Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Iran unveils squadrons of flying boats

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   


Iran's Defense Ministry released photos of what it says are its new radar-evading flying boats, the Bavar 2.

Iran unveiled three squadrons of new flying boats on Tuesday, Iranian news agencies reported.

The craft, dubbed the Bavar 2, is armed with a machine gun and carries surveillance cameras, according to a report from the Iranian Student News Agency.

Source: news.blogs.cnn.com...




posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Dont people check to see if its already been posted before posting?
"second line"

edit on 29-9-2010 by Senz20 because: "'cause im the #ing man, and everyone should know it."



edit on 29-9-2010 by Senz20 because: Yeah, i get my groan on in the gym. thats cause everybody should see how jacked up and tan i am



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Senz20
 


Perhaps he or she did, but could'nt resist the opportunity to whip up anti-Iranian feelings - again! Some people never learn.

For my part, perhaps this is Iran's final piloted (test) version of a future UAV programme, though for the life of me painting a seaplane a bright Chelsea Blue would sort of make it stand out don't you think?!



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
It's an interesting vehicle, but I don't see anything particularly awe-inspiring about it.

Flying boats aren't anything new...just ask the Glen L. Martin company.
You want flying boats? Here you go.
Also available in jet flavor!

Any claims that the Iranian vehicles are 'radar evading' or 'stealthy' should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Large flat surfaces and right-angle curves make for really good radar reflections (there's a reason the B-2 Spirit has the shape it does). Exposed propellers also give really good radar returns. I suppose they might try to fly / float low enough to get lost in background clutter, but given the time and effort most navies (including Iran's) have spent finding ways to track sea-skimming cruise missiles, I wouldn't bet my life on that being a valid approach.

I can't even see this as some sort of test-bed for a future UAV. If you're going to build a UAV, why make the prototype a manned vehicle? By the time you've ripped out the cockpit and support hardware, you've changed the vehicle to the point where any test data acquired by manned flight-testing will be questionable at best and worthless at worst.



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by fritz
 


Yeah, i hate it when typical americans assume Iran will get totally destroyed in a war. and people wonder why people say they're arrogant

"third line"

edit on 29-9-2010 by Senz20 because: Yeah, i post stuff on BTS. Thats cause everyone shiould see how hyped up and funny i am.



edit on 29-9-2010 by Senz20 because: see this? this is my new [snip] boob job. that means i am getting some [snip'] votes tonight.



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
It's an interesting vehicle, but I don't see anything particularly awe-inspiring about it.

Flying boats aren't anything new...just ask the Glen L. Martin company.
You want flying boats? Here you go.
Also available in jet flavor!

Any claims that the Iranian vehicles are 'radar evading' or 'stealthy' should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Large flat surfaces and right-angle curves make for really good radar reflections (there's a reason the B-2 Spirit has the shape it does).


The B2 is shaped the way it is because that's the same general design of the Nazi "Amerika" bomber, based off of the smaller Horten 2-29 stealth fighter prototype. It's no secret that the Americans stole Nazi scientists and designs.

And why should I take Iranian stealth with a grain of salt? Because it is Iranian made? What a joke. I say this as a general statement: Your understanding of "slopes" doesn't mean jack. I doubt you're a weapons scientist, or an aeronautical engineer, or a government intelligence analyst. Your opinion has nothing on the facts presented by the engineers who made this craft. If they say it is stealth, then it is stealth REGARDLESS of what people's personal opinions are against Iran. Seriously.



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
It's an interesting vehicle, but I don't see anything particularly awe-inspiring about it.

Flying boats aren't anything new...just ask the Glen L. Martin company.
You want flying boats? Here you go.
Also available in jet flavor!

Any claims that the Iranian vehicles are 'radar evading' or 'stealthy' should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Large flat surfaces and right-angle curves make for really good radar reflections (there's a reason the B-2 Spirit has the shape it does).


The B2 is shaped the way it is because that's the same general design of the Nazi "Amerika" bomber, based off of the smaller Horten 2-29 stealth fighter prototype. It's no secret that the Americans stole Nazi scientists and designs.


I get *really* tired of all this "German technology was so far ahead of the Allies" crap. The Germans weren't the only people designing "flying wing" designs, and none of them (be they Nazi or Northrop) , were being designed for 'stealth' purposes. Flying wings were originally investigated for reasons that had to do with aerodynamic efficiency. Frankly, in the 1940s, radar propagation and reflection wasn't well enough understood for anybody on either side of the war to be designing for 'stealth'. The entire "German super-tech" argument isn't on-topic for this thread. If you want to start another topic for it, we can talk about it without derailing this one.



And why should I take Iranian stealth with a grain of salt? Because it is Iranian made? What a joke. I say this as a general statement: Your understanding of "slopes" doesn't mean jack. I doubt you're a weapons scientist, or an aeronautical engineer, or a government intelligence analyst. Your opinion has nothing on the facts presented by the engineers who made this craft. If they say it is stealth, then it is stealth REGARDLESS of what people's personal opinions are against Iran. Seriously.


Wow. You assume a lot, don't you. You might also consider switching to decaff. Seriously.
To turn your argument around, are *you* a weapons scientist, an aeronautical engineer, or government intelligence analyst? By your own logic, if you aren't, I should disregard your opinion, shouldn't I?

To answer your question (in a considerably more polite tone than said question was posed), no, I'm not a "weapons scientist" (though that sounds like an interesting major, they didn't offer a Masters Program in weapons at my university), nor am I an aeronautical engineer, nor am I a government intelligence analyst (though oddly enough, I've been accused of being a government disinformation agent more than once).

My suggestion that Iranian claims that their flying boats were 'stealthy' be taken with a grain of salt has nothing to do with the fact that the vehicle was made in Iran. There's enough public-domain literature about radar propagation and reflection out there for even a civilian (with a high enough 'geek coefficient') to make some fairly educated guesses about what a 'stealthy' airframe would look like. For those who don't want to wade through the calculus, there's another, slightly less scholarly method, called "look at what works". Look at currently-existing aircraft that are known to be 'stealthy' to radar, You'll find that there are certain design elements they have in common, and others that they avoid like the plague. Now look at anything that's supposed to be stealthy, and see if it has any of those common elements, and whether it incorporates elements that known stealth platforms avoid. If it doesn't have many of the common elements, and does have a lot of the avoided elements, then yes, I'm going to suggest that the stealth claims be taken *very* skeptically, regardless of whether the design in question is Iranian, Canadian, American, Russian, Kzinti, or Klingon.



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer

What I would like to know is why you or anybody else for that matter, would think that these flying boats are designed or supposed to be stealthy?

The very nature of their design makes them appear like an overblown albatross and as we all know, these birds are truely beautiful and can stay at sea for about 12 years - something these aircraft are not and cannot do.

As for the armament of 1 x machinegun, nothing to shout about but, if you're dealing with pirates in the Straits of Hormuz, more than ample, thank you very much!



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by fritz
 


Because the original post in this thread (and, from what I can tell, the Iranian navy) referred to them as "Radar-evading" flying boats.

My personal opinion (as you can probably tell from my post above, is that they're about as stealthy as a flatulent elephant with a set of wind chimes on his tail.


On a more serious note, can anybody come up with a good reason to deploy these things? The light-attack role doesn't fit...helicopters and / or fast patrol boats would be faster and carry more armament. Recon might work, but a more conventional aircraft, or a conventionally-powered submarine would seem better suited to the job. Terminal guidance for an OTH missile strike is another possibility, but again, a helicopter would seem like a better bet.



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Look, these are wing in ground effect aircraft, the russians call them ekoplane, they have been round for decades



They would be radar evading as they "fly" only inches to feet above the waves, the waves can hide them, this is what can make them "Stealthy", they are not in the same league as B2's etc which actually use stealth technologies, they were used to move heavy objects such as tanks / jeeps and soldiers, I don't see what all the fuss is about, they are very light, little armour and a ship borne anti missile system would make them disappear very quickly indeed, this is purely propaganda, they cannot take over the world with them.

Wee Mad


edit on 30/9/2010 by weemadmental because: add more text



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 


they would be used as spotters, if the Americans et al, attacked the first thing they would take out would be radar stations etc, leaving the Iranians searching the sea with these craft, they can be very hard to spot at range, and they have a speed advantage over patrol boats, the machine gun will be used as self defence or taking on targets of opportunity such as boarding boats, transport helicopters etc.

Wee Mad



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

And why should I take Iranian stealth with a grain of salt? Because it is Iranian made? What a joke. I say this as a general statement: Your understanding of "slopes" doesn't mean jack. I doubt you're a weapons scientist, or an aeronautical engineer, or a government intelligence analyst. Your opinion has nothing on the facts presented by the engineers who made this craft. If they say it is stealth, then it is stealth REGARDLESS of what people's personal opinions are against Iran. Seriously.


Just how stealthy the craft is I think should be questioned. Any one who wants to looks at the photo objectively I think should be able to see that. Hear are some reference points.


2.1 Radar cross-section (RCS) reductions

* Vehicle shape
* Non-metallic airframe
* Radar-absorbing material
* Radar stealth countermeasures and limitations

The size of a target's image on radar is measured by the radar cross section or RCS, often represented by the symbol σ and expressed in square meters. This does not equal geometric area. A perfectly conducting sphere of projected cross sectional area 1 m2 (i.e. a diameter of 1.13 m) will have an RCS of 1 m2. Note that for radar wavelengths much less than the diameter of the sphere, RCS is independent of frequency. Conversely, a square flat plate of area 1 m2 will have an RCS of σ = 4π A2 / λ2 (where A=area, λ=wavelength), or 13,982 m2 at 10 GHz if the radar is perpendicular to the flat surface.[24] At off-normal incident angles, energy is reflected away from the receiver, reducing the RCS. Modern stealth aircraft are said to have an RCS comparable with small birds or large insects[25], though this varies widely depending on aircraft and radar.Wiki


Looking at the air frame I do think the craft will have some stealth capabilities. There is no way to tell about the materiel it is made of though. However, in looking at the engine, I think that is going to cause a big radar return. Then, if you want to look past the radar cross section, there is the heat signature it will produce. Again the engine being exposed will make it easy to spot that way.

edit on 30-9-2010 by RedGolem because: corect ext source



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Radio communications are certainly going to be interesting with that engine perched right behind a cockpit that seems to spend most of its time open (likely no climate control for the pilot).

I'm not generally one of those who mock Iranian weaponry "advances", their F-5 upgrades, reverse engineering projects (e.g. Oto Melara 76mm naval gun aka Fajr-27), and missile technology are quite impressive for an emerging nation.

But seriously, even they have to recognize that this one is a little embarassing - that photo looks like the Swan boats parading at Disney World !!



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Those appear to be stallcraft. They only fly 2 feet above the water. I don't see how they could avoid radar.



posted on Oct, 3 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


The craft fly at very low altitudes so under the ships radar, and the waves will also mask them, this is how the are stealthy, not the B2 stealth but will be quite efficient

Wee Mad



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I want one! Would've impressed me if they could go under water. We've had floating planes for awhile.



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Actually german super weapons are in fact relevant to this thread as this is a design Cadged from Alexander Lippisch...

Quite literally these are clones of WIGE craft he was building in various countries post ww2... as far as them being useful to the iranians... lets look at this from the standpoint of a fiscally semi responsible government;s perspective...

Rather than using 60 million dollar eurocopters (not even made in the country that bought a crap load of them namely the US GOVERNMENT) for search and rescue and interdiction patrols.... oh and this isn't even to mention the ASTOUNDING cost of jet fuel per HOUR of use and tear downs and and and....
you get my drift on what our NON RESPONSIBLE government is doing?

Now Iran which can't print at will without reprecussions ... they put three squadrons of these up vector them with their frigates ground station and awacs radars and can effectivelly put up a soft picket over tens of thousands of square miles of ocean at a cost per hour per SQUADRON that is probably on PAR with the cost per hour and maintenance cost of a single coast guard EUROCRAPTOR...

OOH OOOH OOOH and as an added bonus in rescue situations there is none of this million dollar training idiocy of jumping out of perfectly good aircraft and then trying to get back in them while being violated by said aircrafts downwash.... Instead you just land walk out on the sponsons and throw a ring to them !!! imagine that it's KISS (keep it simple SUCKAFISH)

add in a laser target designator and their composite wood and foam construction and some other factors and yeah you do get quite a bit of stealth to boot. and they are also more fuel efficient per mile than a boat helicopter or conventional aircraft.



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
And no I'm not an IRAN lover or anything else... but I absolutely HATE the new trend of belittling others to make people feel good about their country...

The reality is they have taken an approach that is economically and industrial base apropriate ... which neither the americans or Russians managed to do... for the STUPID reason that these vehicles are not SEXY or expensive therefore we aren't allowed to use them because no one can retire off of the skim from a WIGE program.



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


I agree aside from the Russian comment. Russia has developed some expensive and arbitrary projects for experimental reasons, but most of their weapons are designed to be cost-effective, durable and effective. American designs are almost entirely based off of corporate decisions and competition over actual effectiveness. Afterall, what are corporate CEOs legally obligated to do or face getting fired? Maximize shareholder profits. Efficiency is not nearly important as primary features like stealth or looks in American weapon development phases. I must concur however that some cutting-edge Russian tech like the T-50 seems to be going down this route which is producing some sexy weapons, but not at an acceptable pace or price range.



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I have lots of respect for the Russians but they have their own fighter mafia and surface warfare mafia...

But overall they are so far ahead it's FRIGHTENING... they have 9mm parabellum rounds that will punch through kevlar and a trauma plate... they have hypersonic shipping container missiles... don't forget battlefield lasers (first used in chinese border war 1960's) Oh and they are now using 3D weaving machines to weave single piece composite components and helmets etc... Overall the russians are LIGHT YEARS ahead...

For example their newest grenade launcher is a 35 or 40mm functionally caseless high pressure weapon with 5000 meter max range individual grenades weigh less but have similar blast radius and they weigh MUCH MUCH less than a mk 19 or it's replacement...

This is just a basic rundown of a few of the fields they are ahead of us in

Oh and they have FAE weapons that can cause locallized EMP they have RPG's at the squad level and hundreds of other serious force multipliers.

I am not Team america except when it's justified. if we ever face them we're boned though lol...

Even canada is better equipped than our military these days though and y'all don't spend much...

I did like how your company's build and sell our military the stryker while getting mothballed m113's that they are upgrading as military aid from us... so we are paying for a crap system so they can upgrade the free APC's we give you LOL....






top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join