|
Ghaher-313
The Islamic Republic of Iran had announced that it would reveal a new fighter plane. Everyone thought that such would be an updated copy of the Northrop F-5 which Iran bought before its revolution.
But instead Iran came up with this:
bigger, more pictures here
Wow! I am impressed. (As are others.) That is a very, very unique design with polyhedral wings and with some elements of the MDD X-36 and of Boeing’s Bird of Prey.
This Ghaher (or Qaher) is not just a mockup. President Ahmedinejad said the bird has flown several thousand hours* and Iranian TV showed short flight clips.
While this may not be a world class fighter yet, it seems to lack a sophisticated radar, it definitely shows that Iran has a very capable aeronautics industry.
Congrats Iran. And again, I am impressed.
Update: *This was a mistranslation in a forum.
Nobody here actually touched or flew that new airplane.
But:
We can come to an educated guess. Before that, however, we should clear ourselves from the widely standard assumption that “good fighter plane” is defined by “like F 22 or modern Sukhoi”.
Iran is a very peaceful country (proven fact over 100’s of years) and they need and want to *defend*. That is one *major* factor that inevitably co-defines weapon designs.
If Iran wanted to attack another country then that would be israel. To do that, Iran had several options; going there with fighter jets is almost certainly not an option they’d consider.
Furthermore, mil. airplanes are not designed to nominally surpass another countries airplanes sepcification (except the us, probably).
So, any new fighter jet must meet (or strive towards) certain criteria.
Other than the us and accordingly some nato countries no country develops weapons and military know-how and routine to engage in the “far abroad” that is, far away from home. This is even more true since very long range and even intercontinental missiles are available.
Any normal, i.e. non psychopathically aggressive country, cares only about 3 zones (in order of declining importance): home, very near abroad and near abroad (“very near abroad” meaning a zone of ca. +-100 miles beyond own ones borders).
And for a simple reason: Typically, conflicts are with neighbouring countries or, at most, within the near abroad (theoretical example: turkey and Egypt).
Therefore btw. most countries do not have certain mil. capabilities such as transporting major amounts of troops across long distances.
So, what does Iran need in terms of mil. airplanes, in particular fighter jets?
The answer is very much co-defined by a) (own) geography and b) most probable scenarios. there I see:
– defending their country against us/israel/nato aggression
– pro-active defense in the very near and the near abroad (e.g. saudi-arabia)
– israel – which is of no concern here in terms of fighter jets.
Another very important factor is “HOW will potential enemies attack?”. The most likely attack would be by the us or israel. Both would work similarly (but with the us capable of more massive attacks). In both cases there would be a first wave by (cruise) missiles, followed by one ore mor more waves of air attacks. For the missiles one needed a good AD system which the Iran almost certainly has.
The air raid waves would be another story. However, it can be assumed that at any point in time there would be 10 to 100 enemy planes involved, and at most 200 (ca. 3 us carriers).
It is important to note that almost certainly the Iranian jets are *not* meant to engage us jets in massive scenarios. That would be taken care of by AD. The jets are quite probably meant to support counterstrikes and, in particular, to support ground forces in defending the *ground*, i.e. when an enemy tries to bring ground forces into the country.
Similarly the Iranian jets would be used if Iran in a defensive move would go for us bases in the near abroad. Considering the fact that western AD is comparatively weak the most realistic scenario is a saturation attack, i.e. sending masses of cheap (and short range, relatively unprecise) missiles to saturate the us AD systems followd up by air raides to do the precision work.
For all that Iran needs a rather simple jet. A reach of 15 – 2000 km is more than enough, speeds in the range of 1500 km/h are sufficient. Important would be to be as stealthy as possible which is why the Iranians actually put emphasis on that. The logic is simple: Iran has excellent strategic facilities provided by nature, the mountainous regions. As long as they stay at home or don’t go farther away than 50 to 100 km (which is sufficient for everything in the gulf and the opposite enemy coast with us garrisons and harbours) those simple but half-stealthy jets will do fine.
Looking at the few available pictures one can notice another hint: The impression that those jets are primitive is also based on the absence of gadetry and unneccessary design. Partly they *seem* rude because the Iranians didn’t waste money for looks, nice covers and perfection. Which has, next to simpler design jobs, another advantage price. And price translates in military to “massive” – which is a very valid strategy against a technologically superior enemy.
Also don’t forget the 80:20 rule in engineering. 20% of the efforts and costs go into the last 20% of finesse and high-tech, which as we can currently experience again with us jets, brings also lots of traps and problems.
While the sukhoi jets nowadays are easily on par with american high-tech they have a “secret of success”; they stem from quite primitive but very reliable designs. Roughly, one could say that americans develop in leaps, often doing (too) large steps. The advantage is high-tech superiority, the disadvantage is lack of reliabilty. The east prefers continous development which is slower but leads to an increasing reliable base where components are steadily enhanced.
Can Iran win a war against the us? Can those new jets fight 1 on 1 against modern us jets? No. Surely not.
But they can inflict mortal damage to basically everyone around Iran and they can drive the costs of war up for the usa, financially, psychologically and in body count.
After all, beyond PR and hollywood, war and burglary have something in common: There is not absolute protection, no matter what you pay for your alert system. And, contrary to marketing brochures, that is not the job of alert systems, fences and security. In real life, experts know that, their job is to increase costs and risks for intruders. In the end, wars are just intrusions on a large scale. The same laws hold true.
And whatever those jets are really capable of … one thing is sure. They drive up the costs and risks very considerably.
This is btw. a very well proven theory. It is basically the sowjet approach. They didn’t have the money to keep up with the usa carrier by carrier, jet by jet. So they concentrated on very few areas, foremost air defense (because that is how the us attack) and missiles, because they are way cheaper, faster, simpler to design and risk-free (you don’t risk an expensive pilots life and you have a certain deniability).
The idea is strikingly simple: Destroy an american jet costing 50 mio. dollars with some missiles costing 100 times less. Unless the us found a well of eternal money the *must* loose that game.
Looking at it from this very pragmatic angle (yes, I confess, this is not good enough for hollywood) the Iranian jet – whatever it’s capabilities – is a clear sign of luxury and confidence. Because it means that Iran feels that it has enough missiles that are good enough and enough AD systems that are good enough. Designing an building a jet is an extension of basic neccessities, a step to the next level where you do not merely need to somehow defend your country but where you add options and choices – and the option to co-define the events rather than to merely react and defend.
The major asset in Irans cache, however, was, is and will be american hybris and the fact that the us are cheap cowards with a loud mouth.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Feb 3 2013 2:26 utc | 54
Also a comment from theaviationist web site:
So many of these comments are ignorant in so many ways. They can make a nuclear reactor, they likely can produce stealth aircraft equivalent to late 70s US equipment. That said, the F-117 is equally small, and there is a whole list of aircraft which are as well. Radar equipped fighters with smaller noses include the F-84, F-86, F-9, Mig-17,19, and 21, Electric lightning, and a whole list of other aircraft. Not only that, but the F-117 does not have a radar either. No EM signature. This is actually not an issue either, since even a Cessna 172 has a data link which can show it local traffic detected by air traffic control. It’s very possible that this aircraft could use a data link, which not only is currently used by the US, but has been used by civilians and the Soviet Union for 6 decades now.
If you take a long look at this thing, it’s quite clear that it is based on the F-5, not built around it. It’s clearly based on experience and the same category of machinery used in the F-5. They are familiar with the scale and ergonomics of the F-5, so they will continue to work around it.
That said, the F-117 was also loosely based on the F-5, most accessories were from existing aircraft, like the life support from a C-130. New frames are easy, it’s the accessories which are hard, and so using existing systems is only natural, especially if they have a history of excellent performance. The components of the F-5 all exceed those requirements.
The Iranians have already shown that they can produce evolutions of the F-5, mainly one which exceeds the capability of the YF-17, which later became the F-18. Anybody can make a new airframe, even you can make one in your garage. It is plain ignorant to think Persians cannot.
When it comes to the avionics, a PC may not look as nice as a mac, but it works. A Cessna with a G1000 is more capable than an F-15 or F-14, so I wouldn’t say the Iranians are not capable of making 1970s era US technology.
When it comes to the intake and exhaust, many aircraft don’t have nozzles, and most materials can take the heat. Aluminum can withstand heat from flight at Mach 2.5, it’s not copper.
The Iranians are not morons, they already make their own aircraft. They would not overlook something like that. As for air intakes, it doesn’t even require a 1:16 thrust ratio to get a business Jet to Mach 0.9, so large intakes are not required for a high speed aircraft. The reason most fighters have large intakes is because they want additional thrust for better climb. It has nothing to do with operational speed. Most aircraft reach top speed using a fraction of the throttle. In the SR-71 POH, it states that “when climbing at Mach 2.6”, remember to reduce throttle before leveling out, in order to avoid over speed and destruction of the aircraft. The SR-71 does not even have a 1:2 thrust ratio, and it can surpass Mach 3 and accidentally destroy itself, while climbing.
That said, there is nothing about this Iranian aircraft that has not been produced widely in any other aircraft. It is completely possible that it can match any F-18 in air strike penetration, and it is technically possible for it to match the air-to-air capability of the F-18A/B. That nose does not include a gun, and so the internal volume is actually similar to the F-18 instrument bay.
So, overall, this is actually a completely reasonable claim. This is actually a much more reasonable claim than what Russians claim the Su-27 can perform.
Posted by: Paul | Feb 4 2013 0:18 utc | 82
|
