Qaher F313 l News & Discussion

[AmirPatriot]

@PeeD technically it could be used in those more conventional roles, but compared to an aircraft with a more conventional design, the Qaher's efficacy is likely to be limited. It just looks too slow and not capable of carrying heavier or larger payloads.

 

[PeeD]

@AmirPatriot

Limitations always happen if you compete with a vastly superior opponent. Iran can't create a F-22/F-35, if it could it would still be behind and again if it could it would never reach the numbers the Americans have.
Never go for something that is impossible. Never let the rules of the battle be dictated by the opponent.

The F-35 is a all-rounder, the Qaher less.

It has no supersonic dash capability or super cruise? Then it should have higher kinematic power AAMs to compensate supersonic high altitude AAM release. It has too low thrust to climb like a interceptor? Same thing, higher kinematic performance AAMs are necessary.
No supersonic dash capability for maneuvering in dogfight conditions? Again let the weapon do it, develop a high kinematic performance TVC IIR AAM to avoid such dogfights.
Qaher can't carry out deep strikes into enemy airspace and remain survivable? Let ballistic missiles do that job in highly protected airspace.
Qaher cant carry as many AAMs as a F-22, more so because it uses larger missile to compensate its speed/altitude deficit? Operate two Qaher for one F-22.

Just try to reach your goals, don't compete like South Koreans, Indians and Turks in a field where they will never catch up to the Americans anyway. Just concentrate on the results you want to have.

In the operation regime I described, the Qaher has no important deficiency. A MIG-29 can be for ~ 5 minutes on afterburner, supersonic over target location. A F-16 maybe 10 minutes. However the B-2 was designed to fly at mach 0,9 at sea level to OUTRUN such aircraft like MIG-29 tying to hunt it down, just by maintaining a continuous high speed with high range performance after 10 minutes the hunter must turn back to its base because the delta in speed is too low and fuel consumption on afterburner too high.
These are real operational conditions and the art of the B-2 designers was to realize that this is enough to achieve the objective, no supersonic capability necessary.

 

[AmirPatriot]

@AmirPatriot

Limitations always happen if you compete with a vastly superior opponent. Iran can't create a F-22/F-35, if it could it would still be behind and again if it could it would never reach the numbers the Americans have.
Never go for something that is impossible. Never let the rules of the battle be dictated by the opponent.

The F-35 is a all-rounder, the Qaher less.

It has no supersonic dash capability or super cruise? Then it should have higher kinematic power AAMs to compensate supersonic high altitude AAM release. It has too low thrust to climb like a interceptor? Same thing, higher kinematic performance AAMs are necessary.
No supersonic dash capability for maneuvering in dogfight conditions? Again let the weapon do it, develop a high kinematic performance TVC IIR AAM to avoid such dogfights.
Qaher can't carry out deep strikes into enemy airspace and remain survivable? Let ballistic missiles do that job in highly protected airspace.
Qaher cant carry as many AAMs as a F-22, more so because it uses larger missile to compensate its speed/altitude deficit? Operate two Qaher for one F-22.

Just try to reach your goals, don't compete like South Koreans, Indians and Turks in a field where they will never catch up to the Americans anyway. Just concentrate on the results you want to have.

In the operation regime I described, the Qaher has no important deficiency. A MIG-29 can be for ~ 5 minutes on afterburner, supersonic over target location. A F-16 maybe 10 minutes. However the B-2 was designed to fly at mach 0,9 at sea level to OUTRUN such aircraft like MIG-29 tying to hunt it down, just by maintaining a continuous high speed with high range performance after 10 minutes the hunter must turn back to its base because the delta in speed is too low and fuel consumption on afterburner too high.
These are real operational conditions and the art of the B-2 designers was to realize that this is enough to achieve the objective, no supersonic capability necessary.

Well personally I don't think we should limit ourselves to only the Americans. The Saudis and Israelis are also a threat too, on a lower tier than the Americans.

In all honesty I don't think the Qaher is even meant to go against any fighters, let alone the F-22. But it seems too small to carry enough fuel to sustain that high subsonic dash.

 

[Penguin]

@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.

Let me itemize my response:

• It is claimed that it makes use of ground effect, it is not yet proven that this design actually does (nor that it can actually fly).
• I've said nothing about the vertical surfaces (tails/rudders)
• I've not said anything about ' other GEVs' , did not compare F313 to them.
  
• The statement 'No other GEV have such positioned wings?' implies the maker of the statement considers F313 a GEV. I specifically said F313 is not a GEV, with reason for the distinction between GEV pur sang and aircraft designed to make use of ground effect. See earlier post.
• I pointed out a low wing design is better than a high design when it comes to making use of ground effect ( by a NON-GEV). Yet a high wing design was apparently chosen (this suggests suboptimization)
• The suggestion you make here that a high wing design was chosen so that downward cranked wing could be adopted (and a normal landing gear be had) is a possibility. But it leave unanswered the question why a downward cranked win wass necessary or beneficial in the first place.
• Look at an F5 from the front: that low wing could still be downward crank on a normal carriage.
  
• It is up to those claiming the downward cranked wing is indicative of GE specialization to prove/back up this claim. Which non-GEVs but rather true aircraft that aim to use GE are there out there, and of those, which have and which do not have downward cranked wings? I.e. what are YOU comparing to? I find very little is an aircraft with a downard cranked wing, or similar GEVs.

As for Tornado:

• I think I made it clear that Tormado, in accidented terrain doesn't do 8-10m, but rather 80m (250ft).
  
• Note there is a different between DOES not do and CAN not do.
  
• Tornado as well as even older and less specialized Jaguar can do such extremely low level flights BUT ONLY IN FLAT Desert terrain (not even sea)
• Does F313 actually have " much better with electronically scanned radars, SAR, high resolution digital optics, high resolution digital 3D maps, all stored on board on memory" ? So far, that's only a claim. (after all, this is only a taxi test mock up, right?)

As for Tomahawk:

• I did not claim Tomahawk makes or made use of ground effect. I did state that IF it so was attempted THEN given the much smaller span, it would have to fly at less than 3m.
• Tomahawk would cruise at 30m, it would be lower in terminal stage. Like many antiship missiles.
• Just because missiles can, doesn't mean (larger) manned aircraft can.
• Just because Iran manages copies/developments of foreign missiles, doesn't mean they can implement this in an aircraft. ( or others in a similar design)
  
• I'm not interested in theoretical ' would' but in actual ' can' . Too many claims, assumptions.

 

[Arminkh]

Well personally I don't think we should limit ourselves to only the Americans. The Saudis and Israelis are also a threat too, on a lower tier than the Americans.

In all honesty I don't think the Qaher is even meant to go against any fighters, let alone the F-22. But it seems too small to carry enough fuel to sustain that high subsonic dash.

A similar technique as what PEED described for flying low, pop up fire the missile and again dive low was experienced by Iraq's MIGs that had the same technological gap compared to Iranian F-14s and also it was limited, where adopted, it was successful.

Against Saudi's and Israelis I think our ballistic missiles will be the best weapon. Q-313 in my opinion will be used for sea/shore line attack, ground strike and limited local air defense / access denial missions. If they can build it cheap and fast like what they did with ballistic missiles, above a certain number, any low tech weapon becomes a major threat. As Stalin used to say: "Quantity has its own quality!"

 

[Penguin]

See 5m30s and on (Tornado, 1990/91)
Notice how close aircraft and shadow are.

Why 30-50ft / 9-15m is achievable over sea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_state#World_Meteorological_Organization_sea_state_code

 

[PeeD]

This all is about a hypothesis for the operating regime of the Qaher, all theoretical. As you said this is a taxi or landing gear testing mock-up/demonstrator.

As for your answers:

It's known that downward cranked wingtips benefit from ground effect, most GEV have them. Here it is demonstrated ultimately by nature:

I expected this to be known widely. The Qaher needs a wing position like that with those wingtips to use a sane looking landing gear design and many GEV have that for similar reasons.

Secondly. Tornado is not using GE and does not need to fly at 15-20m and it does not, nor would it be technically feasible at that time to develop such a terrain avoidance autopilot. Today it might be, but this is theory.

 

[AmirPatriot]

A similar technique as what PEED described for flying low, pop up fire the missile and again dive low was experienced by Iraq's MIGs that had the same technological gap compared to Iranian F-14s and also it was limited, where adopted, it was successful.

To my knowledge the Iraqi MiGs didn't have the proper sensors to use this effectively. But Iraqi Mirages did, and did manage to shoot down a small number of F-14s.

Against Saudi's and Israelis I think our ballistic missiles will be the best weapon. Q-313 in my opinion will be used for sea/shore line attack, ground strike and limited local air defense / access denial missions.

I think the Qaher is probably in the same role you described, but I do not think we can rely purely on ballistic missiles for our offensive force. It's a little known fact that ballistic missiles are actually more expensive to use on a large scale compared to aircraft. This is because to deliver at most 1 ton of ordinance (AFAIK most of Iran's missiles have 650 kg warheads), you have to expend an entire missile. Whereas an aircraft can carry multiple bombs each time and be used again to carry even more.

I remember I went into a lot of detail about this on the old IMF forum, I calculated everything including fuel costs, ordinance costs, aircraft costs, maintenance costs, hell even pilot wages. For missiles I just used the basic cost of each missile. The aircraft ended up saving money against the missiles after something like 3 or 4 sorties...

I personally think most people here have the usage of ballistic missiles all wrong. Iran only acquired missiles in the first place because, without aircraft, they were our most accessible (financially, politically, and technologically) deterrent. Iran now has the capability to hit ships at sea with ballistic missiles. Iran should be using the inherent difficulty of interception of ballistic and cruise (the US uses cruise missiles for this very purpose) missiles as a qualitative edge. Retrofit the entire MRBM fleet with the Emad precision warhead and voila, you have a precise, difficult to intercept (for cruise missiles, difficult to detect), long range delivery system, with the caveat being high cost. Take out the enemy's low quantity, high value targets like air defences, runways and radars. Then send in the aircraft to do the heavy lifting, destroying the individual aircraft shelters, command and control centres, ports, and even strategic targets (like oil production facilities, if they have them).

This should be the future of the Iranian MRBM fleet.

If they can build it cheap and fast like what they did with ballistic missiles

If anyone can build a cheap manned stealth aircraft...

 

[PeeD]

High precision ballistic missiles would be used to break the defense, take out HQs, airbases, communication and radars. Once the defensive system is weak enough aircraft and drones can do the mass of strikes against lower value targets.

This can happen step by step, km per km via missiles (TBM) like Fateh and Qiam only. The center will always be better defended than the peripherie. Qaher can start operations beyond borders once the defense system close to the border has become just weak enough via TBM.

 

[Blue In Green]

High precision ballistic missiles would be used to break the defense, take out HQs, airbases, communication and radars. Once the defensive system is weak enough aircraft and drones can do the mass of strikes against lower value targets.

This can happen step by step, km per km via missiles (TBM) like Fateh and Qiam only. The center will always be better defended than the peripherie. Qaher can start operations beyond borders once the defense system close to the border has become just weak enough via TBM.

Isn't that a situational type of scenario though? Are we assuming that Iran does indeed have a plentiful amount of MRBM's and cruise missiles at their dispense.

Curious I am about the actual amount of missiles iran would need to be effect in a hot war. It has to in 500-1000 range right?

Given the interceptors and what not.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Isn't that a situational type of scenario though? Are we assuming that Iran does indeed have a plentiful amount of MRBM's and cruise missiles at their dispense.

Curious I am about the actual amount of missiles iran would need to be effect in a hot war. It has to in 500-1000 range right?

We are confident that Iran has a lot of ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles are becoming more relevant to Iran, with the Ya Ali and Soumar missiles. The MRBM figure seems right, but the TBM missiles like Fateh-110/313 and Zolfaqar are the ones that would make up the really huge numbers in case of a war not against Israel.

In that case, it isn't really situational.

Given the interceptors and what not.

Depends on the opponent...

High precision ballistic missiles would be used to break the defense, take out HQs, airbases, communication and radars. Once the defensive system is weak enough aircraft and drones can do the mass of strikes against lower value targets.

This can happen step by step, km per km via missiles (TBM) like Fateh and Qiam only. The center will always be better defended than the peripherie. Qaher can start operations beyond borders once the defense system close to the border has become just weak enough via TBM.

 

[VEVAK]

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

1st all Aircrafts are effected by Ground Effect during takeoff and landing and although the F-313 wings & design may effect the altitude of which this takes place but overall the F-313 is NOT a Ground Effect Vehicle! It is just an subsonic fighter whos wing design gives it greater stability at lower speeds and this allows it to fly safely at lower altitudes then regular wing designs BUT at the same time it reduces maneuverability at higher speeds!

Regardless, this Aircrafts optimal cruise altitude will be closer to it's maximum flight altitude than to the ground!
If Ground Effect was capable of increasing a Jet Powered aircrafts range the US & other countries in the world would have used it to develop anti-ship cruise missiles that only use ground effect a long time ago.

2ndly The greatest threat to Aircraft built for low altitude flight and engagement are AAA and that's why Aircrafts like the A-10 & Su-25 are so heavily armored so if your going to put an expensive Jet Engine on an Aircraft that uses expensive jet fuel for low altitude flight & engagement then you need to armor it up or else the cost vs benefit analysis of the Aircraft will not make much sense and in such a case you would be better off building 6 cruise missiles at a fraction of the price than such an Aircraft!

Not all fighter designs are successful but that still doesn't stop countries from building and experimenting with different designs.

 

[Penguin]

1st all Aircrafts are effected by Ground Effect during takeoff and landing and although the F-313 wings & design may effect the altitude of which this takes place but overall the F-313 is NOT a Ground Effect Vehicle! It is just an subsonic fighter whos wing design gives it greater stability at lower speeds and this allows it to fly safely at lower altitudes then regular wing designs BUT at the same time it reduces maneuverability at higher speeds!

Regardless, this Aircrafts optimal cruise altitude will be closer to it's maximum flight altitude than to the ground!
If Ground Effect was capable of increasing a Jet Powered aircrafts range the US & other countries in the world would have used it to develop anti-ship cruise missiles that only use ground effect a long time ago.

2ndly The greatest threat to Aircraft built for low altitude flight and engagement are AAA and that's why Aircrafts like the A-10 & Su-25 are so heavily armored so if your going to put an expensive Jet Engine on an Aircraft that uses expensive jet fuel for low altitude flight & engagement then you need to armor it up or else the cost vs benefit analysis of the Aircraft will not make much sense and in such a case you would be better off building 6 cruise missiles at a fraction of the price than such an Aircraft!

Not all fighter designs are successful but that still doesn't stop countries from building and experimenting with different designs.

Which is exactly what I said.
Good point

 

[Ray_Atek]

Hi
Just looking at qaher platform and it's probably future development such as re-design of wing totally and vertical stablizers and increasing air-inlet cross section and scaling up it's platform for more powerful engines like j79,rd33,rd93 ,...and ....
Seems it is a well chosen platform not only as subsonic low altitude close air support fighter but also as interdictor or multirule fighter or bomber.

It is at least a good testbed fighter and can have better future.

Wing array can be change easily
Center of mass can be change easily
Airfoil also
Missile releasing mechanism not very difficult to make in Iran

Just looking at it's landing gear design, it is very logical choose to have heavy avionics at nose and heavy weapons in body bay.

The front landing gear has more distance to front nose as compared to f5,which give more space for more avionics.

Without its future developments, Just compare it with f5, seems it is an economical and logical choose

 

[VEVAK]

Hi
Just looking at qaher platform and it's probably future development such as re-design of wing totally and vertical stablizers and increasing air-inlet cross section and scaling up it's platform for more powerful engines like j79,rd33,rd93 ,...and ....
Seems it is a well chosen platform not only as subsonic low altitude close air support fighter but also as interdictor or multirule fighter or bomber.

It is at least a good testbed fighter and can have better future.

Wing array can be change easily
Center of mass can be change easily
Airfoil also
Missile releasing mechanism not very difficult to make in Iran

Just looking at it's landing gear design, it is very logical choose to have heavy avionics at nose and heavy weapons in body bay.

The front landing gear has more distance to front nose as compared to f5,which give more space for more avionics.

Without its future developments, Just compare it with f5, seems it is an economical and logical choose

It is NOT logical at all especially when your not capable of mass producing Airframes & Engines in large numbers!

F-15's & F-22's can take out 6-8 F-5's or Saegheh with ease go back home reload and come again! Most likely they'll just fire at you with 6 BVR missiles & go back home to re-arm

If Iran is going to build a fighter that makes sense economically then they need to mass produce them at extremely high rates & they need to be cheap enough so that you can build, fuel, supply and maintain 10 fighters of your own at a minimum for every single enemy Aircraft! Even at a rate of 10 to 1 in an Air to Air battle I would still take a single modernized F-15 over 10 Saegheh Fighters because even if the F-15 is stuck without any weapons because of it's speed and range no F-5 or Saegheh fighter will ever be able to catch it!

Just because a fighter is cheaper or is easier to mass produce it doesn't necessarily make it more economical in the long run! You still have to train 10 pilots for every one of theirs, you still have to provide weapons for 10 Aircrafts for every one of theirs & you still have to maintain, fuel & overhaul 10 Aircrafts for every single one of theirs

As for the redesign they have to fix the Wings & canards (elevators) and if it was me I would also redesign the inlets which would require them to redesign the entire fuselage

Iran would be better off just building a twin engine version of the X-36 either with advanced fly by wire & thrust vectoring control OR with added V shaped stabilizers with a less advanced fly by wire system