MILAVIA Forum
Military Aviation => Military Aircraft => Topic started by: Raptor on October 18, 2007, 07:50:11 AM
-
There was some talk recently about an Iranian Fighter being in development. They've finally released another fighter that again looks like an F-5 deriative. (must be the 'freedom fighter' that gets to them)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/azarakhsh.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/azarakhsh.htm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azarakhsh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azarakhsh)
It's clearly a reverse-engineered copy of the F-5, with the wings moved to the middle of the fuselage instead of being attached to the bottom, like the F-5 itself. This would be their second F-5 deriative? The other one was apparently a twin-finned "Saeghe".
-
How many times can one and the same plane make it to news as a Irani new fighter ???
They have 3 new fighters and I've read atlist dozen times about Irani new home made fighter. :-X
-
They must of pick up a lot of spare parts off the black market because most country's don't deal with Iran directly. The F-5 family and the never produced in numbers F-20, are some of my favorite aircraft and would enjoy disgusting them but not in Iranian colors or form. Put a little AESA radar in a F-20 armed with Slammers and you got yourself a kick ass low cost point defense fighter. As long as you don't go up against Flankers and F-15C you'll be fine and happy with your investment, just my two cent.
-
Well, you have to give them some credit for atleast trying. ;D
-
Well, you have to give them some credit for atleast trying. ;D
Yes, trying to copy a design that has been around for almost 40 years. :P
-
yup, and look at the progress they did. They moved the wing!! ;D
-
The one on the picture is fake (see http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/azarakhsh-pic2.jpg), the Azarakhsh is single seat and as said, the wings are mid-set. The prototype is coloured dark green, unless it has been repainted.
Here's the Azarakhsh prototype and some more Saeqeh new production planes. (although it says Xinhua/AFP on the first photo, it was released by FARS as well as far as I know, but I can't find it on their website right now).
-
Personally i think the twin tail suits Saeqeh. It makes it look cool and more aggressive. :)
-
Does Iran build their own fighters because no one will sell anything to them?
Or do they genuinely think they can build a deadly weapon, like the F-15, Flanker, Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale and possibly the F-35?
-
The twin-tail one looks cool. Yeah, i forgot to mention about the pic. I couldn't find the green one on the net.
-
Under not confirmed information, between Russia and Iran the contract on delivery to Iran 50 aviation engines RD-33 and several RD-5000 is signed!
Under some information, the first engines it's planned to establish for fighters-bombers Azarakhsh, and the second - on training planes Shafag.
-
In the 70's GD tried to put twin tails on the F-16, but the combination of LERX+twin tails prooved to be unpredictable, so they choose the single one.If those guys achieved to make this thing work nicely (which i doubt) they deserve some credits.
I can't think what serious and practically applied performane enhancement they will achieve. The plane won't be any faster accelerating or any harder turning. Maybe a little better high alpha authority, which is good, but since drag will also rise, they need more powerful engines (then more fuel then heavier structure and so on) to have some real operational benefits.
It would be far better if they tried to put a new bigger and lighter wing (made from composite materials) like what GD did on the F16/F-2. This would increase operational range, payload/range ability and maneuvering performance substantially.
Just my 2 cent (like a distant but really very good friend of mine ;) used to say in such ocassions)
-
One of the two blue ones, the one with the more modified rear, is apparently the same aircraft as we've seen ealier in Iranian national colours. The second one is new, but the rear is more similar to the original F-5.
The double tails give some additional place for fuel, but I doubt it is a lot.
The Azarakhsh will probably have a single RD-33 engine in the future, which makes it more like the F-20, but with the new wing. One RD-33 gives approx 11000lb of dry and 18000 kN with afterburner. Quite an improvement over the J85s which provide only a combined thrust of 10000lb with afterburners. But since they are new-built, and not upgrades, I suppose they can produce the airframe to support it. It seems they are still a long way from having a RD-33 powered F-5 copy.
Russia will also (unconfirmed) supply components for a new Iranian developed radar, or the Phazotron- NIIR N-019 radar (also from the MiG-29), which seems a bit big, so I guess a smaller array needs to be fitted, or some serious rework on the front fuselage is needed.
Russia can't supply new planes under UN sanctions, but components are allowed??
RD-5000 is by the way a non-afterburning variant of the RD-93 (FC-1), which is basically a RD-33 but with the gearbox relocated. I don't see why they wouldn't want the RD-93 for this program, instead of the RD-33. Probably because of the availability of the latter because of their MiG-29s?
Does Iran build their own fighters because no one will sell anything to them?
Or do they genuinely think they can build a deadly weapon, like the F-15, Flanker, Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale and possibly the F-35?
Well yes, they want to expand their own aviation industry. Which better way is there to start with reverse engineering older aircraft and then changing bits and pieces. Having their own capable industry ensure them of a supplier. Not just of the jets, but also spare parts and maintenance. You have to ambitious to succeed, so maybe they don't just think they can build planes comparable to the ones you mentioned in the long run, but actually made it their most important goal.
I don't agree with Iran's government or system, but I can't blame them for trying to pull this off.
Anyway, I'll propose a nickname for these F-5 copies: "Flying Turkey".
Happy shooting!
-
My friend valkyrian
The D-33 is heavier wouldn't the basic F-5 frame have to be changed a little more then moving the wings back? Wouldn't the center weight and balance, plus effect the air flow? I think the main reason for these 50 engines will be spares for the Mig-29s. Just my two centjavascript:void(0);
Smiley
-
Interesting. Does anybody have full technical specifications before we argue about the airframe?
-
Definetally, u can't just put a bigger engine which requires more air without do something for the inlets, and the center of gravity. The F-20 is a proof that such a small airframe can accept a bigger engine and increase the performance substantially. Smoke emissions on RD33 is still an issue and reliability isn't in the same level of the F404.
Suppose they will be able to produce it, i don't think it will be any better than a F-16A ( early version).
But they deserve a "Bravo" since they try to produce something (even modified). They remind me what Israelis did with Mirage V/Kfir.
-
I don't think Iran's going to release any technical specifications because it would give away it's capabilities. The mid and early version of the D-33 does produce much more smoke then a average fighter jet engine good point. The Israeli's did a better job with th Kfir because they were able to change the body/frame and the J-79 gave it more power something the French design needed. I think Iran would love to have 40 or 50 F404 engines and the parts to support them. All they have to do is stop supporting terrorist groups around the world and end there nuclear program and country's would be tripping over themselves to deal with them. Just my two cents
valkyrian is Greece really going to get the S.Korean advance trainers? What's being said in the Greece press?
-
Interesting part of article from the site of “Rosoboronexport”:
During visit of president Putin signing the separate agreement on delivery to Iran a small party (some pieces) engines RD-5000 representing a variant of engine RD-93, only without forsage chambers is expected. Them plan to establish for skilled Iranian plane Shafaq ("Dawn") which development is conducted by a design complex of University of aircraft of Iran. First flight Shafaq is planned next year. Under the informal information, this machine is developed at engineering support of Russia. Besides the Russian engine on it will stand Russian catapult armchair К-36. According to applications of the Iranian officials, Shafaq it will be constructed of the materials absorbing radiowaves that will make its undistinguished (technology Stealth). The double version will be used and as the training plane, and single - like a Su-25.
http://www.rosoboronexport.ru/roe_ru/news/lenty/lent_07_10_16.html
-
Very sorry, Sergei, but i don't understand the link.
Oh, very droll, webby.
nonpilot-
Have to agree there. But we don't know very much about it, so i suggest speculation is about as far as we can go. Don't argue over the christmas turkey. ;D
-
valkyrian is Greece really going to get the S.Korean advance trainers? What's being said in the Greece press?
Still nothing has been leaked to the press, not even a mention. I would love to see T-50s over Aegean sea.........
-
I have my fingers crossed for the T50sif that helps?
Back to topic: I still fee that all these Iranian fighters are really not in production and are just press grabbers nothing more. Iran talks a tough talk but have one of the ill equipped air force in that region. I think 3 squadrons of modern F-4 armed with Slammers and smart weapons supported AWACS + tankers could basically hold there own and do very well. Never mind the hundreds of F-16s, F-15s, Mirage 2000s, and others in the region could do if called to do so.
-
Cross your fingers and say a prayer ;D ;D ;D like i do.....
-
Imagine if the Israelis choose to blow up your big huge force, nonpilot.
T-50s in greece sound good.
-
Raptor
Imagine if the Israelis choose to blow up your big huge force, nonpilot.
I don't understand what do you mean?
-
3 squadrons of modern F-4 wouldn't stand against THAT lots of squadrons of modern lots of things with AWACS support and everything.
-
Hi Raptor
What I meant is Iran's air force is weaker then most people think it is. Just because of a few F-14s, handful of older Mig-29s, and these F-5 look a likes, they really have one of the weaker air forces in the region. Because there so weak and outdated a mere (3) older out dated F-4 squadrons with a little support basically would do well. In real life ten times that would be used and maybe a last flight from the F-117s too, one never knows.
I still don't know what you meant by
Imagine if the Israelis choose to blow up your big huge force
-
No, it wouldn't stand a chance against a massive attack, but which air force does? Only a handful. Your fleet will be decimated before anything can be intercepted, not just because of stealth, but all the stand-off weapons.
However, it's enough to make other countries fly around you and to keep a few countries from sending a single flight of F-16s to bomb your new nuclear reactor... just have to make sure you detect them and then send enough at them to keep them busy and run out of fuel or jettison their bombs before they come within range of the target.
-
And then what, Webby, the enemy brings in the massive cavalry of A-10s, F-15s, F/A-18s, etc? ;D
Oh, sorry, nonpilot. The Israelis have enough support to beat a squadron of 3 F-4s. They won't stand a chance against the type of aircrat the Israelis possess.
-
Hi Raptor
A misunderstanding I knew it not against the Israeli's that's not what I meant about the three F-4 squadrons. No three squadrons wouldn't be enough by a long shot against the Israeli' s besides there our allies. What I meant was going up against Iran that basically three squadrons of older F-4 would do well overall with a little support because Iran's AF is in poor shape.
I reason I think t that reactor should be destroyed is because I just want the crazies Iran to give bad things things to certain un-controlled groups that might kill thousands or even millions. They shouldn't get that chance that might sound unfair, cruel, pushy, mean, or what ever to an outsider but down the road somebody will die from it that might be alive if it were stopped. In general reactor's aren't the safest creations known to mankind we haven't built new ones in the United States in years maybe that's a sign. My two cent we (USA) and Russia has had a few mishaps to say it lightly so I'm not a firm believer in the tech anymore or even if it's worth it, maybe other forms of energy are better routes to go in. I don't want to sound like a hippy sign waver (I'm not by a long shot) but the less of these things around the better and closing the older one for safely reasons would be a good thing too.
-
And then what, Webby, the enemy brings in the massive cavalry of A-10s, F-15s, F/A-18s, etc? ;D
I am not talking about a US intervention, but for example an Israeli one similar to the one against Iraq's Osirak reactor. That's why Iran is keeping up its air force, not to stop a US invasion, for that they rely on their people. Plus for propaganda reasons.
Hopefully the US isn't stupid enough to repeat what they did to Iraq, as it will be similar: easy military victory and then an aftermath 10 times worse than Iraq.
Well, it isn't just that we don't want Iran to have nuclear power because some accident might happen of course. It's complicated. Iran signed the non-proliferation treaty which says you don't use it for nuclear weapons, in return you can use it for peaceful purposes, e.g. nuclear power. I think it actually says something about tech transfer between members of the treaty to use it for such purposes. So Iran says look we're building it for nuclear power, we can do that and you can't say we aren't allowed nuclear power. If Iran would have a nuclear reactor, it can export more oil. So keeping to this deal also has it benefits to Iran, even though they can't have nuclear weapons and need to allow access to UN inspectors.
But UN inspectors found traces of weapons grade plutonium (and/or technology to create it) and weren't allowed access everywhere. So the US says you can't have a nuclear reactor, because clearly you want a nuclear weapon. US and UN embargo Iran for non-cooperation. Iran kicks out the inspectors and gets embargoed some more.
With no UN inspections and these embargos, what do you think Iran will now focus on? nuclear power, or a nuclear weapon? Even if Iran would open its reactor, and it is bombed, it's pretty too late already then, because they are probably working on a weapon at another site. So you need to invade, Iraq in ruins, Afghanistan unstable and add then the aftermath in Iran. You'll have a Jihad then? Oil prices shoot up, people die on all sides, tax payer suffers, military suffers. All because we didn't trust a regime with nuclear power, and couldn't properly control that development?
Look this regime is clearly not intimidated by embargos, and doesn't like to be told by nations that do have nuclear power and weapons that it can't have the same, just because Bush put them on his Axis of Evil list. I have some respect for this, but they aren't making it any easier on their own part.
Most difficult thing is to come to terms. Most stupid thing to do is to invade it with full force. Easiest thing to do is just to drop a few bombs on the suspicous installations... which only buys time and makes the political situation worse, but to block this easy route, Iran needs a capable air force... (and the US stealth planes to unblock it).
(PS: I think the US is producing enough power as it is, but the network is in need of a serious upgrade. I don't think safety is a big concern, otherwise more plants (not just old ones) would have been closed by now... but leaving nuclear waste for future generations is a concern. Unfortunately everything has it downsides. Wind/sun energy takes a lot of money/resources to collect, oil/gas is a limited resource, coal has its emissions and risk to miners, hydroplants alter entire landscapes, bio-energy changes agriculture needs, and nuclear leaves dangerous waste... and wood burning is not an option, but I just want to mention it here, because I think some Westeners really should shut the f*** up complaining about all those poor people that rely on it, that they should use solar power instead, let's not do that till we are completely eco-friendly)
-
Hm. I see. The Mid-Easterns should focus on rebuilding society... And the US should focus on pulling out. What do you mean by 'unblock', Webby?
About Solar-power. The panels are very un-eco friendly to make and repair, so i suppose that's not the option...
-
Hopefully the US isn't stupid enough to repeat what they did to Iraq, as it will be similar: easy military victory and then an aftermath 10 times worse than Iraq.
Dude, I really hope we do not do this. The US Military is just not ready to fight a three front war our military is spread way too thin not to mention the US public isn't ready to fund yet another war! this administration has brought our nation to be hated through out the world (not that we weren't before but now more so than before) We (US) should focus on fixing the current political situation that we helped to destroy, we should focus on fixing what we broke, and then pull out since we had no business being there in the first place. Well except a personal vendetta to what daddy could not finish. Of course that's just one of my many thoughts on what we should do then again I'm just a liberal democrat, who am to chance the highly conservative people of the US right.
-
WRC dude... Do you have any idea how much thinner the Royal Armed Forces are spread? You guys look pretty comfortable by comparison...
I like the planes, actually, btw, and all the military hardware. But it's kinda a waste of cash, since the US should focus on making itself more stable... I'm all for the conservatives. You dems start all the big wars. ;D jkjk no harm meant,