Iran's new stealth fighter

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
I had a meeting at work (Honeywell Flight Control Systems) with the flight control designers today and they all were laughing so hard at the ridiculous wings and canards of this aircraft.


That and who is actually going to fly it. It would make for some prime targets for the Navy to shoot down.

 

[ueberooo]

Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
I had a meeting at work (Honeywell Flight Control Systems) with the flight control designers today and they all were laughing so hard at the ridiculous wings and canards of this aircraft.


What do avionics folks know about aerodynamics. I would guess not much. Ask them what the area rule is. The people who designed this definitely know; they followed it to the letter.

 

[azsynthetic]

Originally Posted By: ueberooo


What do avionics folks know about aerodynamics. I would guess not much.


Unlike you, I don't guess and know that flight control engineers at our company have vast knowledge in aerodynamics and use them everyday in modeling our flight control systems and FMS's. That's why the DoD, NASA, Boeing, Airbus, Gulfstream, Embraer, and many others have come to us for our products.

 

[Astro14]

I would "guess" that flight control engineers know a great deal about aerodynamics!

But that's just a guess, based on their MSs and PhDs in the subject...and the daft that the work in the field...

As far as area rule on the fiberglass mock-up? I don't see any evidence...it's a high drag airframe...given the canards and wing leading edge angles, I doubt it would go supersonic if it were pointed straight down....and the intakes are truly tiny for the engine size...so top speed will be low. It might be low RCS, if it ever flies, but it's not high performance...

But what do I know...I am just a simple guy with a degree in Astrophysics and 27 years of flying fighters and other airplanes...hardly credible when compared with Internet experts....

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Astro14

But what do I know...I am just a simple guy with a degree in Astrophysics and 27 years of flying fighters and other airplanes...hardly credible when compared with Internet experts....


You definitely have some impressive credentials. Do you really think they are as well trained as our boys? Having a very good friend who is a Navy Pilot, and a son career Navy I just don't think they stack up to our boys when it comes to actually flying them. I really think the area will be littered with those planes if/when they actually try to attack us with them.

 

[A_Harman]

Having an aircraft in development is a long way from having a developed aircraft ready for fielding. It took the USAF about 15 years to field the F-22 after down-selecting in the ATF competition with the F-23. One advanced prototype does not make an Air Force.

 

[Spazdog]

C'mon. This is Iran.

Oh fear us! We are mighty Iran.

Iran who sends little modified outboards to "intercept" our destroyers.

Builders of the mighty Zulfiqar tank that will "surely best the American M1 Abrams and Israeli Merkava in combat!" Nevermind that it is made up of leftover T-72 and M60 Patton parts. Give me an M60A3TTS with a good crew and I will out gun any Zulfiqar. And I'm 20+ years out of practice in a tank with early '80s technology.

Iran put a Beech-style V-tail on an F-5 and it was supposed to be vastly superior to the F-16.

Iran who still can't admit that the Iran/Iraq war was at best for them a stalemate. We were at the Euphrates in hours and they could only manage a stalemate with human wave attacks that left them on the losing side in terms of casualties.

They can't even pick similar looking monkeys when faking a space launch.

They want the world to take this seriously? C'mon.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
C'mon. This is Iran.

Oh fear us! We are mighty Iran.

Iran who sends little modified outboards to "intercept" our destroyers.

Builders of the mighty Zulfiqar tank that will "surely best the American M1 Abrams and Israeli Merkava in combat!" Nevermind that it is made up of leftover T-72 and M60 Patton parts. Give me an M60A3TTS with a good crew and I will out gun any Zulfiqar. And I'm 20+ years out of practice in a tank with early '80s technology.

Iran put a Beech-style V-tail on an F-5 and it was supposed to be vastly superior to the F-16.

Iran who still can't admit that the Iran/Iraq war was at best for them a stalemate. We were at the Euphrates in hours and they could only manage a stalemate with human wave attacks that left them on the losing side in terms of casualties.

They can't even pick similar looking monkeys when faking a space launch.

They want the world to take this seriously? C'mon.


LOL....... I have a feeling when it comes time for the rubber to meet the road they'll be waving flags, surrendering just like their Iraqi neighbors did during desert storm. They couldn't surrender fast enough! You can give them the very best of everything and it isn't going to me diddly when it comes time to actually muster the balls and use it.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
I doubt it would go supersonic if it were pointed straight down

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Astro14

But what do I know...I am just a simple guy with a degree in Astrophysics and 27 years of flying fighters and other airplanes...hardly credible when compared with Internet experts....


You definitely have some impressive credentials. Do you really think they are as well trained as our boys? Having a very good friend who is a Navy Pilot, and a son career Navy I just don't think they stack up to our boys when it comes to actually flying them. I really think the area will be littered with those planes if/when they actually try to attack us with them.


You pose a great question - one that continues to be asked in the various branches of DOD that deal with analysis & intel...so, I can't really comment on the subject in too detailed a manner...they generally get fewer flight hours per year than US pilots...

But here's on thing to consider: the Iranians spent 9 years at war with Iraq...they have shown (post-Shah) are willing to fight. The IRIAF F-14s did shoot down quite a few Iraqi fighters during that conflict...they have combat-experienced pilots.

I would never underestimate, or dismiss, the willingness of any adversary to fight...you have to consider their most likely course of action as well as their most dangerous course of action...any good military planner considers those things...

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Astro14



But here's on thing to consider: the Iranians spent 9 years at war with Iraq...they have shown (post-Shah) are willing to fight. The IRIAF F-14s did shoot down quite a few Iraqi fighters during that conflict...they have combat-experienced pilots.

I would never underestimate, or dismiss, the willingness of any adversary to fight...you have to consider their most likely course of action as well as their most dangerous course of action...any good military planner considers those things...


I'm not dismissing thier willingness to fight. They were certainly willing to send human wave attacks against Iraq. The human wave offensives were strategic failures and they suffered immense casualties, but it certainly shows a willingness to fight.
Point was that they never made it to Baghdad. It was a stalemate.

One of my sergeants had trained the Shah era tankers. He said that they could eliminate targets at 5000 meters using the M60"slick's" stereo-optic ranging. They were well trained.

We ran through a Regiment of hull defilade Iraqi armor in a short amount of time. They were dug in, in a heavily defensive position and we eliminated 186 tanks. I think if the Iranians were significantly stronger and more advanced than Iraq had been, it would not have been a 9 year stalemate and Baghdad would be just another city in the modern "Persian" empire.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Astro14

But what do I know...I am just a simple guy with a degree in Astrophysics and 27 years of flying fighters and other airplanes...hardly credible when compared with Internet experts....


You definitely have some impressive credentials. Do you really think they are as well trained as our boys? Having a very good friend who is a Navy Pilot, and a son career Navy I just don't think they stack up to our boys when it comes to actually flying them. I really think the area will be littered with those planes if/when they actually try to attack us with them.


You pose a great question - one that continues to be asked in the various branches of DOD that deal with analysis & intel...so, I can't really comment on the subject in too detailed a manner...they generally get fewer flight hours per year than US pilots...

But here's on thing to consider: the Iranians spent 9 years at war with Iraq...they have shown (post-Shah) are willing to fight. The IRIAF F-14s did shoot down quite a few Iraqi fighters during that conflict...they have combat-experienced pilots.

I would never underestimate, or dismiss, the willingness of any adversary to fight...you have to consider their most likely course of action as well as their most dangerous course of action...any good military planner considers those things...


I hear you. I can't help but remember Desert Storm, when we first went in. Wolf Blitzer [sp], was covering it as if it were a sporting event. His comments about the Elite Republican Guard, and how well trained they were, made it seem like we were in for World War III, and could possibly be defeated by them. A short time later they were cowering in fear and couldn't wait to surrender. If we were to fight them the same way, I would expect a similar outcome with them running for cover and surrendering. Or starting up their high tech planes and crashing then into one another or the hanger before they even made it to the runway.

 

[Spazdog]

Air Defense Radar: "Unknown aircraft at (location unknown), you are in Iranian airspace. Identify
yourself."

Aircraft: "This is a United States aircraft. I am in Iraqi airspace."

Air Defense Radar: "You are in Iranian airspace. If you do not depart our airspace we will launch interceptor aircraft!"

Aircraft: "This is a United States Marine Corps FA-18 fighter. Send 'em up .. I'll wait!"

Air Defense Radar: (no response ... total silence)

Of course this is total bunk. A variation of the story where the aircraft carrier radios an unknown ship" to divert course.

The response is, "negative. Adjust your course.

"This is [insert aircraft carrier name here]. Adjust your course or we will take action."

"This is a lighthouse....your call."

But it made me laugh.

 

[azsynthetic]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
The IRIAF F-14s did shoot down quite a few Iraqi fighters during that conflict...they have combat-experienced pilots.


At that time the Iranian pilots were previously trained by the US and the Iraqis were trained by the Soviet. The Iranian had better equipments at that time also.

The US Army used to have an exchange program with the Russian. We send observers to their bases and theirs to ours for cold war warm ups. Russian helicopter pilots admitted that they have [censored] equipments once they sat inside our Apache cockpits and went for a check ride.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog

I think if the Iranians were significantly stronger and more advanced than Iraq had been, it would not have been a 9 year stalemate and Baghdad would be just another city in the modern "Persian" empire.


There it is. They are spirited but they simply cannot match up to us in any meaningful way.

Like I said earlier, their only chance is a nuke in a small boat that somehow gets near our ships.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: Astro14
The IRIAF F-14s did shoot down quite a few Iraqi fighters during that conflict...they have combat-experienced pilots.


At that time the Iranian pilots were previously trained by the US and the Iraqis were trained by the Soviet. The Iranian had better equipments at that time also.

The US Army used to have an exchange program with the Russian. We send observers to their bases and theirs to ours for cold war warm ups. Russian helicopter pilots admitted that they have [censored] equipments once they sat inside our Apache cockpits and went for a check ride.


It goes further back than that. Following the 1970 Bhola Cyclone in Bangladesh, the US and USSR sent aide via military helicopters. The Army aviators took the Soviets up in their UH-1 Hueys, let the Soviets have the controls and fly. When they landed the Soviet aviators walked away in silence. They would not return the favor and let the US Army Aviators fly their Mi-4 Hounds. Wouldn't even let them near the Hounds.

It took some liquoring up, but the Soviets finally admitted that they were simply too embarrassed to allow the Americans near their aircraft. They had no idea that helicopters were supposed to work that well. And these were just UH-1s. Single engine US Army UH-1 "Slicks".

 

[azsynthetic]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog

It goes further back than that. Following the 1970 Bhola Cyclone in Bangladesh, the US and USSR sent aide via military helicopters.


This was not an official Army sanctioned exchange program. What I was talking about didn't happened until after 1989 (after the Wall came down). I was in the program in the mid ninety and gave several Russian pilots check ride in the Apache. I got a ride in the Hind D in return.

 

[Azeem]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
C'mon. This is Iran.

Oh fear us! We are mighty Iran.

Iran who sends little modified outboards to "intercept" our destroyers.

Builders of the mighty Zulfiqar tank that will "surely best the American M1 Abrams and Israeli Merkava in combat!" Nevermind that it is made up of leftover T-72 and M60 Patton parts. Give me an M60A3TTS with a good crew and I will out gun any Zulfiqar. And I'm 20+ years out of practice in a tank with early '80s technology.

Iran put a Beech-style V-tail on an F-5 and it was supposed to be vastly superior to the F-16.

Iran who still can't admit that the Iran/Iraq war was at best for them a stalemate. We were at the Euphrates in hours and they could only manage a stalemate with human wave attacks that left them on the losing side in terms of casualties.

They can't even pick similar looking monkeys when faking a space launch.

They want the world to take this seriously? C'mon.


legitimate.Iranians know they are full of it and all they are doing is sketchy paint jobs.

They are trying to conduct a messege to the Americans "Don't mess with us we ai'nt Iraq" which they arenot because they are WEAKER than what Iraq was.

Iran is not a threat not even in 50 years.

 

[sleddriver]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog


Earlier attempts at Iranian Stealth Fighter Carrier launches.


Gravity....it's not just a good idea. It's the LAW!

 

[Spazdog]

Another defense that the "Persian" defenders come up with is that the Iraqis were using "inferior export grade T-72s"

Even if the Iraqi T-72s had the full on rolled homogenous steel/stexolite composite armor, they still would have been penetrated by the US KE penetrator rounds (APDS, FSDS). They would have been better against shaped charge (HEAT) rounds. But in all my years I never once heard a TC order, "Gunner HEAT tank!" It's always "Gunner Sabot tank."

I did not personally witness this, but I have heard report after report after report of US tanks scoring kills on hull-down T-72s by shooting through the berm with a DU fin sabot.

The Iraqis did have an interesting tactic vs the Iranian M60A1s. They would sacrifice their self propelled anti aircraft gun ZSU23-4s to shoot out the coincidence range finder sights on the Pattons. 'Course the Patton crew is not going to be affected by 23mm fire any more than a T72 crew is affected by Bradley 20mm. But it does destroy the sight and he does have to go degraded mode to the coaxial telescope and pretty much guess the range.

But even with American M60A1s, F14 Tomcats, F-5 Freedom Fighters, and massive human wave attacks, they could not defeat Saddam's supposedly "inferior" export T-62s and T-72s.