Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Iran new Qaher-313

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


The canards and the intake location are the two biggest things that pretty much everyone that has looked at it has brought up. Fixed canards just don't make sense anymore. Especially with those tiny control surfaces. And while the J85 can operate quite nicely with those tiny intakes, like you said, if they have to maneuver, they are in danger of starving the engine of air.




posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The canards and the intake location are the two biggest things that pretty much everyone that has looked at it has brought up. Fixed canards just don't make sense anymore.


The more I look at these pictures, the more I feel that those intakes will move between this stage and the full-size prototype. If we assume that the intakes are exactly where they are expected to be on the full size aircraft, then I could see it opening up a sizeable portion of the fuselage for internal weapons carriage. That said, I'm not convinced that this airframe has enough lifting power to carry a typical armament, let alone a larger, heavier payload. It seems likely that if this is the case (ie if I'm not totally wrong on that, it happens from time to time) that those intakes will move to get more air to the engine.

I've also been thinking on the canards. I've noticed that they do have some sizeable control surfaces on the trailing edges that at least rival the ailerons in area. That said, I do agree that fully-movable canards are definitely the preferred flavour for established design companies. What is important, though, is that this is not necessarily a huge, experienced, and well-outfitted operation. This aircraft will almost definitely depend on vortices to create that low pressure area on top of the aircraft, and doing so can get very tricky. A fully-movable canard in this configuration would probably infringe onto the surface responsible for generating the very tip of those vortices, and any change at the head of the airflow is only going to get messier as it propagates downstream. They simply may not have the calculation expertise or power to keep the vortex stable under those conditions. I suspect that a properly done full-movement canard would be superior in performance, but far more difficult to apply without risking totally screwing the aircraft's main lift generation method. I would expect that the designers of the a/c came to a similar conclusion, though I wonder if they might plan to change that on the full-size.


Especially with those tiny control surfaces. And while the J85 can operate quite nicely with those tiny intakes, like you said, if they have to maneuver, they are in danger of starving the engine of air.


I do not envy the guy they put in charge of figuring out what those intakes will do in a 9G pitch. He is going to be a very sad man.
edit on 2/5/2013 by Darkpr0 because: Derp.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkpr0
 


Supposedly max payload will be 2 2,000lb class weapons. Probably not with a J85 it wont' be, unless they have redesigned the engine to give it more power. The weapons load out is supposedly 2 2,000lb bombs, more smaller bombs, or 6 R-17 or PL-12 missiles.
edit on 2/5/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Supposedly max payload will be 2 2,000lb class weapons. Probably not with a J85 it wont' be, unless they have redesigned the engine to give it more power.


Agreed. To put those stats up they would basically be pulling a stealthy HAL Tejas out of a hat. We know the challenges that program faced, despite the resources the Indians have at their disposal, and the help they have received along the way with technology transfers.

This begs the question of how they might be running a J85 at those specs, or what powerplant they might be using in its absence. I can see only tears coming from an indigenous engine project (again, grâce à Tejas), but I wonder if Klimov might have some RD-33 variants with uprated power, or perhaps the Chinese have something up their sleeves.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkpr0
 


I saw something somewhere buried in an article that mentioned it possibly making use of an RD-33 variant. I probably won't be able to find it again though. Personally I'd stay away from China, they're having as many problems as the Russians used to have before they started working with the West on engines.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 


That powerplant from the Gripen might be the perfect fit if one isnt already planned.

Im kind of excited to see a new contender over the simulated battlefields of computer games which is as close as any of the worlds combat aircraft will ever get to a real fight, and lets hope it stays that way. If anything im wondering what this might go for on the civilian market.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
The only other aircraftr type I can think of with a fixed canard plus hinged flap arrangement like this was the Saab J-37 Viggen. On that aircraft the canard was nothing to do with manouverability, but gave the aircraft the STOL capability it needed to operate from public roads.

This, plus everything else about the design we have talked about makes me think the term 'fighter' is a misnomer. It seems more like a a subsonic close support aircraft, along similar lines to the Rutan Ares project, and a long abandoned BAE SABA project I made a thread on many years ago. The jet powered proposals for that were also very small indeed, like this Q-313. While the design itself is obviously different, the concept appears very similar

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Another country making another weapon for War. When will it ever end??? It does not matter which country makes what. If we continue down the spiral path of destruction, we deserve to be wiped out. Maybe Mother nature will do better next time around.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


One of the comments made by the Iranians is that it's designed to operate from short fields, so that would make sense. I said the other day that this thing is as much a fighter as the F-117 was. You might get a lucky shot off at someone that doesn't see you, as it's designed to carry air to air missiles, but that's probably the best that will happen.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
"Inflight" photos revealed as faked - see Atlantic wire article



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Didnt think it could fly, did they really think a fake pic over a mountain range would fool people? Kind of makes my theory this is just a distraction from other weapon systems the Iranians are developing. Still would be cool to see a full-size production aircraft in operation, or the project airframe for sale on the international market. A F-404 from an F-18 or Jas-39 would be a perfect powerplant for this "potential" aircraft. Or one could stuff in a F-100 from the F-15/F-16 and really get a ride.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by skorpius
 


The aircraft is a delivery method, a tool. Not a weapon of war, that would be the ordinace it carries.
Remove the pylons and internal cannon and lose the fire control system while adding a storage space for luggage in place of the cannon ammo and you`ve got the best "toy" money can buy.

We pull G`s for fun around here, save the doom and gloom war talk for WW3 threads



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Militarywarfare
What you guys think about the new Iran jet fighter?

Build by Iranian scientists and engineers, they claim to be stealthy and similar to the F18, although it look like a mix of F5 and the bird of prey.

www.presstv.ir...
edit on 2-2-2013 by Militarywarfare because: (no reason given)


Still all comes down to vector thrusting and great radar and Im still only seeing that on the f-22 and f-23 and both have designs older then 30 years. No how anyone wants to think about it USA is way ahead. Even today as China launches rockets and satallites they arnt vectored yet.

Vectored =abilitiy to change flight with only thrust ability. Not like naval vessels or space vessels that use additional propoltions systems added to make adjustments
edit on 14-2-2013 by chapterhouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Would the body shape or the slipstream from the canards force air onto the dropped wing surfaces, increasing lift, while saving weight?

I know virtually nothing about aircraft, but looking at the mock up, it seems to me the body shape would be pushing air onto those stubby dropped wings.

Who knows, perhaps this is a mock up of the full scale aircraft and the canopy and cockpit is a red herring...it might actually be designed to be an anti-radar drone.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 


The dropped tips would allow for a better ride at low altitude where they could try to come in under the radar of their targets.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Hell, good on the Iranians, if it flies, its stealthy and its reliable, its a hell of an acheivement.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

You may be on to something in a bigger way than realise. If Iranian engineers have figured out that wood can be used in stealth material than indeed they have cotton on big time. The Horton Brothers stumbled upon wood as a stealth material when they were building the HO 229.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.






top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join