Iranians test their new fighters

[mkloby]

Is it just me or does the Iranian tank look like an Isreali Merkava?!?!? Now that is friggin hilarious. These jokers have to duplicate a tank of their most hated enemy of all the tank designs in the world. That must cost Iranian engineers a few virgins upon judgement day.

You think? The face is very vertical compared to the merkava. However, I believe such an infraction would probably cause them to suffer a 10% reduction in virgin count.

 

[Matt308]

10%? C'mon fudging your enemies engineering is worth a greater reduction than that. We're talking 12yo virgins here. Sheesh.

 

[Aggie08]

I've always wondered if there's an Israeli or American unit/tank/aircraft nicknamed "Muslim Dating Service." I figure it has to be out there somewhere.

 

[Matt308]

Yeah "C'mon f#ck with me"...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Is it just me or does the Iranian tank look like an Isreali Merkava?!?!? Now that is friggin hilarious. These jokers have to duplicate a tank of their most hated enemy of all the tank designs in the world. That must cost Iranian engineers a few virgins upon judgement day.

Yeah it looks like a cross between a Merkava and a M-1 Abrams. Probably a knock off just like there F-5 knock off this thread is about.

I would not be too worried about this tank or the there stupid as low budget, cant find any spare parts jet.

 

[The Basket]

Do ya think in any possible war with Iran...that the USAF will get the Raptors in? Or just use what they got?

Underestimating your enemy is the quickest way to lose.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont think the US would need the Raptors. Sorry but the Iranians do not have a very up to date airforce or military.

I am not underestimating them but it is the truth. They have a large military but not very well supplied. They are short on spare parts.

The aircraft up there has been analyzed over and over and it is nothing more than a F-5 which they have plenty of but lack spare parts. They basically redesigned the F-5 and modified existing ones. Nothing more. Performance wise it is no different than an F-5. Take a look at it...

Lets take a look at the Iraninan Airforce (based off of Janes and Global Security analasys):

Fighters

Azarakhsh (Lightning): Aprox 36 (30 are being bult over th next 3 years, thats 10 a year. Not a whole lot)

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.

Shafaq (Before the Dawn): None in Service but one was ready for test flight as of 2004.

Chengdu J-7: Aprox 25 in service.

F-14 Tomcat 77 of which Aprox 3 to 10 are flyable due to lack of spare parts.

Dassault Mirage F1: 24 of which only a few are in service due to lack of parts.

F-4 Phantom: 47

Mig-29: 60 of which only about 10 are believed to be flyable due to lack of spare parts and the fact that several were sold to China for missile and nuclear technology in 1993.

Norhtrop F-5: 166 of which only 45 are flyable due to lack of spare parts.

Shenyang J-6: 6

Attack

Su-24: 32 of which 24 were origianaly Iraqi Airforce and not operable due to lack of spare parts. They have recieved 8 new ones in 2003 that are flyable and in service.

Mig-27: 24

Su-25: 7 former Iraqi Airforce Aircraft. Number flyable is unknown.

Trainer

Beechcraft Bonanza: 20 of which unknown are in service.

FT-7: 5

Embraer EMB 312 Tucano: 20

Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star: 5 of which none are believed to be flyable.

Pilatus PC-7: 20

Saab Safari: 23 built by Pakistan

Transports include numerous C-130s of which many are not believed to be flyable, Boeing 707s, An-24, An-74, Boing 747 and there are also several hundred helicopters.

Sorry but I think the western Airforces can handle themselves just fine against the Iranians without the F-22 using Typhoons, F-15s, F-16s and Grippens combined with AWACS technology (which the Iranians do not have).

 

[mkloby]

Absolutely Adler. In a conventional engagement - Iran doesn't stand a chance. With AWACS and E-2s prowling the sky, they won't be able to mount much of an air campaign.

Ground forces - they will be completely vulnerable to AH-1/AH-64... not to mention the soldiers and Marines on the ground - Iranian ground forces do not have nearly the level of training or are they as well equipped as US forces.

Basket - don't you remember what happened to Iraq in the conventional engagements???

 

[ToughOmbre]

Ground forces - they will be completely vulnerable to AH-1/AH-64... not to mention the soldiers and Marines on the ground

mkloby, don't think we'll be putting men on the ground anytime soon in another ME country. I could be wrong, but right now we just don't have the manpower. And Iran is three times the size of Iraq. But you're right about the air campaign; it would decimate the Iranians.

TO

 

[Aggie08]

I thought for a second there that analysis placed the Beechcraft Bonanza under the "attack" category because I missed the "trainer" title. That might actually be an upgrade for them.

The argument clearly will not be who gets to shoot them down first, it's who gets to destroy them on the runway first.

And as much as we mock their first "domestic" aircraft, it is still quite an achievement that very few countries have ever surpassed. Who knows, maybe in 30 years with some friendly Russians or Chinese they may be making world-class fighters.

 

[The Basket]

Not saying that the American air power is not good but saying you hope for the best and plan for the worst.

Saw a pic of a Iranian MiG-29 and it was carrying K-13s...not good.

Wonder what SAMs they got.

 

[Gnomey]

Read somewhere on here that their air defence is worse than Syria's and Israel penetrated that with little problems so you would think there would be little problem with the Iranians either. It should be fairly easy for the Western Nations with the currently available technology. If there are F-22's in the area they should be used but in theory they won't be needed.

 

[mkloby]

mkloby, don't think we'll be putting men on the ground anytime soon in another ME country. I could be wrong, but right now we just don't have the manpower. And Iran is three times the size of Iraq. But you're right about the air campaign; it would decimate the Iranians.

TO

There is manpower to invade, engage, and decimate the Iranian military. However, occupation and the aftermath is a whole new ballgame.

The situation would not be ideal - and sustainment of such a situation would not be favorable regarding the movement of assets from elsewhere in the world... but if there was a reason for the Iran to be destroyed - it could be done.

The Marine Corps, for example, is seeking a 2:1 ratio of time at home to time deployed. Some units have this balance - many do not. The deployment cycle, in many cases, is dependent upon occupational field. Of course there are added strains on consumption of materiel and service life of equipment, but this gets more into long term sustainment of forces.

 

[SoD Stitch]

Who gets to shoot them down first, the Israelis or Americans?

resembles th YF-17 too

,

Something can be gleaned from looking at the a/c . . . fairly low thrust, especially with two engines; look at the intakes. Not very big, are they? This suggests a low air mass-flow, hence low thrust. Probably on the order of 12,000 lbs. per engine, if that. Not sure if it has afterburnng cabability; probably does. The LERX's are '80's technology.

Also, the nose cone does not appear to be di-electric (they painted over it); hence, no radar? Probably GCI only. Not very useful.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Something can be gleaned from looking at the a/c . . . fairly low thrust, especially with two engines; look at the intakes. Not very big, are they? This suggests a low air mass-flow, hence low thrust. Probably on the order of 12,000 lbs. per engine, if that. Not sure if it has afterburnng cabability; probably does. The LERX's are '80's technology.

I'd say even less - I bet they just reverse engineered an F-5 as well as its engines. All to say that they have an indigenous fighter.

Also, the nose cone does not appear to be di-electric (they painted over it); hence, no radar? Probably GCI only. Not very useful.

Great observation and very correct!

 

[evangilder]

Here is video of the "new" fighter.

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Reverse engineered F-5 - a little souped up but its that simple...

Nice clip Eric...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And as much as we mock their first "domestic" aircraft, it is still quite an achievement that very few countries have ever surpassed. Who knows, maybe in 30 years with some friendly Russians or Chinese they may be making world-class fighters.

Very few countries have surpassed?

Lets see:

USA
UK
Germany
France
Sweden
Argentina
Canada
Australia
Japan
China
Russia
Italy
Egypt
India
Iran
Isreal
South Africa
Peoples Republic of China (Taiwan)
Pakistan
Spain
South Korea

That is quite a few countries actually and the jets that Iran is designing now are considered 3rd Generation.

3rd Generation puts them in the same catagory as the:

Dassault Mirage F.1
Dassault Super Étendard
Dassault Mirage III
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21MF/bis 'Fishbed'
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 'Flogger'
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 'Foxbat'
McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II
Northrop F-5

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Reverse engineered F-5 - a little souped up but its that simple...

Nice clip Eric...

That is all that plane is. Look at it and you can completely see an F-5.

 

[evangilder]

There is even an F-5 flying chase in one of the clips of that. Pretty obvious where it came from.