingtips clearly point to it. Here is a technology where no experienced metallurgy is necessary, benefit by a physical effect affecting kinematics by developing a terrain avoidance system with digital maps and multiple redundant sensors. A mature terrain avoidance system for very low altitudes, state of the art. Ground effect was used on sea surface because land operation would be too dangerous but with today's technology this limitation can be eliminated.
Additional advancing communication technology with data-links and sensor-fusion/IADS could provide the Qaher with the necessary situational awareness to do its low level operation, approach a target, pop-up, attack and dive back and leave the battle. This dive/low-level subsonic escape is also a method used by the B-2 to out run interceptors that have detected it.

The tandem wing design is also noteworthy for the ground effect optimization. A question is what range performance would be possible for such a ground effect operating aircraft with an non-afterburning J-85 turbofan variant. Would the ground effect operation at mach 0,9 max. provide it with the same range performance as a medium to high altitude operating fighter?
The tandem wings have a interesting design, the forward wing/canard is conventional for a fighter, but the rear wing has a very thick leading edge. The benefit for such a thick wing profile is foremost the fuel that can be carried inside it, especially for a design that has internal weaponbays in the fuselage occupying space. The forward-wing apparently "breaks" the high speed airflow, so that the thick rear wing is just confronted with a low pressure region at the leading edge which could result into a thick wing as a airflow design result.
The decision not to go with a supersonic VLO design and stick to a low-level mach 0,9 design would also be a brave one, supersonic sounds good but in a operation regime hypothesized for the Qaher the effort-benefit ratio would be too low. In high subsonic operation the design gets much cleaner and more efficient.

Then there are always questions about the cost effectiveness. How much cheaper would be two turbofan modifications of the J-85 compared to modern engines (1/10 of a F404?)? How much cheaper is a small aperture low power AESA for 80km max. range against a 1m² target? How much easier design and hence cheaper is a VLO inlet like that of the Qaher? Just due to positioning it could provide the same VLO effect in its operation regime as complex fan-face avoiding supersonic designs. What high angle of attack penalties are expected for the inlet and how important are high AoA for its operation regime?
If all these trade-offs and design elements are clarified we can judge if the methodical design result of the Qaher makes sense or not.

Iranian defense industry are known for such unconventional designs and operation regimes, so this hypothesis might not be that far from reality.

At this point the project remains up for debate, neither IRGC nor IRIAF have shown support for it and development seems to be slow. Lets see if we see a airworthy prototype soon.

This is an excellent analysis as usual @PeeD. I was also thinking of approaching this from requirements perspective and you literally layed it out. I think this approach is worthy to apply for all Iranian projects. Heck we can even write our own concepts of operations independently for each project and carry out analysis to see if demonstrated designs address those for fun

 

[PeeD]

Thanks Arashkamangir, yes that's the approach to learn about the systems.

@Penguin

I see you added the point about the low altitude.

That's a bottleneck that has to be overcome but its not nearly impossible like catching up with engine-tech. The terrain avoidance autopilot system must be very robust and this is within Irans capabilities.

Then again this is a ground effect optimized design. Where a normal aircraft is within ground effect envelope at one wingspan, the Qaher should do it at higher altitude. As said its tandem wing and chanted wingtip design are due to the ground effect optimization.
If the wingspan is 10m, the Qaher would be on a conservative estimate withing ground effect at 15m.
The Tomahawk did 30m with 70's/80's expandable technology and crude TERCOM maps, imagine what a high resolution SAR sensor as one of the terrain-avoidance's subsystem as well as high resolution terrain maps would enable.
We talk about autopilot operation of course, its clear that such low level operation is impossible for a human.

The Tornado and F-111 with their terrain avoidance system were not able to perform like that, yes. However this is a computer and sensor issue and giant steps have been done in those fields, also in Iran. Its technically feasible but a bottleneck yes (a much smaller one than achieving parity in engine-tech).

 

[AmirPatriot]

@PeeD your suggestion that the Qaher would be a low altitude aircraft designed to make use of mountains does make sense, though I hope they aren't banking on this. It is a highly risky and specific role. Iran could basically not be able to use this procedure outside of Iran's borders, and even then it couldn't be used in some of Iran's terrain. Especially since adversaries such as the US even have AWACS flying off their carriers.

 

[Blue In Green]

@PeeD your suggestion that the Qaher would be a low altitude aircraft designed to make use of mountains does make sense, though I hope they aren't banking on this. It is a highly risky and specific role. Iran could basically not be able to use this procedure outside of Iran's borders, and even then it couldn't be used in some of Iran's terrain. Especially since adversaries such as the US even have AWACS flying off their carriers.

Iran must be anticipating an attack on its own soil in the coming years and since Iran's military doctrine is almost solely defensive in nature then Qaher with this idea of ground effect and flying close to the mountains would be the optimal choice.

This jet might actually be mich better than we all have previously thought. Qaher is playing to all of Iran's strengths instead trying to go toe to toe with other air superiority fighters. With this in mind we now know or have a more concrete idea of what the Qaher actually is.

To be honest of executed correctly the Qaher would be really deadly to an invading enemy force.

 

[AmirPatriot]

To be honest of executed correctly the Qaher would be really deadly to an invading enemy force.

I'm not all too sure. That's assuming Qaher is designed as PeeD described, and even then it would have to work well. The official statements have described it as a "close air support" aircraft, but I think this is a mistranslation, since there is no aspect of Qaher that lends itself to a CAS aircraft. I would guess, with the descriptions of its
capabilities, that it is some sort of interdictor, meant to fly low, fast (high subsonic), using its flight profile and stealth characteristics to evade detection.

Iran must be anticipating an attack on its own soil in the coming years and since Iran's military doctrine is almost solely defensive in nature then Qaher with this idea of ground effect and flying close to the mountains would be the optimal choice.

I see this said a lot, but it is always flawed in my opinion. The only adversary Iran has currently which would take the fight to its soil is the United States, and even with Trump in charge I think the cooler heads like Mattis will not go that far. I believe the most probable major conflict would be with the newly aggressive and unstable Saudi Arabia, or the ever-aggressive Israelis. To fight these adversaries, you need the flexibility to fight the enemy outside of your borders (OK, maybe not for Israel because of the distance, but I don't rule out the possibility of them coming from a number of directions that could be had forward action taken against them. Saudi? They would be chased across the PG. Iraq? They would probably smash some Iraqi AD along the way and Iran could be allowed to assist Iraq. Azerbaijan? That would mean war with Azerbaijan). That is why I've always said Iran's top priority is a strong air force. Ground based Air Defence alone does not suffice. ATGMs hiding in mountains alone don't suffice. You need an offensive punch. Even North Vietnam with its booby traps and harassing tactics eventually had to go on the offensive in order to win their war.

 

[Blue In Green]

I'm not all too sure. That's assuming Qaher is designed as PeeD described, and even then it would have to work well. The official statements have described it as a "close air support" aircraft, but I think this is a mistranslation, since there is no aspect of Qaher that lends itself to a CAS aircraft. I would guess, with the descriptions of its
capabilities, that it is some sort of interdictor, meant to fly low, fast (high subsonic), using its flight profile and stealth characteristics to evade detection.



I see this said a lot, but it is always flawed in my opinion. The only adversary Iran has currently which would take the fight to its soil is the United States, and even with Trump in charge I think the cooler heads like Mattis will not go that far. I believe the most probable major conflict would be with the newly aggressive and unstable Saudi Arabia, or the ever-aggressive Israelis. To fight these adversaries, you need the flexibility to fight the enemy outside of your borders (OK, maybe not for Israel because of the distance, but I don't rule out the possibility of them coming from a number of directions that could be had forward action taken against them. Saudi? They would be chased across the PG. Iraq? They would probably smash some Iraqi AD along the way and Iran could be allowed to assist Iraq. Azerbaijan? That would mean war with Azerbaijan). That is why I've always said Iran's top priority is a strong air force. Ground based Air Defence alone does not suffice. ATGMs hiding in mountains alone don't suffice. You need an offensive punch. Even North Vietnam with its booby traps and harassing tactics eventually had to go on the offensive in order to win their war.

Maybe the wide body of the Qaher serves a dual purpose. If we look at the qaher topagraphically, we see that it is wide, now the assumption is that this is for the internal bay, but when we look at this from what PeeD has suggested it is a jet with ground effect role in mind. Maybe there is advanced radars on the top of the jet that look up and out feeding information to other jets and air defense systems allowing for the Qaher to complete it's mission with a watchful eye on it from friendly air defense and other fighters in the sky.

I'm not an expert but could that be a viable option for that he Qaher. I know this isnt the final configuration and I'm also guessing the final qaher will be bigger to accommodate for the radars and systems and weapons.

And yeah I do agree with you about cooler head prevailing and all but Iran is still the only real thing that stand in the way of Israeli and the Gulf Arabs from complete Mideast dominance. The fate of Lebanon and Syria quite literally rests in the hands of Iran and its ability to create a counter balance to the other powers. We all know Israel wants more land and what ever any Israeli says no, its utter bullshit and the Arabs would love that pipeline etc, etc....

Trump is just idk, I'm still trying to gauge him but Kushner his son in law is practically an Israeli filling in as the cheif of operations for US foreign policy and that's has Israeli interstate first and foremost.

Long story short Iran is still on the list for countries to nomb and overthrow, puppet go etc, etc... so IRGC and Iran has the right mentality.

 

[Penguin]

I don't get what you try to say penguin.

The Qaher rear wingtips are a typical design to make use of ground effect and its tandem wing configuration is another design to benefit from ground effect.
It's not a ground effect vehicle, it's a unique aircraft optimised to make use of ground effect, either on see or in a vally, it's the same.

As I explicitly stated, I don't think it is a ground effect vehicle.

As for making use of ground effect:

"When an aircraft flies at a ground level approximately at or below the length of the aircraft's wingspan or helicopter's rotor diameter, there occurs, depending on airfoil and aircraft design, an often noticeable ground effect. "

Ground effect only occurs when very very close to the ground i.e. at wingspan height (8-10m in this case).

Notice that top low level aircraft, like Tornado (specifically designed for this) and F111 as well as Su-24, fly at around 50-100m in terrain that isn't flat. Flying continuously at 8-10m in non-flat terrain would be .... challenging, to say the least.

It is not like it would be in this terrain:

But like this, only in rougher, mountenous terrain.

Low winged aircraft are more affected by ground effect than high wing aircraft. Notice also that these three excellent low level penetrators all have high-mounted swing-wings (variable sweep wings). They were not designed to take advantage of ground effect. F-313 also does not have have a low wing. This makes me wonder to what extent it actually is the case that it is designed to use ground effect. I'm not sure that the (downward) cranked wingtips, in which tip section dihedral differs from the main wing, has anything to do specifically with ground effect. Northrop XP-56 and Rockwell XB-70 also employed such a wingshape but this had nothing to do with using ground effect.

 

[Penguin]

If the wingspan is 10m, the Qaher would be on a conservative estimate withing ground effect at 15m.

Mmn, no: if wingspan is 10m ground effect starts occurring at that heigh (or below).

The Tomahawk did 30m with 70's/80's expandable technology and crude TERCOM maps, imagine what a high resolution SAR sensor as one of the terrain-avoidance's subsystem as well as high resolution terrain maps would enable.

The difference being that a Tomahawk missile has a span of 2.67m so any ground effect would start to occur from that heigh and less.

We talk about autopilot operation of course, its clear that such low level operation is impossible for a human.

The Tornado and F-111 with their terrain avoidance system were not able to perform like that, yes. However this is a computer and sensor issue and giant steps have been done in those fields, also in Iran. Its technically feasible but a bottleneck yes (a much smaller one than achieving parity in engine-tech).

The Tornado incorporates a combined navigation/attack Doppler radar that simultaneously scans for targets and conducts fully automated terrain-following for low-level flight operations; being readily able to conduct all-weather hands-off low-level flight was considered one of the core advantages of the Tornado. Being designed for low-level operations, the Tornado required modification to perform in medium level operations that the RAF adopted in the 1990s.

The RAF's GR1 fleet was extensively re-manufactured as Tornado GR4s. Upgrades on Tornado GR4s included a Forward looking infrared, a wide-angle HUD (Head-up display), improved cockpit displays, NVG (Night vision devices) capabilities, new avionics, and a Global Positioning System receiver. The upgrade eased the integration of new weapons and sensors which were purchased in parallel, including the Storm Shadow cruise missile, the Brimstone anti-tank missile, Paveway III laser-guided bombs and the RAPTOR reconnaissance pod was integrated.
Beginning in 2000, German IDS and ECR Tornados received the ASSTA 1 (Avionics System Software Tornado in Ada) upgrade. ASSTA 1 involved a replacement weapons computer, new GPS and Laser Inertial navigation systems. The new computer allowed the integration of the HARM III, HARM 0 Block IV/V and TAURUS KEPD 350 missiles, the Rafael Litening II Laser Designator Pod and GBU-24 Paveway III laser-guided bombs. The ASSTA 2 upgrade began in 2005, primarily consisting of several new digital avionics systems, a new ECM suite and provision for the Taurus cruise missile. The ASSTA 3 upgrade programme, started in 2008, would introduce support for the laser-targeted Joint Direct Attack Munition along with further software changes

Following experience with both the Tornado and the (much newer, 10 years younger design) McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle, the RSAF discontinued low-level mission training in the F-15E in light of the Tornado's superior low-altitude flight performance.

Tornado and other aircraft do not have trouble getting down as low as indicated (see images previous post). But that is in flat desert terrain.

Cruise missile performance makes experience in that area no guarantee. Note Kalibr poster below: operational altitude 30m and more.

Note Brahmos.
Low-high-low trajectory: 5000-52000ft (1.5 to 15.8km) cruise phase altitude
Low-low-low trajectory: 50ft (15m) cruise phase altitude.

Tomahawk cruise phase altitude is probably 30ft (9m). But it's span is less than 3m, so still out of ground effect at that altitude.

Only during terminal phases do cruise missiles go extremely low 7-15ft (2-4.5m)

Iran fields Soumar cruise missile (a KH55 clone) which flies at subsonic speeds at low levels (= "under 110 m/300 ft" altitude). The equivalent Russian missile is powered by a turbojet producing 450 kg (990 lb) of thrust to cruise at 700–720 km/h (430–450 mph; Mach 0.57–Mach 0.59) with a maximum speed of 970 km/h (600 mph; Mach 0.79) while flying 30-70 m (100-230 ft) above the ground. Iran also builds antiship missile, which are sea skimmers.

 

[PeeD]

@AmirPatriot

The role is not as specialized as you think. It would use that method to get from point A to B. It still could be used as carrier of BVR weapons against opponents and strike capability. To some extend operation outside the borders would be possible too if the terrain avoidance system is strong enough, but it would be more risky.
Alone to task to protect the Iranian airspace and carry out strikes within it as well as in the surrounding waters is such a large and important role that its sure worth to have a single dedicated aircraft for that.

@Penguin

So let me see your point are the following:

Qaher is not designed to make use of ground effect? Its vertical wing position is a problem? No other GEV have such positioned wings? A low winged design plus downward cranked wingtips would be feasible with a normal landing gear?
Its special wingtip design is not indicative for GE specialization? Its not a typical GE design trait to have downward cranked wingtips?

Tornado couldn't do to 15-20m altitude 30 years ago, as necessary for GE usage of a specially GE designed aircraft like the Qaher? If the Tornado could do with state of the art solid state technology of the 70's, Qaher can't to much better with electronically scanned radars, SAR, high resolution digital optics, high resolution digital 3D maps, all stored on board on memory?

Tomahawk did not make use of ground effect while flying at 30m, 30 years ago? So it was able to fly at 30m, 30 years ago with expandable hardware, while the Qaher would not be able to do 15-20m today?

If that's what you trying to say, read my posts on this page, my answers are stated.