It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Iranian Saegheh more capable than an F-18?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   
I think you're nuts if you think that Iran has a better manufacturing base than India. The pure availability of infrastructure, knowledge resource and funding is exponentially more in India.
Iran though does have a reputation of siphening tech from other countries and implementing the same. Its nuclear power capability purely rests on data leaked from Pakistan's nuclear projects and data supplied by Russia.
The missiles that Iran manufactures are pure re-labelling of russian and chinese counterparts.
India has a purely indgneous capability of inserting payloads into geosynch orbit (30000km) amongst other highlights.
Anyways this is a very interesting(though preposterous) comparision you have made between India and Iran.
I look forward to looking into it more later because I will do a indepth study of your claims and respond in due time. May turn out to be unpleasant but hey.. the truth's what we're looking for.




posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I think you're nuts if you think that Iran has a better manufacturing base than India. The pure availability of infrastructure, knowledge resource and funding is exponentially more in India.


I was talking about aircraft, millitary, weapons etc... not overall in civillians sectors etc..

India does have more funding but it hasen't helped India much. India still doesn't have much to show for all it's spending.

India still had to get help from Russia for It's "brahmos" missiles. And we all know that is basically 100% designed by Russia and the only thing India contributed to it was money.


Originally posted by Daedalus3
Iran though does have a reputation of siphening tech from other countries and implementing the same. Its nuclear power capability purely rests on data leaked from Pakistan's nuclear projects and data supplied by Russia.


And India designed it's nuclear technology by itself


Oh please India gets all it's tech from Russia as well.

Why do Indians always act as if they don't.

They know perfectly well where there tech comes from so you're really in no position to say anything about Iranian equipment when you're own stuff comes from the same source.

India has had a two decade head start in nuclear technology over Iran in having control over a complete nuclear cycle. So it's obvious that India should have some self-reliance in the field. But youguys still don't have much to show for it becuase you guys are now trying to get tech of America.

When Iran has a few reactors and has years of experiance like other countries then maybe they can also start designing and building there own powerplants but they arn't going to start from scratch when they can just but them in the begining.



Originally posted by Daedalus3
The missiles that Iran manufactures are pure re-labelling of russian and chinese counterparts.


And Indians missiles are what exactly?

The Brahmos is what exactly?

India does exactly the same.

Even you're guns are copies of Russian guns, You guys use Russian aircrafts, and you guys use russian missiles and also manufacture there parts so why complain when other people do the same things.

And also if you take a look at some of the Iranian stuff they have actually made an effort to modify designs while India doesn't even bother becuase it doesn't have the knowlage or experiance to do so.


Originally posted by Daedalus3
India has a purely indgneous capability of inserting payloads into geosynch orbit (30000km) amongst other highlights.


Yes and im sure Russia has nothing to do with it



Originally posted by Daedalus3
Anyways this is a very interesting(though preposterous) comparision you have made between India and Iran.
I look forward to looking into it more later because I will do a indepth study of your claims and respond in due time.


If you want to do that then start another thread about it and don;t do it in this one.



Originally posted by Daedalus3May turn out to be unpleasant but hey.. the truth's what we're looking for.


Not unpleasant for me. I'm not Iranian so it doesn't make a difference to me.

I'm just stating facts. More aircraft/fighters/helicopters and there parts come out of Iranian factories then do out of Indian factories.

Thats a fact.

I know nationalism is high in India but you shouldn't let it blind you.

You're country has been working on a making an aircraft for over a few decades and still hasen't produced anything worthwhile with all your "availability of infrastructure, knowledge resource and funding" which as you say is "exponentially more in India.". Yet Iran still knocked out a workable aircraft and you're country hasen't.

Those facts speak for themselves on capability of these 2 countries. When India starts making anything worthwhile that can fly by itself then start talking about it and until then Iran still is much more advanced in this field then India.

Sorry the truth hurts.


[edit on 8-9-2006 by iqonx]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   
[edit on 8-9-2006 by longbow]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
There are some aircraft out there that are as good or better then the F-18 in Russia and the Russians will have no problem selling Iran components or parts which could be used inside this aircraft allowing it to be on the level of an F-18.


Umm... could you please clarify, when you say F-18 what do you mean? Super Hornet or the C/D version?



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I was just talking about the F-18 in general.

Russia air craft like the :

Su-27 Flanker
Su-30 (Su-27P)
Su-32
Su-33 (Su-27K)
Su-34 (Su-27IB)
Su-35 (Su-27M)
MiG-29K
MiG-29M
Su-47/S-37
MiG 1.42/1.44
MiG-31
MiG-29M2
MiG-29OVT
MiG-25P
Su-37
Su-25UTG

There is enough technology in the above aircraft to match any F-18 if the Russians decided to make an aircraft using both Su and MiG technology and some of those aircraft above alone can match an F-18 by themselves.

The Iranians wouldn't really care and would just use whatever they could purchase from the Russians.

The Iranians only needed 2 things and those where (1) Radar system and computers (2) Fire control/ weapons control fire systems.

They already had a flying aircraft. This aircraft was already flying years before today. All they needed was upgraded internal components for electronics and fire control. Which could have come from any of the above mentioned aircraft.

Some people may disagree with me but i think this aircraft is big enough to carry MiG-29 radar/fire-control systems and even some stuff from the Su-27 and also Russian ECM systems.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Sorry but I can't see this thing even matching an early versions of the F/A-18 let alone a Block II Super Hornet. One more thing, by your logic the US can turn the F-16 into an F-22 because we have the technology to build the F-22. Doesn't work that way I'm afraid.


[edit on 9-9-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Obviously not 100% but you can transfer any technology into an aircraft if it can carry it.

The F-5 or the Iranian version can easily carry better equipment. I;m not personally saying it is capable of F-18 performance just what they said.

But it's not impossible. Obviously you wont be able to get the same handling and flight manuverablity but you can stick the electronics inside it from a similar aircraft to the F-18.

By the way yuor example of F-22 and F-16 is flawed.

The F-16 is single engine while F-22 is double engine so the F-22 can carry more weight in fuel, electronics, ECM & weapons. Also the F-22 is dedicated "stealth" aircraft while the F-16 is not. A better comparason would have been a standard take off F-35 with twin engines mated with F-22 would produce a similiar aircraft.

The F-18 and the Iranian F-5 are not that different. Both are Twin engined. Both can carry a reasonable load in electronics, ECM etc... and both can carry weapons and both are twin angled tail fin designs.

Obviously the F-18 is going to be a better aircraft in my opinion becuase overall it has the benifit of better handling and manuverability in air. But electronics/radar wise and weapons wise i think the Iranians can match it if the aircraft is what they claim and not exagerated propaganda. They could take stuff from Russian aircrafts like the ones i mentioned above and make something of similar performance but be limited in manuverability becuase of the airframe design.

I'm sure the Iranians exagerated the claims everbody does. Personally i think if this aircraft went up against an F-18 the F-18 would destroy it becuase i would have more faith in the F-18 becuase it is a proven design and is advanced both inside and outside. While all the Iranian F-5 can offer at maximum if it meets the claims the Iranians make about it would only be advanced inside while having poor external performance.

Also i don't think the Iranians where actually talking about this aircraft when they said F-18 i think they where talking about another aircraft becuase this aircraft has another name and not "Saegheh".



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   
In this report link they have reputedly changed it from an f18 to an f5, this sort of changes things a little and surely makes the claims a little more realistic?



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Thats what i was thinking as well becuase i mentioned it in the above post.

But this aircraft certainly does have enough capacity inside to house some powerful equipment.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
As someone rightly pointed out the F-5 derived fighter in the pics i not the one alleged to be better than the F-18.

Re the F-5 with twin tails. This is not meaningfully stealthy and appears to retain the F-5's engines which would be a major limitation although as far as fighters go it's probably a bit better than the F-5 and if given good AAMs could be a threat. But it is shown with only rocket pods under the wings so AA weapons fit is still open to question.

The Wings may be composite which is a key technology. Close up photos appear to show that they don't have the usual rivets. This is likely to reduce drag and potentially reduce RCS.

There are no signs of this aircraft being massed produced and my personal suspicin is that it is really just a technology demonstrator and is a rebuild of an F-5 airframe rather than an all-knew construction.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
But this aircraft certainly does have enough capacity inside to house some powerful equipment.


I don't think so. F-5 was small aircraft, certainly smaller than F-18, I'll not even mention Superhornet. There's simply less space for electronic equipment. Also russian equipment tends to be larger, and Iranian domestically produced would take even more space.

Plus I don't think that basic verions of f-5 and F-18 are the same class, Hornet can carry twice the payload of F-5.

[edit on 9-9-2006 by longbow]



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
India does have more funding but it hasen't helped India much. India still doesn't have much to show for all it's spending.


Well I thought about answering this in depth, in another thread, but then it will just become one of those threads where well.. not worth talking about.
India doesn't have much to show for its spending? My honest opinion is the Iranian PR system has gone overboard, esp. after threats from the west and actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The possibility of military reprisal is very real and propaganda is one of the few things Iran can resort to.

Indian indigenous military program has much to showcase in terms of it being just that; indegenous.

1) Numerous naval classes that are mostly indigenous if not completely.There are loads of new ships in the construction yards, making India one of the top 3-4 navies in the world by 2010-15. Yes we're talking about an indigenous SSN class and indigenous a/c carrier with a 40000 ton displacement.
Feel free to check the Indian Naval thread
2) The LCA is not where it was supposed to be in terms of the projected timeline but its NOT a copy of ANY freakin fighter anywhere. Beyond that, its a testbed for future a/c and collaborations with other countries in 5th gen fighters.
3) The Indian Jaguar is the only bunch operational Jaguar squadrons in the worl today and the stuff we've done that a/c : radar, avionics, weapons load you name it. The same with other a/c, most notably the Su-30 MKI. The Su-30 initially purchased in 1997-2000 is a shadow of what the a/c is today making it one of the most formidable aerial platforms in the world today. And all the modifications are done right here in India, infact a 4 hour drive from where I stay.
4)




India still had to get help from Russia for It's "brahmos" missiles. And we all know that is basically 100% designed by Russia and the only thing India contributed to it was money.


Infact its a good thing you brought this up here because I was involved in a another thread with chinawhite regarding the same and well that was left off unfinished by me.

1). The BrahMos uses the same engine and chassis that the Yakhont used and Indian funding jumpstarted the program. Hence the same supersonic speed and the same range.

Never something that was hidden.
2) Electronics fitted onboard supplied by India. As many sources confirm.
3) Seekers onboard offer a variance in the high-low/high trajectories thus improving target tracking and skim range. IS this documented somewhere? I don't know and frankly (CW), I really don't care because it would be an obvious blunder to publicise exact 'altered' specs.
4) BrahMos can be configured in the LACM as well as the ASCM role, a feature NOT available with the Yakhont. And this is a publicised fact. You can look it up.

Loads of other stuff then again, this is not the place.





And India designed it's nuclear technology by itself

Oh please India gets all it's tech from Russia as well.
Why do Indians always act as if they don't.


Because it doesn't..
Not the nuclear tech. Apart from a Cirrus Reactor obtained from Canada in the early 60s, no other tech, knowledge input or any other hogwash has come from foreign sources and has been directly used for military purposes.
Hell even the anti-indian nuke deal lobbies in the US congress haven't prove otherwise so I'm quite eager to see how you can.
As for Iran.. hmmm.. I rest my case..

The Americans aren't stupid to open their arms wide and allow India access to nuclear tech that could quite literally boost their military nuclear production.
Think about it.
India is quite friendly with Russia AND a sworn enemy of a major US non-NATO ally Pakistan AND not a signatory of the NPT.
Why the hec should the Americans even think about giving Indai access to nuclear technology?

Really.. This 'India gets its military nuclear tech from Russia' charade has gone on far enough. PLEASE prove it or shut up.



They know perfectly well where there tech comes from so you're really in no position to say anything about Iranian equipment when you're own stuff comes from the same source.


I repeat.. please prove it or retract that statement. And if you thin kyou DO have some proof, go the that anti-indian nuke deal lobby in Congress and give them a helping hand. You'll make more than you're making now.



India has had a two decade head start in nuclear technology over Iran in having control over a complete nuclear cycle. So it's obvious that India should have some self-reliance in the field. But you guys still don't have much to show for it becuase you guys are now trying to get tech of America.
When Iran has a few reactors and has years of experiance like other countries then maybe they can also start designing and building there own powerplants but they aren't going to start from scratch when they can just but them in the begining.


Not tech you twit. Its fuel, and yes improved refining and disposal techniques.
And yes Iran can have its tech if the people givnig it would trust Iran. Unfortunately Iran has done much in its past thus making it very difficult to trust. We will see what the Security council decides; so far its not so good for Iran as China and Russia are onboard with the others with regard to the latest resolution that Iran rejected.


Originally posted by Daedalus3
The missiles that Iran manufactures are pure re-labelling of russian and chinese counterparts.




And Indians missiles are what exactly?


Copies with different names?
Feel free to do some research. Here are a few names : Trishul, Nag, Astra, Dhanush, Akash,Prithvi, Agni.
Yes the Akash has similar characteristics to the SA-6 but but a whole new missile. Why are say half of those still not operational? Well because they're not
re-labellings of other missiles.

Not the same with Iran: Conventional missiles are well-catalogued as copies but even teh ballistic ones are takes of the North Korean Nodong and Taepodong series.
The clandestine nuclear and missile tech n/w existing between Iran,Pakistan and North Korea is something India has been long aware off(Even before the US).The US just chooses to look at it now because the threat has come to their backyard.




The Brahmos is what exactly?

Now you now what it is.


India does exactly the same.
Even you're guns are copies of Russian guns, You guys use Russian aircrafts, and you guys use russian missiles and also manufacture there parts so why complain when other people do the same things.


The guns, a/c and missiles that we use which are got from Russia are not copies. They're Russian. We GIVE THEM CREDIT for their technology.
We don't re-name them and conjure up some lopsided modifications just to make it sound more home-made!




And also if you take a look at some of the Iranian stuff they have actually made an effort to modify designs while India doesn't even bother becuase it doesn't have the knowlage or experiance to do so.


Like? Feel free to discuss the modifications in detail and point out the differences(like I've done here) and their advantages. Also please refrain from quoting sources that use generic terms like 'much-better', 'stealthy(ier)', 'strike fear in the enemy' etc..etc..
We're all too familiar with that tone of propaganda here. Really I'd like it if you could do so.





Originally posted by Daedalus3
India has a purely indigneous capability of inserting payloads into geosynch orbit (30000km) amongst other highlights.


Yes and im sure Russia has nothing to do with it



Actually now that you point it out, Russia does. Assistance in the 3rd stage; cryogenic engine. Besides that the GSLV is totally indigenous. And the GSLV MkIII(which is due to launch sometime soon after the last failure)is to have an indigenous cryogenics stage.
But the remainder of the space program, the backbone of the Indian launch vehicle program (PSLV) is indigenous.
If you can prove otherwise please do so.



If you want to do that then start another thread about it and don;t do it in this one.

You start it if you want. I think I addressed everything here.
Also the bit about you saying that China is developing more complex engines and so it it 'should' have more problems.

more in next post:

EDIT: Just fixed the quote issues!!!



[edit on 11-9-2006 by Daedalus3]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Go here to see the video of the Saegheh. Looks impressive enough to me..especially for an indigenous production.

Can someone who knows the differance from the F5 tell me some of the differances off the video?

[edit on 12/06/2005 by kojac]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Please compare the engines on the JF-17 to those on your Saegeheh and compare the thrust. These engines are currently supplied from Russia (RD-93) and the chinese version of that is still in development.
Yes the chinese are developing other engines for their J-11s (the WS-10a?) but the complexities are at all levels of engine size etc.
Get your facts straight.




Originally posted by Daedalus3
hey.. the truth's what we're looking for.

Not unpleasant for me. I'm not Iranian so it doesn't make a difference to me.


Really? I don't care..
Though its odd somebody would compare India and Iran in terms you so daringly do so w/o having some nationalistic/religious/cultural bias..
Really..

The 'boycott israel' spells it out oh-so obviously

Anyways I give you the benefit of the doubt.



I'm just stating facts. More aircraft/fighters/helicopters and there parts come out of Iranian factories then do out of Indian factories.
Thats a fact.


How many more? 50? 500? 1000?
Annually? every quarter? weekly? daily?

C'mon you can do better than that?!!




I know nationalism is high in India but you shouldn't let it blind you.

It is and wouldn't have it any other way. Wouldn't want citizens,troops etc. to wuss out when it counts would we?
cough... Ariel Sharon..tank battle..1973.. cough ..Iraq..1990..2003..
Its a trend worth investigating..



You're country has been working on a making an aircraft for over a few decades and still hasen't produced anything worthwhile with all your "availability of infrastructure, knowledge resource and funding" which as you say is "exponentially more in India.".
Yet Iran still knocked out a workable aircraft and you're country hasen't.

The LCA program isn't something to boast. I've never said that.
But please tell me(esp if you're NOT Iranian), that you really don't believe that the Sageheh and all the other a/c Iran has produced so far are really operational..at least not yet now?!!!

Operational as in just not able to get of the ground!

Showing photos of that on state tele doesn't prove jack.
I'm talking about the finer points of breaking and a/c in..
Supersonic tests, payload config tests.. avionics checklist walkthroughs, structural stress tests, roll/yaw/pitch Gee tests.
The LCA has been going through all that for a while now while improved avionics suites have continuously been tested.
Infact the LCA could just as well be operational now with the FE404 engine. But we're looking for more here.

See India's not in the business of publicising its military advancements so aggressively as Iran is because it doesn't need to intimidate anyone. This type of propanganda is typical of what Iraq wen through before and especially during GW 1.




Those facts speak for themselves on capability of these 2 countries. When India starts making anything worthwhile that can fly by itself then start talking about it and until then Iran still is much more advanced in this field then India.


Really? Want to compare the Sageheh to the LCA as of Today? Get your stats and I'll get mine, though I seriously feel you'll have problems finding legitimate specs and capabilities on the Sageheh. (not some assumed speculative gibberish)
Also some indepth info on the engines on the Sageheh would certainly help. It most ceratinly houses the GE J85, not any Russian engine, not any indigenous one for sure.



Sorry the truth hurts.
[edit on 8-9-2006 by iqonx]


Really..at least we agree on that


'Iran ahead of India in military production and technology'..
What next?


Normally I wouldn't have even considered a response to such a post but taking unecessary potshots on India is just not called for, not on any thread.
Iran's military 'achievements' are in the limelight today in the news and on ATS because of the possible military clash with the west. I fail to see any other reasons for giving this so much importance. Ride the wave while you can..



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Now back to the topic:

1) The LERX IS an improvement. One of the only two things we can compare to the F-18.
2) The narrowing of the intakes as highlighted by iqonx are NOT a stealth feature.
They are an EXACT copy of the F-5 tiger fuselage.



3) Also your proposed stealth features on the nose are again an EXACT copy of the F-5 if not the very same fuselage. Seems you don't know much of the F-5.


4)The Angled Tail fins are the 2nd thing the inherits from the F-18.

Avionics, Radar, and RAM paint is anybody's guess.
Seems everyone assumes that 'everyone' has access to RAM paint nowadays..
A view of the cockpit with the MFDs and HUD would give a much better idea of the avionics suite.
Weaponry?
Russian missiles? maybe? but I doubt it. I'll put my money with the Sidewinder and the Hawk?
Iran has any BVR missiles?

EDIT: Wait!!.. the LERX is also taken from the F-5!! Just saw it on the first F-5 pic I posted myself..

So now its down to the angled tail, and the internals?

I seriously can't see that nose cone fitting the N011M (any radar in the N0XX series for that matter) because of pure size restraints. Also I doubt Russia has made such tech available to Iran but thats open to debate.
Maybe the Zhuk M? Or Kyopyo?

[edit on 11-9-2006 by Daedalus3]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by kojac
While reading a report on the Iranian Nuke issue i stumbled across this...



In a separate development, Iran has announced that it has developed a new aircraft named Saegheh (Thunder), which it described as close to the American F-18 fighter jet. General Attollah Salehi, the commander of the Iranian army, was quoted by the state news agency IRNA as saying the fighter jet is similar to the F-18, but more capable. It was manufactured domestically.


source

I'm no military expert, but if this is true this has to be a massive step forward for the Iranian military..

Thoughts? I'm going to see if i can find any more info about this mystery plane..

[edit on 12/06/2005 by kojac]



Bwuahahahahaahhahhah! Oh, my ribs!

1. It's clearly a clone of the original Venga TG-10 'Brushfire' concept artwork, though retaining both J85s rather than upgrading to a single RD-33 or indeed almost /any/ other engine (Spey, Adour) for improved economies and afterbody shaping.
2. Bragging about 'equal or better than the Bug' is like saying you're smarter than the dumbest person you know. In particular, the F-5 _I know_ has a T/Wr of less than .5 in most configurations and thus the baseline of EM comes down to 'one good yank' as the stick is directly connected to the knotclock. Mind you, the F-5E was a blunder from the outset as Northrop /admits/ they screwed up the static margin and thus it's not truly 'pointable' airframe in the way that later F-teens and the canard clones have been designed to be. Who knows, maybe all that added drag and weight at the tail will actually 'help out'.
3. Four underwing stations and not even the tip stations that the F-5E shown accompanying it can 'self defend' with. Ho Boy, 'both pylons today I tell'ya!'
4. The F-5 series /in general/ has something like 5,000lbs of internal fuel. Even if 'Better Than X' is a lie made true, you must add a secondary conditional modifier of 'How far away you care to prove it'.
5. Nobody would willingly choose a radome size equivalent to a 20-25" antenna face, even if the sharknose profile didn't interfere with achieved performance, which it does. Yet this is EXACTLY what the F-5E configuration brings you to, 'from the cockpit forward'.
6. There is little or no evidence of FQ stealth as is apparent from the unaligned planform features. The canopy:windscreen break. The discrete (non sawtoothed) MLG doors and speedbrakes. The lack of a real serpentine to the inlet ducts. The very /nature/ of the wing itself (too thin to have deep RAS, no coverplates for the control surface hingelines).
7. Airframes are packing crates. It's what's /inside/ and _underneath_ that matters. Yet there is no view of an exotic RTIC cockpit interface to bypass the vulnerability of the jet to X-band LO. No claims of exotic NCW capabilities (heck the Tiger III and IV that Chile and NorGrumman put together at least have an integrated SAD/Datalink option). No shots of a new radar (about the only one which would fit would be the FIAR Grifo or Elta 203X series, good luck). No new MRAAM. No new standoff A2G weapon. No EW system declarations. Puh-leeze.

ARGUMENT:
The Iranians have basically shown that they can make a cosmetically different F-5E to offset attrition in their only ubiquitous fighter airframe at 'own not leased or least' cost.

Given our intel has /long since/ known they have been reverse engineering individual parts to keep their existing fleet flying through the long PGW-1 campaign and beyond, this is nothing but a sham to bypass the obvious fact that they have no real design ingenuity sufficient to do more than monkey-see-do immitations at the very lowest common denominator level (assuming it's not a testbed for something else).

You want 'impressive'? You start looking at the Iranian UAV line. Half the good-after-bad cash burn on replicative R&D. Twice the 'cheap enough to lose' viability of baseline design sufficient to justify further evolutionary branching.

CONCLUSION:
This... this is just a bunch of hicks trying to pretend they are part of the big leagues by designing a military aircraft with about as much relevance to the modern era as the Pucara, Pampa, S.211, Galeb or even AMX of preceding decades ever had. Everybody thinks that this one the rites-of-passage precursors to being given an entry card to the gentleman's club of regional superpowering. Everybody thinks that one hacked-together prototype a valid series production capability makes. Everyone _who knows better_ sits back and watches them waste a billion dollars kicking a brick wall of dated system design and laughable production economics.

And then the effort loses funding as the shared ownership company goes bankrupt at about the same time as the government that started it loses popularity for wasting money on such dumb ideas and you are back to replacing your indigenous wonderjetten with something that is 'full package' ready to go to war (at a massive credit card cumulative interest debt) from the main producers.

Especially given the nearing dates for DEW and Hunting Weapons, the only really valid comment can be: What A Waste.


KPl.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466


ARGUMENT:
The Iranians have basically shown that they can make a cosmetically different F-5E to offset attrition in their only ubiquitous fighter airframe at 'own not leased or least' cost.


Exaclty what I said earlier. It looks like an ageing F-5 fleet having issues with being air-worthy has been cannibalised to make way for something using the same air-frame and maybe newer engines and internals.
Cannibalization is commonplace in Air forces when large number of a/c are on the ground,only a few are airworthy, and production lines for spares etc are nonexistant. Hence in order to increase the number of airworthy a/c other less-likely-to-fly a/c are cannibalised and the parts are used in the prospective a/c.
Happens in most Air Forces.
Ok now why the twin fins then? Better yaw rates along with RCS reduction?



You want 'impressive'? You start looking at the Iranian UAV line. Half the good-after-bad cash burn on replicative R&D. Twice the 'cheap enough to lose' viability of baseline design sufficient to justify further evolutionary branching.


I think ch1466 has gradually become obsessed with UAVs and UCAVs!!


MBF

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Still looks like a single seat Javelin to me. I think the F-5 was a good cheap fighter that has been overlooked or dismissed by most people that could find a place in countries that don't want to spend a lot of money for top of the line fighters.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I wonder why this thread is all about Iranian-built jet can be capable and compare with our F/A-18?
Excuse me, I got to catch my breath...



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   
i dont think.....this aircraft as capable like american f-18.......

aircraft look like mixture of f-5 and f-18........

basically airframe is copy of f-5 and f-18.......



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join