Qaher F313 l News & Discussion

[Arminkh]

it is ,when you hug ground at speed like say 500kn or 600km every wind you encounter is like an obstacle in fact the main problem in such low altitude flight is not earth but air.

I think that's where Qaher's strange design comes in making it more stable. And don't forget in the case of autonomous driving you are dealing with moving objects around you that are not predictable. In the low flight case at least the landscape is stationary.

Iran is trying to change the game with this design same as using fast attack boats or using drone in war for the first time. There definitely are challenges but that is what you need to face when you are doing something out of the ordinary.

 

[raptor22]

برگرفته از صفحه دوستداران نیروی هوایی ارتش جمهوری اسلامی ایران در فیس بوک

 

[randomradio]

This is also what I know, piloting at very low level flight is not sustainable.

For the proposed Qaher operation regime a continuous flight altitude of 15m is proposed to make use of ground effect, not for radar masking purposes.

A terrain following and avoidance system, fully automated with interpolated flight trajectory, a robust one able to confidently avoid e.g cables. The question is if such a autopliot would be feasible, at least with 2017 technology.

It already exists on the Rafale.

http://www.upi.com/Defense-News/201...ility-eyed-for-Rafale-fighters/2631428604360/
"Integrated into the aircraft, this flight control mode allows it to fly at high speed and low level over the ground or sea, the French Air Force said. "In complete safety and under all weather conditions, the aircraft can operate at very low level by day and night thanks to its sophisticated advanced autopilot, which protects the crew by preventing the aircraft from impacting natural (terrain features) and artificial (antennas, bridges, cables, etc) obstacles. The crew is thus free to concentrate on the prosecution of its mission, on surviving in a hostile environment and on achieving its operational objectives."

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/thunder-at-100-feet-flying-frances-rafale-superfighter-495271
One of the most impressive technologies on offer in the Rafale is the advanced terrain following system which allows the jet to skim the surface of the earth using the Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS). Operational in two modes, the AFCS, allows the pilot to conduct a fully automated attack run ("hands off the controls") using either digital terrain following or a radar terrain following mode. With digital terrain following, the AFCS maneuvers the Rafale over terrain (hills, valleys, peaks) based on a three dimensional map database which is pre-programmed into the AFCS software. An even more reliable way of coming in low to hit a target (or to escape) is by using the radar terrain following mode of the RBE-2 AESA radar which scans the terrain ahead and safely flies the jet over all obstructions before resuming nap-of-the-earth operations.

 

[Godman]

Will it be carrying Anti-Ship weapons?

 

[gambit]

This is also what I know, piloting at very low level flight is not sustainable.

For the proposed Qaher operation regime a continuous flight altitude of 15m is proposed to make use of ground effect, not for radar masking purposes.

A terrain following and avoidance system, fully automated with interpolated flight trajectory, a robust one able to confidently avoid e.g cables. The question is if such a autopliot would be feasible, at least with 2017 technology.

If ground effect flight is tactically useful, there would have been more combat aircraft using it. What I see in this discussion is people desperate to make the F-313 justifiable in any way.

 

[Arminkh]

If ground effect flight is tactically useful, there would have been more combat aircraft using it. What I see in this discussion is people desperate to make the F-313 justifiable in any way.

I think you need to consider the question "tactically useful to whom?"

Tactically useful to USAF? No. US already has the high ground if you will with its superior technology. It doesn't need to fly low. They already have picked the low hanging fruit.

Tactically useful to a country like Iran? Maybe. Because the low altitude is still not used much by air forces around the world. So there is a niche for Iran to get a foot hold and climb from there.

Its just like use of fast attack boats instead of multi-thousand tons destroyers. Is use of a fleet of small fast attack boats tactically useful to US? Probably not. Is it useful to Iran? You bet it is.

 

[gambit]

I think you need to consider the question "tactically useful to whom?"

Tactically useful to USAF? No. US already has the high ground if you will with its superior technology. It doesn't need to fly low. They already have picked the low hanging fruit.

Tactically useful to a country like Iran? Maybe. Because the low altitude is still not used much by air forces around the world. So there is a niche for Iran to get a foot hold and climb from there.

Its just like use of fast attack boats instead of multi-thousand tons destroyers. Is use of a fleet of small fast attack boats tactically useful to US? Probably not. Is it useful to Iran? You bet it is.

Right...You are essentially shackled. Low altitude flying is not something you built into the aircraft. It should be a pilot skill, not an aircraft feature.

 

[Arminkh]

Low altitude flying is not something you built into the aircraft. It should be a pilot skill, not an aircraft feature.

On the contrary, with the new developments in robotics and machine vision, you can build it into an aircraft as a feature. Knowing the topography of the region and having medium range sensors, Pilot can take care of general guidance while the on-board computer takes care of details. Cruise missiles do that all the time.

The only reason that flying low is not a routine in USAF or any other strong AF is that they don't need to.

For Iran, the story is different. They need to exploit areas that others don't feel comfortable with and they are well known for their interrupting approach towards warfare.

 

[Hack-Hook]

I think that's where Qaher's strange design comes in making it more stable. And don't forget in the case of autonomous driving you are dealing with moving objects around you that are not predictable. In the low flight case at least the landscape is stationary.

Iran is trying to change the game with this design same as using fast attack boats or using drone in war for the first time. There definitely are challenges but that is what you need to face when you are doing something out of the ordinary.

you cam see objects on street but you can't see air movement around you .

 

[gambit]

On the contrary, with the new developments in robotics and machine vision, you can build it into an aircraft as a feature.

Sure you can, but then with real physics, you would be limiting the aircraft. Tactically speaking, that is like being a marksman with a pistol when everyone else has rifles.

The fact that you guys has to resort to this line of reasoning is a tacit admission that the F-313 is not as viable as a practical aircraft as you believe it is. I do not want to go into combat with an aircraft that is designed to fly -- at its best -- just a few meters off the ground. Even a helo has more utility.

 

[Arminkh]

The fact that you guys has to resort to this line of reasoning is a tacit admission that the F-313 is not as viable as a practical aircraft as you believe it is. I do not want to go into combat with an aircraft that is designed to fly -- at its best -- just a few meters off the ground. Even a helo has more utility.

We are not the designers you know. I'm sure they have a good reason for designing the aircraft like that. We are just trying to guess what that thought process was.

 

[SubWater]

Sure you can, but then with real physics, you would be limiting the aircraft. Tactically speaking, that is like being a marksman with a pistol when everyone else has rifles.

The fact that you guys has to resort to this line of reasoning is a tacit admission that the F-313 is not as viable as a practical aircraft as you believe it is. I do not want to go into combat with an aircraft that is designed to fly -- at its best -- just a few meters off the ground. Even a helo has more utility.

The key point is that what is mission of F-313.
I strongly believe we shouldn't play in American ground and base on Normal military tactics.
Sadam tried that and he lost b/c US is superior in any field.
Iran should be creative and bring his enemy to whee she like to fight Iran determine the ground and rules of war.
before any judgement about F-313 we should know the main mission of this jet.
my guess is that bigger F-313 can be part of complex tactic of attack to Diego Garcia Island in Indian ocean.

 

[randomradio]

Right...You are essentially shackled. Low altitude flying is not something you built into the aircraft. It should be a pilot skill, not an aircraft feature.

Um...

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/thunder-at-100-feet-flying-frances-rafale-superfighter-495271
"At this altitude and at this speed, it's safer for the radar to fly the plane than me" explains 3D. Just then, the Rafale banks to the left following the pre-programmed heading fed into the Rafale's auto-pilot system, an even more incredible experience. For the next several seconds, I am overwhelmed by the sensation of the sea, now less than thirty metres from me, staring me in the face as we charge past. The Rafale suddenly levels out and then banks to the right, giving me another peak at this other-worldly experience.

 

[gambit]

Um...

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/thunder-at-100-feet-flying-frances-rafale-superfighter-495271
"At this altitude and at this speed, it's safer for the radar to fly the plane than me" explains 3D. Just then, the Rafale banks to the left following the pre-programmed heading fed into the Rafale's auto-pilot system, an even more incredible experience. For the next several seconds, I am overwhelmed by the sensation of the sea, now less than thirty metres from me, staring me in the face as we charge past. The Rafale suddenly levels out and then banks to the right, giving me another peak at this other-worldly experience.

Um...You missed the point.

What you posted was AVIONICS, not airframe design. Combat flying have included low altitude flights before the advent of radar assisted methods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lun-class_ekranoplan

Airframe design for ground effects is what the forum Iranians are saying the F-313 is supposed to be, which in my opinion, is nonsensical for a 'stealth' combat aircraft.

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

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.

Even the specialist A-10 is more useful.

 

[C130]

برگرفته از صفحه دوستداران نیروی هوایی ارتش جمهوری اسلامی ایران در فیس بوک

View attachment 394293 View attachment 394294 View attachment 394295 View attachment 394296 View attachment 394297 View attachment 394298

nice CGI