# The Azarakhsh, Iran's first domestically manufactured combat aircraft.



## Dirty Ed (Jul 16, 2006)

Azarakhsh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Azarakhsh, Iran's first domestically manufactured combat aircraft. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Azarakhsh

The Azarakhsh, Iran's first domestically manufactured combat aircraft. Interesting it looks like a cross between an F-4 and F-14, built on an F-5 airframe. 


Quote:
Azarakhsh

Azarakhsh Picture:
Image:Azarakhsh.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Azarakhsh (Persian: آذرخش, lightning) is Iran's first domestically manufactured combat aircraft. Iran was not previously known to have an aircraft production capability. In April 1997 Iranian Brigadier General Arasteh, a deputy head of the General Staff of the Armed Forces declared that Iran had successfully designed, constructed, and tested its first fighter aircraft. By late 1997 Iran had begun mass producing the aircraft. By mid-2000, four aircraft were said to be undergoing operational tests, with production proceeding at a rate of around ten aircraft per year.

A great deal of the aircraft is derived from the reverse engineered components of US fighter planes. Notable among these are the F-14 Tomcat, the F-5 Freedom Fighter, and the F-4 Phantom II. Numerous enhancements and upgrades were also built into the design from an early stage.

Iran has yet to release any additional information about the aircraft and its capabilities are unknown. It is believed to be essentially a reverse engineered F-5F, but larger by about 10%-15% and powered by two Tumansky RD-33 turbofans, as used on the Mikoyan MiG-29. The Azarakhsh is also said to use an upgraded version of N-019 Topaz (N-019ME) radar.

Azarakhsh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 17, 2006)

Good God you could put yourself in hospital trying to pronounce that.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2006)

It probably has the worst avionix package available and will be swatted down like flies.


----------



## Erich (Jul 17, 2006)

my understanding is that the turbofans were to be set on the wing tips and pointed in the oppostie direction of the fuselage ............. what great mid-estern techs they have


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 17, 2006)

So true Erich... I would agree Adler, they will be shot down in droves by the Israeli, American and British aircraft (even the French could probably get a few...)


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 18, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> Good God you could put yourself in hospital trying to pronounce that.........



As-A-Rack-Kasheesh


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 18, 2006)

doubtless at some point in the future we shall find out how easy they are to shoot down............


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 18, 2006)

They want a plane to mass produce so they can feel like a superpower


----------



## evangilder (Jul 18, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> doubtless at some point in the future we shall find out how easy they are to shoot down............



If they don't get turned into smoking holes on the ground first.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 18, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> So true Erich... I would agree Adler, they will be shot down in droves by the Israeli, American and British aircraft (even the French could probably get a few...)



Even the French could get one!  

Thats freaking hilarious! But to be honest, I thnk there may be a lot of dead French Pilots before they down one...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 18, 2006)

Maybe Canadian planes, I wouldnt hold my breath though


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 18, 2006)

lets not forget how we underestimated the Mitsubishi AM6 Zero and Hussars don't knock what you don't know very much about the CAF is quite capable of holding its own maybe not you guys in the Cadets or Militia but the real guys know their job


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 18, 2006)

What Im saying is I wouldnt hold my breath on us ever sending planes there, I know our pilots are well trained to meet the threat of an enemy plane


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 19, 2006)

> lets not forget how we underestimated the Mitsubishi AM6 Zero



and rightly so as many would argue it's legend was greater than it deserved.......

but can this thing really stand up to modern western kit? of course not...........


----------



## Twitch (Jul 19, 2006)

Oh goodie! Something to help increase Israeli pilots kill tallies!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 19, 2006)

I think you were just looking for an excuse to use that emoticon


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2006)

"Azarakhsh (Lightning)
Iran was not known to have possessed advanced technology to build fighter planes or tanks. However, In April 1997 Iranian Brigadier General Arasteh, a deputy head of the General Staff of the Armed Forces (serving under Major General Ali Shahbazi, the joint chief of staff) claimed that Iran had successfully designed, constructed, and tested its first fighter aircraft, the Azarakhsh(Lightning). According to one theory, Iran cobbled together an aircraft by reverse-engineered elements from a number of other aircraft. Evidently a modified F-5, this Iranian design evolved from an examination of the wide variety of fighter aircraft in Iran's inventory [which include both the F-4 and F-5], along with training and experimentation. 

A scaled-up version of the US Northrop Grumman F-5f Tiger, Azarakhsh features shoulder mounted air intakes. It is said to be a 10- to 15- percent larger than the F-5. It incorporates an Iranian-designed radar, but with some of the avionics modules actually of Russian design. 

Brigadier General Arasteh stated in April 1997 that the "production line of this aircraft will begin work in the near future." And Iranian officials announced in September 1997 that Iran had started mass producing its first locally-designed fighter-bomber. In February 1999 commander of the Air Force Brigadier-General Habibollah Baqaei offered a report on the achievements of the air force. He said the Air Force had made great progress since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in the operational, technical, educational and research fields and in manufacturing fighter planes of Azarakhsh and training plane of Tondar as well as radar receivers and is strong enough to defend the air-space of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In June 1999 it was reported that Iran had begun series production of the Azarakhsh. As of 2000 only four examples of the Azarakhsh were thought to be in existence, and series production was expected to start in 2001. As of 2001 there were six in inventory, with a production schedule established for 30 aircraft over the following three years."


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 19, 2006)

Well I don't think anyone should underestimate the thing because it could end up causing an unwelcome surprise . A good example of this is the old CF104 was never once caught in any manner in 12 years of Red Flags this was flying against F15's and 16s amongst others


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> Well I don't think anyone should underestimate the thing because it could end up causing an unwelcome surprise . A good example of this is the old CF104 was never once caught in any manner in 12 years of Red Flags this was flying against F15's and 16s amongst others


Very true PB, then again you boys really knew how fly the ole starfighter!


----------



## delcyros (Jul 19, 2006)

Something what makes the program unpredictable is the fact that Iran now has capability to produce a modern fighter-jet (something we never thought about) and that this was partly achieved by russian help. I suspect that a good deal of it´s electronic equipment is based on russian and chinese tech. Even if we assume the fighter lacks soft (electronic information related) performance, the new ability to set up a whole project mostly on their own is notable, with some significance for future developments. Note that even Iraque fielded drones, unknown to us in the last war! The iranian tech package undergoes a significant improvement ourdays with supercav torpedoes for the navy, excellent short to medium range AA-missles for the army and domestic fighterplanes for the airforce. The medium range ballistic missles, the nuke project and the domestic subsonic low level Shafaq-fighterbomber gives creditable offensive capability, too. Seems they know what they want...


----------



## Glider (Jul 19, 2006)

Plus of course they have the money to buy the knowledge. An Indian, Pakistani, Russian or other engineer, could earn in a month what they earn in a year at home and to the Iranian's it would be money well spent, to gain the latest insight and technology.
Dare I also say there are some european countries who have been known to sell almost anything to anyone behind closed doors.


----------



## Neilster (Jul 20, 2006)

Those shoulder mounted intakes look pretty bad from a high angle of attack point of view.

An important consideration though, is that with modern short range missiles, everybody gets dead real fast if it turns into a knife-fight. For that reason it's wise to not be too dismissive.

Cheers, Neilster


----------



## Aggie08 (Jul 20, 2006)

I wouldn't get worried just yet. The F-5 was never top of the line in its day, and that was a while ago. 

As you guys were saying, it's important not to judge it until we know it's capabilities and such. However, I can't help but think our fighers would beat the tar out of it. 

I bet the Air force would like to get their hands on one.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 20, 2006)

It might just be a good jet, but I am betting their training is nowhere near as good as Western pilots get.


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 21, 2006)

Agreed Eric, that is what it will come down to and the pilots in the West (and Israel) will be better trained (and will probably have better - if perhaps only marginally - equipment).


----------



## R988 (Jul 25, 2006)

So they are building 30 over 3 years? Watchout the Iranians are now a world power

They would be better off buying that new Chinese thing, it's bound to be less crap than something pieced together from prehistoric US equipment and Russias rejects and the Chinese will probably trade them for oil anyway.

Maybe when they build something like an F-14/Su-35 hybrid type machine then I will be impressed, of course it would still mean the Iranians just catching up while everyone else in the world is just about to switch to the next generation.


----------



## Dirty Ed (Jul 25, 2006)

I'm surprised they actually DID make what can pass as a modern fighter.

I've met a few Iranians OUTSIDE Iran, and they are decent folks blessed with a high intelligence, including flight crews on layovers. One of our son's had one as a dorm roomate, who was top man academically in his class in ME, but he stunk to high heaven.

One of the officers in a squadron I was in had an Iranian wife, who was a real doll, perfectly sociable, and all that.

I think the whole country went downhill after they deposed the Shah, at least by Western standards.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 25, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> Agreed Eric, that is what it will come down to and the pilots in the West (and Israel) will be better trained (and will probably have better - if perhaps only marginally - equipment).




I agree the Iraqi Air Force during the first Gulf War had a formidable air force, but training was dispicable, there philosophy was if you see an enemy plane GET THE F*CK OUT OF THERE!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2006)

evangilder said:


> It might just be a good jet, but I am betting their training is nowhere near as good as Western pilots get.



Agreed it will probably be a decent aircraft but there training will suck and that will get them killed. They probably wont be able to maintain them very well either due to lack of parts. Lets face it, there industry is not very good.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 27, 2006)

I will say one thing, its easier to maintain excellent standards of training when you have small manpower and equipment,(the canadian military is an excellent example) they have only produced a small amount of these new planes, but like i said easier to maintain good level of training


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2006)

That was a big mistake in forcing Germany to have a 100,000 man army. It was small but highly trained, and those people trained the Wehrmacht.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 5, 2006)

found some more photos....

I think this aircraft is nothing more than an F-5 knock-off. I give the Iranians for its development, evidently they have Incorporated more powerful engines and modified the air intakes, but as you can see by its size you're only gong to go so far with this aircraft.

I've seen some other clips about Iran and recent maneuvers. They keep showing F-5s, possible their most numerous operational western fighter....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2006)

It does. It looks like a direct knockoff from the F-5. Probably just modified one rather than design it themselves.

Look at the nose, intakes, exhaust, wings everything. Even the Vertical Stabilizer and rudders look the same, like they just took from 2 aging F-5s and put them on one aircraft.

Thats why they are building only 30 of them because all they are doing is taking there F-5s which they can not maintain and canabilizing them to make aircraft that will fly.

That is all this is, a modified F-5.


----------



## Hunter368 (Sep 5, 2006)

Are we surprised? How many countries around the world have made a real quality military a/c? Not many. The ones that have, many of those who have had alot of input by the major a/c builders around the world.


Does the F-5 look like a toy to anyone else or is it just me? I have always thought that.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 5, 2006)

Remember the Zero was supposed to be a knock off of some American aircraft can't recall the type but maybe a Hughes so it was discounted . this rumour was a believed by US and British intelligence who discounted Chennault's reports of the Zero so the RAF and USAAC believed that the Japanese were were copying designs . Thus we had the Brewster Buffalo as the first line of defence


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 5, 2006)

It is a toy - real simple and easy to work on, but probably a good choice for a cheap quality fighter. The CAF did a great job in incorporating modern avionics in the late years of their fleet (I got to play with them when I was in Botswana) but there's only so far you could go with this aircraft because of its size. If we ever came to blow with Iran I suspect these aircraft would be meat on the table as many F-5s were used as aggressor aircraft in many air-to-air combat training schools. Most of the pilots serving in the USAF flew against F-5 variants in one form or the other, even with different radar, I doubt IIAF F-5s or Azarakhshs will pose any real threat...


----------



## Hunter368 (Sep 5, 2006)

Agreed, there is nothing like knowing your opponent well after fighting him many times. Those USAF pilots will shoot them down fast, if they even have the courage to come up and challenge the USAF.


USAF pilots know the F-5 and they will pound it.


----------



## Hunter368 (Sep 5, 2006)

Joe,

The F-5 looks like something that some rich guy could buy if he wanted to, just to fly and have fun with.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 5, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> Joe,
> 
> The F-5 looks like something that some rich guy could buy if he wanted to, just to fly and have fun with.


You're right. I see several making on the civilian market. Chuck Thornton was the largest civilian operator, his were used in the movie Top Gun. 

I know of at least 2 guys on the east coast attempting to get theirs airworthy. After flying a few hours in the L-29 I felt comfortable in the cockpit of an F-5, it gave the same perspective from the cockpit and the controls and switches were "user friendly." I think it's an aircraft that almost anyone could learn how to fly...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 5, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> Remember the Zero was supposed to be a knock off of some American aircraft can't recall the type but maybe a Hughes so it was discounted . this rumour was a believed by US and British intelligence who discounted Chennault's reports of the Zero so the RAF and USAAC believed that the Japanese were were copying designs . Thus we had the Brewster Buffalo as the first line of defence



The aircraft was a Vought V-143 although many speculated the Japanese copied the Hughes Racer. You could see the nose of this aircraft and it looks like it could bolt on an F-5E with no problem. I think we may have an aircraft here with just a little better performance than an F-5, more of a propaganda tool than anything else...


----------



## Hunter368 (Sep 5, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You're right. I see several making on the civilian market. Chuck Thornton was the largest civilian operator, his were used in the movie Top Gun.
> 
> I know of at least 2 guys on the east coast attempting to get theirs airworthy. After flying a few hours in the L-29 I felt comfortable in the cockpit of an F-5, it gave the same perspective from the cockpit and the controls and switches were "user friendly." I think it's an aircraft that almost anyone could learn how to fly...




Good fit for Iran's AF. Low tech, easy to fly, easy to maintain, poor man's jet.

But no competion for a high tech, modern AF fighter.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 5, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> Good fit for Iran's AF. Low tech, easy to fly, easy to maintain, poor man's jet.
> 
> But no competion for a high tech, modern AF fighter.



I'd agree with that hunter but then that is perfect for them. As say though the moment it meets a modern fighter it will become mincemeat. Look at that photo you posted Joe, at first glace I thought it was the same aircraft but only closer examination you notice the slight differences between the two.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 5, 2006)

Some IIAF F-5s had one cannon removed and had a refueling probe put in its place, it looks like this guy has the same configuration.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 6, 2006)

Either way I dont think it would stand up against any real fighters such as the F-16, F-15, F-22, or Typhoon.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 12, 2006)

An F-20 it is not and that puts it into a late 60s early 70s F-5 capability. I too agree with the assessment that this is just another kluge that Iran has put together to spend the masses money upon. Note that perhaps the only redeeming quality of some high altitude stealth has been abandoned by not adopting the above fuselage intakes. However, as the other post noted, that was likely impractical based upon engine stall characteristics in high AOA for close in furballs. Cute though.


----------



## Chief (Sep 12, 2006)

I'm no expert on modern military aircraft. Especially not an F-5, but that has to be the ugliest thing I've ever seen since the JSF reject! What was it again the X34. I'm sorry if I got it wrong, but after seeing that thing my brain suddenly went into a seizure.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 12, 2006)

X-32 - yep, agree!





USAF


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2006)

I still dont think they are building or designing the aircraft. I think they dont have the spare parts to maintain there F-5s so they modified one and are taking parts from there aircraft to make 30 servicible improved modified F-5s. Nothing more...


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 14, 2006)

You know, I was thinking that too. However, I just read a extensive article in Aviation Week that indicates that Iran is still flying F-14s!!! Apparently they are using 1or 2 squadrons as part of their radar fence with the AWG-9. Article claims that they have been spotted with sidewinder, Phoenix and Phoenix training loads. Certainly 30 year old missile hardware is likely to be more dangerous for the launching aircraft than the target, but who knows. Maybe they have a couple/few that turn out not to be duds. That could be potentially dangerous. The article did not mention any use of indigenous aircraft and certainly not any F-5 derivatives. Only F-14, F-4, F-5, Mirage F1, Mig 29, and Chinese F-7. So perhaps only a couple of F-5 knockoffs with twin tails. That would seem to back up DerAdler's comment.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 15, 2006)

I have also read on the Iranian F-14s and it is not believed that more than 2 or 3 are still flyable from the orginal amount. Due to a ban on sales of weaponry from the US to Iran they were not able to get the spare parts to keep them all up so they had to take parts from others to make the remaining F-14s fly.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 15, 2006)

Here is some more info on Irans Airforce. Info is taken from GlobalSecurity.org - Reliable Security Information

_Throughout the 1970s, Iran purchased sophisticated aircraft for the air force. The acquisition of *77 F-14A Tomcat* fighters added to 166 F-5 fighters and 190 F-4 Phantom fighter-bombers, gave Iran a strong defensive and a potential offensive capability. Before the end of his reign, the shah placed orders for F-16 fighters and even contemplated the sharing of development costs for the United States Navy's new F-18 fighter. Both of these combat aircraft have been dropped from the revolutionary regime's military acquisitions list, however._ 

_By 1987, however, the air force faced an acute shortage of spare parts and replacement equipment. Perhaps 35 of the 190 Phantoms were serviceable in 1986. One F-4 had been shot down by Saudi F-15s, and two pilots had defected to Iraq with their F-4s in 1984. The number of F-5s dwindled from 166 to perhaps 45, *and the F-14 Tomcats from 77 to perhaps 10.* The latter were hardest hit because maintenance posed special difficulties after the United States embargo on military sales._ 

_As of 2000 it was estimated that only 40 of the 132 F-4Ds, 177 F-4Es and 16 RF-4E. Phantoms delivered before 1979 remained in service. At that time, approximately 45 of the 169 F-5E/Fs delivered are still flying, *while perhaps 20 F-14A Tomcats of the 79 initially delivered were airworthy.* Another 30 F-4s, 30 F-5s and *35 F-14s have been cannibalized for spare parts.* *One report suggested that the IRIAF can get no more than seven F-14s airborne at any one time.* Iran claims to have fitted F-14s with I-Hawk missiles adapted to the air-to-air role._


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 15, 2006)

And as I speculated that the Azarakhsh (Lightning) was just a modified F-5 that is the case, and is just a scaled up version of the F-5.

Azarakhsh (Lightning)

_According to one theory, Iran cobbled together an aircraft by reverse-engineered elements from a number of other aircraft. Evidently a modified F-5, this Iranian design evolved from an examination of the wide variety of fighter aircraft in Iran's inventory [which include both the F-4 and F-5], along with training and experimentation._

_A scaled-up version of the US Northrop Grumman F-5f Tiger, Azarakhsh features shoulder mounted air intakes._


----------



## Chief (Sep 15, 2006)

I still think they will be next useless in their part of the globe. The United States is know for developing some of the most technologically advanced equipment. However with Technology comes a lot more maintenance hours and the fact that Iran is technically in the desert doesn't help. 

Also, like you guys said the planes they do have are obsolete by more than 30years. On top of that I'm not sure how well Iran trains their boys. There is no way they could be better trained than than well let's admit any country, even China.

I must say that if Iran is thinking about starting a fight, especially an air war. They are not going to like how this ends.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 15, 2006)

Chief said:


> I must say that if Iran is thinking about starting a fight, especially an air war. They are not going to like how this ends.



Are you sure about that? Military vs. Military yes we could kick the living **** out of them but in the end the situation would be worse than it is in Iraq right now because the Iranians are fanatics.


----------



## Chief (Sep 15, 2006)

I'm just saying if they do decide to be a bigshot and attack I'm not saying going in with complete disregard of our current situation. We would be stretched unnecessarily thin, but I think in the long run it would be more beneficial to the world. The last thing we need is for Iran to go nuclear. Nukes are not necessarily made to be used rather they are a deterrence. However I strongly fear Iran does not share this same view. I just don't trust them, period!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 15, 2006)

I not disagreeing with you there. I am just commenting on how you said they are not going to like it. It would not be as easy as you think it would be...


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 20, 2006)

Depends on our expectations, me thinks. If we kick the hornets nest and run. You are right. If we play hardball and politicians dont meddle in the mission...

Oh nevermind.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 20, 2006)

No it is not that easy. Do you understand the fundamentalism, the fanatism of the Iranians. The insurgancy there would be worse. Hammas is supported by Iran and they would be there fighting till the end. It would be much much more bloody.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 21, 2006)

Now or later. You can't negotiate with fanaticism. The only thing these folks can understand is the finality of death. If we continue to parry with these 1st century morons, we will only postpone the inevitable and they will only be more numerous, stronger and better equipped. Sun Tzu would be proud of them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 22, 2006)

Yes but now is not the time to act with our military (atleast not ground forces...bomb the hell out of them for all I care). We are spread to thin and our Army is too stressed right now. The stress on the soldiers from too many lengthy deployments (trust me I know, Ive been on two deployments now) has put a strain on the soldiers and reduced the readiness of them and there equipment.

Could we defeat them yes, but all it would mean is more lenghty deployments with less time between them.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 22, 2006)

That we can agree upon.


----------



## Aggie08 (Sep 29, 2006)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyB4kdO6OvM_

found while browsing youtube. not a bad lookin jet, really. something of a mix between an f-5 and an f18.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 29, 2006)

Good Vid - 

It's nothing more than a souped-up F-5 with a V tail, that video confirms it. Same nose, landing gear, speed brakes, the "boat-tail" (where the engine sits) is also the same. The F-5's engine bay is small so nothing bigger than a J-85 is going to fit in there. the only place i could see an improvement is in the cockpit and radar, and even there space is limited. If they build 100 of these I give them credit, the F-5 is a great aircraft if you're economically and technically strapped. It will compete to a point with modern fighters but still a generation behind....


----------



## k9kiwi (Sep 29, 2006)

from Federation of American Scientists

There are also reports of the development of another indigenous fighter design called the Owj (Zenith). Iran's Defense Industries Organization has announced plans for the production of the propeller-driven Parastu (Swallow) and jet-powered Dorna (Lark) training aircraft, and there are also claims of the testing of the first Iranian-designed helicopter. In April 1997 Acting Commander of the Ground Forces of the Iranian Army, Lieutenant General Mohammad Reza Ashtiani announced that the design and construction of helicopters has started and will bear results in the ground forces five-year plan. General Ashtiani also claimed that 14,000 various kinds of aircraft parts have been produced by the forces, with some of the parts manufactured at costs one thousandths of similar foreign made parts. He stated that Iran had saved the equivalent of 30 billion rials in hard currency. In the Iranian budget year which started on March 21, he disclosed that the aviation wing of the army intended to produce 90 percent of its spare parts requirement.

----------------

Yup, some raghead village blacksmith hand beating turbine blades will save shed loads of cash.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 29, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> General Ashtiani also claimed that 14,000 various kinds of aircraft parts have been produced by the forces, with some of the parts manufactured at costs one thousandths of similar foreign made parts.


Amazing what slave labor could do...


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 29, 2006)

...all in the name of Allah (may peace be upon him).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 30, 2006)

None of these aircraft will help them. They are all generations behind as FBJ said.

This Azarakhsh which we all know is just a modified F-5 may be good against three neihboring countries but against real technology such as the F-22, F-15, F-16 and the Typhoon it does not stand a chance.


----------



## Aggie08 (Oct 9, 2006)

Of course it doesn't match up. But it certainly puts them ahead of those countries without an air force.


----------



## Chief (Oct 9, 2006)

Don't we still use F-5 for training as enemy air craft? If that is true do they really think their new toy makes them that much tougher and to hold their own that much longer?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 9, 2006)

I saw something where the marines are still operating F-5s.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 9, 2006)

Something about the Iranians even modifying or upgrading an f5 is that it gets their feet wet in aircraft designing and development learning more about materials and systems is a huge technical leap in so many facets.
I wonder what the next one thats on the board looks like?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 10, 2006)

Yeap they have jumped there technical know how from stone age to WW1 level aircraft design. Pretty good jump if you ask me....


----------



## Chief (Oct 10, 2006)

Yes, but they have to land back on the ground evetually.


----------



## Jank (Oct 10, 2006)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 10, 2006)

Yeap that is a pic of there nothing more than a modified F-5.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 10, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I saw something where the marines are still operating F-5s.



FBJ where did you see this? We have squadrons of AV-8Bs and 18s, but that's it - I haven't heard of Marine F-5s. I think the navy might still have a squadron of F-5s maybe even based at NAS Key West that they use as aggressors... not positive though. Maybe the marines have some that they use as aggressors too though.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 10, 2006)

mkloby said:


> FBJ where did you see this? We have squadrons of AV-8Bs and 18s, but that's it - I haven't heard of Marine F-5s. I think the navy might still have a squadron of F-5s maybe even based at NAS Key West that they use as aggressors... not positive though. Maybe the marines have some that they use as aggressors too though.


That's what I assumed when I read this article - I'll look around and see if I could find it...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 10, 2006)

FOUND IT!!! VMFT-401 

Marine Corps News -> VMFT-401 fighting as 'bad guys'

"And since VMFT-401 is the only squadron in the Marine Corps with the F-5 Tiger aircraft, the experience of fighting against them is something not found anywhere else, except for maybe in an actual battle."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 10, 2006)

air and space


----------



## Chief (Oct 10, 2006)

I also think they have a few at Mirmar to simulate fight a Foxbat I believe. Not 100% sure on that though. I could be wrong.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 13, 2006)

I would not use a F-5 to simulate a Foxbat. Hell the F-5 is more maneuverable than the Foxbat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 13, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would not use a F-5 to simulate a Foxbat. Hell the F-5 is more maneuverable than the Foxbat.


Use a cinder-block tied to a rocket to simulate a Foxbat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 13, 2006)

Exactly, The Foxbat was fast and nothing more.


----------



## Chief (Oct 15, 2006)

Than, I must be thinking of something else, but I know they use them. I've seen some pictures, but I don't remember where.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2006)

US Navy, Marine and Airforce Aggressor squadron use the F-5 to simulate Migs in general not a particular one.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 16, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> FOUND IT!!! VMFT-401



Well hell! I really didn't know we had a squadron of F-5s that we used as aggressors. Guess they're keeping the AV-8s company. I should probably try to learn a little more about the fixed wingers... geez, don't Marines still fly F4U's?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 16, 2006)

mkloby said:


> geez, don't Marines still fly F4U's?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 19, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Exactly, The Foxbat was fast and nothing more.



You could say to an extent the same thing about the Phantom, but it was somewhat manouverable i guess


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> You could say to an extent the same thing about the Phantom, but it was somewhat manouverable i guess


ALOT MORE! The Mig-25 is the only aircraft an F-4 could totally turn inide of. If I remember correctly (it was posted here) the Mig-25 could only sustain about 3 or 4 Gs in a turn before it starts shedding it's pylons and wings. Definitely not a dog fighter.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 19, 2006)

Seriously?! With a built in fudge factor of 1.5 (perhaps not a soviet safety margin?), that would equate to a design limit of 2g to 2.7g. That can't be true. The bloody wings would come off in a hard landing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2006)

"Maximum acceleration (g-load) rating was just 2.2 g (21.6 m/s²) with full fuel tanks, with an absolute limit of 4.5 g (44.1 m/s²). One MiG-25 withstood an inadvertent 11.5 g (112.8 m/s²) pull during low-altitude dogfight training, but the resulting deformation made the airframe worthless."


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 19, 2006)

Better for shooting down bombers i suppose


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 19, 2006)

In what context are those absolute limits? Are they airframe (wingbox) derived limits or those derived from tank attachment equipment limitations? Seems awfully low for airframe limits on a Mach 2.9 "fighter". Those types of limits could easily be encountered during a highspeed out of trim condition. Amazing.

Interesting to note that a similar event occurred during an RS-71 flight at Mach 3. Apparently the aircraft was testing yaw characteristics in flight and suffered a catastrophic airframe failure resulting in both pilots exiting the airframe at 80,000ft. The pilot survived (RWO did not), awakening just prior to contact with the ground and opening his chute. He was picked up by a farmer (can't recall the state) in the farmer's helicopter and rushed to medical help.

Makes one wonder where Mach 3 domestic flights are occurring in SUA with ranchers underneath.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> In what context are those absolute limits? Are they airframe (wingbox) derived limits or those derived from tank attachment equipment limitations? Seems awfully low for airframe limits on a Mach 2.9 "fighter". Those types of limits could easily be encountered during a highspeed out of trim condition. Amazing.


It's real simple - there's a G meter in the cockpit - don't exceed it or it's Siberia...


Matt308 said:


> Interesting to note that a similar event occurred during an RS-71 flight at Mach 3. Apparently the aircraft was testing yaw characteristics in flight and suffered a catastrophic airframe failure resulting in both pilots exiting the airframe at 80,000ft. The pilot survived (RWO did not), awakening just prior to contact with the ground and opening his chute. He was picked up by a farmer (can't recall the state) in the farmer's helicopter and rushed to medical help.


This is a wide known story - it shows how deadly the Blackbird could be...


Matt308 said:


> Makes one wonder where Mach 3 domestic flights are occurring in SUA with ranchers underneath.


 Well controlled airspace A airspace goes from 18,000 to 60,000 feet MSL - above that anything could go.

I would suspect lower than that, the USAF operated them in restricted airspace (MOAs). There are also military high speed corridors in which military aircraft could go over mach 1.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 19, 2006)

Agreed. But not without notice. MOA and perhaps SUA are certainly what comes to mind, but at Mach 3 those corridors go by REAL quick. And SUA are more dynamic in establishment, thus MOA is the more likely candidate. What a couple of minutes? including acceleration from Mach 1 to Mach 3 and reverse? A "wide known story" perhaps to some, but the analogy to a military airframe that is inherently limited to such a low level analog g-meter seems rather dubious.

Hey call me skeptical.

Like all DoD (and other intl mil orgs) the airframes are operationally limited to preserve stated airframe lifecycles. The operational context for the ultimate load limit is integrally important to any discussion. Be it maintaining lifecycle limits to ensure safe operating characteristics or ultimate load during combat before the structure suffers plastic deformation or catastrophic failure.

What makes me a little skeptical is any discussion of low g ultimate loads without understanding this operational context, weapon/ext fuel loadout, and restrictions imposed to maintain airframe integrity over the lifecycle of the airplane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> Agreed. But not without notice. MOA and perhaps SUA are certainly what comes to mind, but at Mach 3 those corridors go by REAL quick. And SUA are more dynamic in establishment, thus MOA is the more likely candidate. What a couple of minutes? including acceleration from Mach 1 to Mach 3 and reverse?


 But remember, above 60,000 there is no controlled airspace and that's where the Blackbird lives - technically it could go right over a major city at mach 3 legally.



Matt308 said:


> A "wide known story" perhaps to some, but the analogy to a military airframe that is inherently limited to such a low level analog g-meter seems rather dubious.
> 
> Hey call me skeptical.


Well that's the way it's done - BTW I worked on Russian aircraft and they all have this low tech G meter which is used to determine when an aircraft is over G'd beyond it's limits.


Matt308 said:


> Like all DoD (and other intl mil orgs) the airframes are operationally limited to preserve stated airframe lifecycles. The operational context for the ultimate load limit is integrally important to any discussion. Be it maintaining lifecycle limits to ensure safe operating characteristics or ultimate load during combat before the structure suffers plastic deformation or catastrophic failure.


That's why you have "PDMs" and other airframe overhaul programs.


Matt308 said:


> What makes me a little skeptical is any discussion of low g ultimate loads without understanding this operational context, weapon/ext fuel loadout, and restrictions imposed to maintain airframe integrity over the lifecycle of the airplane.


If you're talking about the Mig-25, those numbers have been available for years as after the Belenko incident western analysts have been able to see the aircraft up-close and personal. As far as the SR-71, that's a known fact widely published and verified by those who worked on the airframe (including myself).


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 20, 2006)

All points are well made. Regarding MOA/SUA, the environmental aspects (sonic boom effects) are what seems out of place here. I would love to have seen the flight path of a Mach 3 flight over CONUS. While military operations are subject to civil regulations, the USAF SPO do make all efforts to abide by civil regulations. Knowing some sizes of the larger MOA/SUAs, I would have thought that this would have been an offshore exercise.

I think that perhaps my engineering background is leading me to my analytical conclusions. I note that many of your comments appear to be validated from a pilots perspective. And I don't intend my comment to be negative. I don't dispute your comments. But I do wonder about the derivation of those limits, as these limits are derived from an operational context that is dependent upon multiple parameters, not solely upon a single flight analog g-meter.

As an example, ultimate loads are established not only upon airframe dynamics, but also upon aircraft loadout (e.g. external tanks), external load configuration, age, engineering safety margins, operational safety margins, etc.

I think that we are more in alignment than disagreement, but approaching the problem from perhaps two different perspectives.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> All points are well made. Regarding MOA/SUA, the environmental aspects (sonic boom effects) are what seems out of place here. I would love to have seen the flight path of a Mach 3 flight over CONUS. While military operations are subject to civil regulations, the USAF SPO do make all efforts to abide by civil regulations. Knowing some sizes of the larger MOA/SUAs, I would have thought that this would have been an offshore exercise.


 MOA 2508 - I used to live in the area - 50 miles away you could hear sonic booms all the time. I know the SR ran in that MOA when they were still flying them out of Plant 42. 4.4 Panamint MOA/ATCAA



Matt308 said:


> I think that perhaps my engineering background is leading me to my analytical conclusions. I note that many of your comments appear to be validated from a pilots perspective. And I don't intend my comment to be negative. I don't dispute your comments. But I do wonder about the derivation of those limits, as these limits are derived from an operational context that is dependent upon multiple parameters, not solely upon a single flight analog g-meter.


 Hey no problem - 28 years in aviation, i've worked with a lot of engineers who have thought very analytical! 


Matt308 said:


> As an example, ultimate loads are established not only upon airframe dynamics, but also upon aircraft loadout (e.g. external tanks), external load configuration, age, engineering safety margins, operational safety margins, etc.
> 
> I think that we are more in alignment than disagreement, but approaching the problem from perhaps two different perspectives.


You're right - see in viewing this as a pilot you need something direct and finite like a gage staring you right in the face. Although a pilot may know the fundamentals of what is going on with his aircraft stress-wise, it's that simple gauge that will be the voice telling him he has a problem and when to report it. Rolling this into pilots from the old Soviet Union, even more so as many of these folks received little vocational training outside the parameters of being a military pilot, hence the simple G meter. I do know for Russian or Eastern European aircraft, they are real big in checking asymmetry if there is any indication the airframe was over stressed.


----------



## Hunter368 (Oct 20, 2006)

Damn its good to have you around Joe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2006)

Thanks!


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 25, 2007)

Be good to see France get the hiding it deserves for selling Iraq those Missile parts. Sadly I don't think it will ever occur but we live in hope of France being taken totally off its perch.


----------

