Iran set to show off new jet, home made !

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


The problems with their ekranoplan platforms include two that will be fairly serious for F-22s and F-18s on defense. The first is numbers. An F-22 carries 8 missiles, an F-18 carries about the same on an air defense mission. If Iran has enough of these flying, they can swarm the defenses. All it takes is for one to get within launch range of a minesweeper, and the minesweeper is done with. They don't have close in defenses like a larger ship does, and many of them are wooden hulled.

The second problem is speed. An F-22 or F-18 is only capable of flying so slowly to target these. That means they're going to have to stay away or stay up high to target them. Which increases the chances of one sneaking through. If they stay low enough then they can get lost in the ground clutter on the radar systems of the defenders.

They're not going to create a huge problem for an F-18 or F-22, but you throw some F-14s, F-4s, and MiGs into the mix at the same time, and priorities change when it comes to targets.




posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by tommyjo
 


This mock up is probably just made of plastic used for displays only. We had a plastic mock up of the F-35 on display in Norway. I dont think we are the only once that have seen the model mock up of the F-35 on disply.

I dont think we should pay much attention to what this mock up is made of just yet.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


Yeah, that is one heck of a movie prop. What is with the 45-degree wings? I'm no aero engineer, but if that design had any advantage over any other design, the US would be using it. Is their favorite movie Firefox?

I'm going to predict that we'll never see anything more than a model of this thing in the air.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The USN. has a more than adequate Anti-Aircraft Missile to deal with any type of SWARMING that you speak of around U.S. Carrier Groups.

As far as such Iranian Aircraft SWARMING USAF Planes...this will not happen as the Carrier Groups F-18 Super Hornet is much too fast and agile to allow any directed mass swarming of any USN. Aircraft and as far as the F/A-22 is concerned...Iran would not even be able to KNOW where these Aircraft were.

U.S. Naval and Airforce Aircraft employ much more than just Missiles and Guns to destroy or stop any other nations aircraft from doing anything other than falling smoking out of the sky.

Such U.S. Aircraft along with U.S. Electronic Warfare Craft are VERY capable of either blinding any adversaries Aircraft ability to locate or lock onto U.S. Aircraft as well as both the Electronic Warfare Aircraft as well as Super Hornets ability to BURN OUT adversary aircraft active and passive Radar detection...completely burn out an Air to Air Missiles tracking ability...make it completely unable to even lock on to U.S. Aircraft and in some cases...a relatively new...2005...USAF Electronic ability to hack another aircrafts computer system causing the craft to launch missiles prematurely...if a fly by wire aircraft we can hack into rudder and other control systems causing the adversarial pilot to loose control...and also as an adversarial aircraft achieves missile lock upon a U.S. Electronic Warfare Plane...or even if it aquires Radar detection of this U.S. Aircraft....the Electronics Warfare Plane will relay exact Frequency Tracking Information of adversarial Radar emmisions to USN. Aegis Cruisers using HARM...Anti-Radiation Missiles in the form of converted SM-3's which can take out huge numbers of enemy aircraft at ORBITAL DISTANCES at over 7 times the speed of sound or 6000 miles an hour.

Such Missile velocity as well as EXTREME range allows U.S. Anti-Aircraft...Anti-Missile...Anti-Satellite Missiles that are the SM-3 the ability to shoot anything out of the sky or space from such a distance and so quickly that any enemy Airforce would be in a State of Shock as within a few minutes HUNDREDS of their Aircraft would be downed.

The SM-3 is capable of destroying enemy ICBM's at Orbital Distances and recently an SM-3 destroyed a failing U.S. Satellite traveling between 14,000 to 16,000 Miles per Hour in ORBIT. The SM-3 was so accurate that it was able to target and destroy not only the Satellite but a SPECIFIC AREA of the Satellite which had a tank of Hyrazine Booster Fuel that if had survived reentry due to it's high toxicity could kill many if it landed and exploded in a populated area.

For any and all that are making a case that IRAN has ANY ability whatsoever to confront or defend against a U.S. Military Strike....FORGET ABOUT IT! Iran is outclassed by 50 Years or more technically and in some cases perhaps close to a Century.

As in a few years the new CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford Stealth Aircraft Carrier will go to sea with the installed Free Electron Laser which is powered by the Ford's two A1B Nuclear Fission Reactors and have a Satellite Targeting Prism Reflector to allow over the Horizon Targetting as well as such a Laser being able to vaporize a hole through 1000 feet of Solid Steel in SECONDS...such issues as numbers of Enemy Aircraft will no longer even be considered as a possible issue.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...#!

Best part of this video is 20 seconds in, and 1:35. I love the sound they added in




posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

The second problem is speed. An F-22 or F-18 is only capable of flying so slowly to target these. That means they're going to have to stay away or stay up high to target them. Which increases the chances of one sneaking through. If they stay low enough then they can get lost in the ground clutter on the radar systems of the defenders.


From a F-18, wouldn't it be practically like strafing ground targets? They won't need missiles, and they'll compete with the helicopters for how many they can get per sortie. And even a MANPAD on a littoral ship could handle some of it too.

It's just the real missiles and submarines (and maybe torpedoes) which are an problem. Small, slow boats and ground effect aircraft are one way voyages.


edit on 3-2-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-2-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 

I think we have a major disconnect of logic here and I find it quite a bit here recently. This may hurt to hear and believe me, it hurts more to say it....but we haven't fought 3 wars. We've tied one and lost 2. 1991 was a draw for all intents and purposes, however much a win it looked at the time. (It sure did too...but who did we have to go BACK for?)

We didn't lose these wars by any lack of military ability. When the military is fully unleashed, it does what it's trained to do and does it better than virtually anyone else on Earth. That's been proven in the early phases of all 3 recent major conflicts. No one does it like the U.S. does for stand up force-on-force fighting. I'm not sure even China AND Russia combined, without special weapons, could defeat us. At least not unless we entered their own nations.

The problem is...Daddy Bush was the last President who even came close to 'Unleashing' the military and THAT is a debatable thing with his cute "100 Hour on the button" ground war to crow about. He still got himself defeated at re-election so I hope leaving that job half done for P.R. points was worth it.

Clinton, Baby Bush and Obama think they're friggen Generals as much an Johnson and Nixon ever did. It shows and it's a disaster on a stick.

So...when people talk about how we can kick the tail off Iran...I just sigh and remind myself, most are thinking of what we COULD be or COULD have BEEN....and not what we ARE as a nation today. We're better leaving Iran 100% alone. If Israel wants a fight? Let THEM fight the damn thing. Unless Iran sneak attacks to start the war (My only personal exception on the outset), THIS isn't out fight any more than the last ones have been when it comes down to it. We fight for Saudi Arabia and I'm sick of it, personally.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 03:52 AM
link   
That thing on the news at the moment , doesn't even look finished! To me it looks like a concept
of intent. (a mock up).
I might be wrong , but i doubt it.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:50 AM
link   
See from 04:45. The Iranians admit that the flying sequences are from tests of a model. You can see how small the test model is from take-off footage. The journalist and technician also discuss the model.



Snapshot from Iranian TV with 'test model caption'

forum.keypublishing.com...



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

I dont think we should pay much attention to what this mock up is made of just yet.



I agree, but they could do so much more to make it even a bit realistic. The air speed indicator on this mock-up only goes up to 260 or 280 Knots!




posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 


This mock up is just for show. What they have put inside on this mock up have no real meaning.

Maybe we are not to know what type of flight, weapons and communication controlles they are going to put in this thing.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


There are a few factual and logical problems with your post there Split Infinity. Listening to you, the rest of the world might as well just surrender now and get it over with, because they'll never be able to touch the US.

Let's start with the aircraft. The F/A-18 and F-22 are quite formidable when you look at basic numbers. Both carry long range missiles capable of hitting aircraft 100 miles away. They both carry 8 air to air missiles, including the AIM-120, and the AIM-9X. The Super Hornet also has the JHMCS that allows for high off boresight shots of the AIM-9X. Both capable of high speeds, high angles of attack during WVR combat, and highly maneuverable.

Now, let's look at the fine print. The idea that any aircraft is going to be able to sit 80 miles away, and swat other aircraft out of the sky like flies is laughable at best. The Israeli Air Force, which has more air to air combat experience than any other two air forces combined (almost), has a BVR kill percentage of about 16% (I'm going from memory here, because I don't have my sources handy, but I'm pretty sure the numbers are close if not right). That means that for every 100 missiles they fire they will hit 16 aircraft. The US BVR kill rate is in the single digits. And that's against air forces similar in capability to the Iranians, so we can assume that it will be similar in a conflict against Iran.

Both the F/A-18 and the F-22 are quite capable in WVR (and the fight will eventually go WVR), but both have disadvantages that can be taken advantage of. Both bleed energy during high AOA maneuvers, the F-18 has an extremely limited loiter time to fight, and the F-22 doesn't have a helmet cueing system that allows for HOBS shots, and limits their LOAL shots with the -9X. The F-18 has the added disadvantage of a very short combat radius (less than 400 miles).

As for a swarm attack, you aren't going to stop it with just ships, you're going to have to have aircraft and ships involved. Here's where it gets interesting. I have every advantage here as attacker, because all I have to do is get one missile through and pop the carrier. I don't even have to sink her, just take out her deck, and she's done. You as defender have to stop 100% of the missiles 100% of the time. That's mathematically impossible. Sooner or later one is going to get through, and either pop an escort opening a hole in your defenses, or hit your carrier. You can use your CAP to help with incoming missiles, but if you concentrate on the missiles, the escorts for the launching fighters concentrate on your CAP. If you concentrate on the launchers and escorts, that leaves more missiles for your ships to worry about. So which will it be?

The Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system is not capable of engaging ICBMs as you claim. It's capable of guiding other interceptors that target ICBMs, but it can only engage theater ballistic missiles and short range ballistic missiles.

A standard carrier strike group usually has two to three Burke class destroyers, and a Ticonderoga cruiser. So being generous call it four Aegis escorts. The Burke Flight IIA carries 96 missiles, the Ticonderoga 127 cells. So that's a lot of missiles for the group. What happens when the attacks continue past the first one? How many of those missiles do you allocate for BMD defense, just in case? And again we get into the BVR/WVR argument. Yes, they're much more capable at longer ranges, but the farther out you go, the better chance of a miss. So how far out do you engage incoming?

Even assuming that the carrier has the FEL system installed, it can only target missiles on at a time per laser. That leaves the rest for SeaRAM. The carrier has limited target ability for antimissile, so you're counting on the missiles doing most of it. That leads to its own problems, but I'll just leave off with that.

And the Gerald Ford is not a stealth carrier, sorry to disappoint.
Want to throw the diesel sub into the equation too? That's a whole other fun discussion.
edit on 2/3/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Yes, because the rest of the Iranian military will be doing what, sitting back wringing their hands in fear because the US is coming? Small boats, and WiG aircraft won't be going in alone. There will be plenty of support for them when it happens, and plenty to distract your F/A-18s from their "strafing run games" to shoot them down. The F-18s will be busy playing with the escorts and trying to keep from getting shot while defending the CSG.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Iran unveils 1/3 size wooden model of plane they wish was comparable to US F-22 or Russian T-50. I think is probably more accurate.

www.flightglobal.com...

Looks like a joke to me, not a real plane. I'd like to see one of these things fly.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
well after some digging searching and thinking Not only is this a mock up plywood, glue and some paint but there report is too F/A 18 F5 yea thought i heard read that before www.airforce-technology.com... from the link

The Saeqeh is similar to the US-built F/A-18, though it is modelled after the US F-5E/F Tiger II and its outer appearance is similar to the latter.
will we ever see this thing fly ? Iran says, but not does what China does... Show off



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


Iran has less choice than China does about it. They don't have access to most of the things they need to improve their industry because of the sanctions. They recently tried to buy more 747s for IranAir, and had to have an African nation that doesn't abide by the sanctions buy them (which was pretty funny because most of their population would have fit in them, and then they sold them to Iran, plus a "buyers fee".



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

but but but... You must be wrong Sir Zaphod! I know! I saw Top Gun! Every missile we fired hit something and all their missiles missed!

Then we have Iron Eagle..and sheesh. They got a lucky shot on the poor kids Dad but then look what a single F-16 could do to a whole country with those regenerating fuel tanks and seeming endless stocks of ordinance. All flown by a teenager with no formal training too! So, you see, Iran simply has no chance and should just surrender their nation and capital city now. It'll go so much easier that way.


(and I'll worry about ya if you take me seriously..but I couldn't resist... that's really about the level of military estimating that seems to go on sometimes.)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Top Gun was enjoyable. Don't get me started on the entire Iron Eagle franchise.
I especially loved the MiG-29 F-4s, and the high speed cannon shooting at like 30 rounds a minute in the second one.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

This mock up is just for show. What they have put inside on this mock up have no real meaning.



Yes, "just for show" is all well and good, but at least they could have made it more believable. At least they could have fitted an air speed indicator from an F-5. To the aviation enthusiast and aviation world in general it just makes a mockery of their claims of the intended performance of this aircraft. Yes I fully appreciate that it will tick all boxes for the Iranian happy clappers, but the presentation and build of the mock up just doesn't cut the mustard. Are they that naive that they think nobody will pick up on such detail? With the eyes of the aviation world looking on it just makes them look like amateurs.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 


I agree. It's a great design, and I like it, but the unfinishedness (hey, I just made a new word!) of it detracts so much. At least make everything fit together, use real airspeed indicators, etc.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Zaph, looks like you are just a little outnumbered in the sense ..................
Iran is not the pushover Iraq was.......
I wish people would get that through their heads....
In fact the Navy LOST its war game with Iran when the one in charge of the Iran side launched a premptive massive missile strike...
The Referees in the pentagon, then changed the rules so the blues would win......
This is hardly a serious try at war preparations and i think the US high command would be overly cocky to strike the attitude that some posters advocate....
That being said, the skin of the model looks like its fabric, its all wrinkly around the lower cockpit rim forward....
Its many a slip between the cup and the lip......they may never fly in this configuration.....
I see no firm delivery date as well..... so that may be never if something better comes along.....
Any idea what that wing configuration is all about?
the tip down wing must be for some why reason......drag? turbulence?high speed stabilization at 280 knots?
opinion?





top topics
 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join