Iranian F-313 Qaher 'Stealth Fighter', and it appears to be real this time!

[Rhino power]

After the comical images released previously of the F-313, this time it does at least appear to be real, since it actually moves under it's own power in the video clip...

https://theaviationist.com/2017/04/15/new-photos-and-video-of-irans-homemade-f-313-qaher-stealth-jet-have-just-emerged-and-heres-a-first-analysis/

-RP

[MPN11]

It appears decidedly petite!

Is this a case of "we can" rather than fulfilling a specific need?

[unmanned_droid]

I almost feel sorry for them at how embarrassing that dumpster fire of a design is.

[MPN11]

I almost feel sorry for them at how embarrassing that dumpster fire of a design is.

Or is it just Iranian willy-waving, in the hope someone will take them seriously? ;)

[BossEyed]

Not with a willy that size, I think. :E

[60024]

I might have expected to see the rudders move as the jet was turned under its own power....

[unmanned_droid]

Or is it just Iranian willy-waving, in the hope someone will take them seriously? ;)

It's got to be for internal consumption.

[OK4Wire]

I couldn't spot any alpha or beta vanes. Maybe they're hidden?

[The Helpful Stacker]

Is it a HESA Saeqeh that has been covered in glue and pushed through Halford's 'body mods' aisle?

[Thrust Augmentation]

Must be designed to combat these;


http://www.warfaresims.com/WarSimsWP/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Cardboard_Plane.jpg

[PDR1]

Mainplane looked awfully thick. CG looks to be unusually far forward (based on the mainwheel positions). Shape seems to have way too many internal corners for something looking to have a low RCS.

But my main question would be how those intakes are supposed to work at any significant angle of attack.

PDR

[megan]

how those intakes are supposed to work at any significant angle of attackAnd I wonder about a vortex from that LERX type surface feeding into the intake.

[hoss183]

Looks like the unholy offspring of an F117 mating with an F22

[Lima Juliet]

http://alwaght.com/upload/files/2017415_15/2017415204249852.jpg
Look at the canopy arch, that would give quite a big radar return. The intakes would be blanked as soon as you pulled anything more than about 7 AOA. The chord of the wing is way too thick for a performance fighter. Too many panel gaps, rivets and navigation lights to be propper stealthy. Sensor ball out in the breeze at the front will suffer above 300kts. The wings look like the same as those on tge MiG17, which are a distinctive shape, and then 'cut and shut' into a futuristic look - like some of Gerry Anderson's finest creations!

https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/F-313-new-tests-2.jpg
Another view...i suspect that the plastic would melt around the jet pipes as there is no protection!

http://nationalinterest.org/files/main_images/f313.jpg
This is the original mock up and note how the 'taxyable' version has a different canopy?i suspect this is just a dressed up model of the Saeqeh jet (see below).

http://defence-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Saeqeh-Thunderbolt-Fighter-Saeqeh-Saegheh-Saeqeh-80HESA-Azarakhsh-Irans-first-domestically-manufactured-combat-jet-fighter.American-Northrop-F-5-Islamic-Republic-of-Iran-Air-Force-and-the-Iranian-Ministry-of-Defense-ira-4.jpg

This supposed 'stealth jet' is a DIY model and that is all. A Sixth Form student could do better as an A-level engineering project.

[Buster Hyman]

Would've been better off reverse engineering the Tomcats!

[Lima Juliet]

Better off building an Archon SF-1 microlight - at least it flies!!!
http://www.flyer.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Aerosports-Archon-SSDR-2.jpg

[skydiver69]

Even as a layman the F-313 looks wrong in every way. The wings look too think, the pilot looks like he is sitting on rather than in the cockpit, the engines don't appear to have exhausts, the engine intakes are too small and look like they are obstructed by the fuselage, the FLIR looks like a last minute add on which would detract from any alleged stealth characteristics that the plane is supposed to have, the fuselage looks too wide and out of proportion compared to the wings and canards. Does the front under carriage even have doors? As for the downward sloping wing tips, how can they be aerodynamic in any way? I'm sure that they would add drag as well as making the plane very slabby which would mean larger radar returns when seen from the sides? Was it even taxiing under its own jet power as there didn't appear to be much in the way of haze coming from the exhausts. Why have twin tyres on the front undercarriage if this is supposed to be a light weight aircraft. Lastly what benefit is stealth for what is being described as a lightweight CAS aeroplane?

[Davef68]

How many wuld have thought the F117 'wrong' if shown an imageof it before it came out of the black?

[melmothtw]

This is no F-117, Davef68.

[Buster Hyman]

Perhaps they're contributing to Firefox 2?

[brokenlink]

Any chance it could be an existing Iranian type that actually has had some form of "body kit" fitted to give the impression of something more advanced? Does the undercarriage provide any clues as to the base aircraft?

[IcePaq]

Nose gear looks like from a KFIR.

[TBM-Legend]

Remember prototypes rarely look like the completed 'real' thing. The Avro 707 wasn't a Vulcan..

[hoodie]

But the Avro 707 wasn't a Vulcan prototype. It was a technology research aircraft addressing one factor of the planned Vulcan design - so different situation.

[Rhino power]

A graphic apparently showing the internal layout of the F-313, with the usual proviso of how accurate it may or may not be, the engine configuration looks odd! Only one engine with the thrust split between two nozzles? And what appears to be a large frame or bulkhead passing through the engine/nozzles, this can't be accurate, I'm sure...

https://s25.postimg.org/jv5omk5fh/Copia_7_de_Cutaway_definitivo_Qaher_F-313.jpg

-RP

[Rhino power]

Nose gear looks like from a KFIR.

The Kfir has a single nosewheel, the latest images in the first link I posted show the F-313 with a twin nosewheel set-up...

-RP

[MPN11]

I never had the Iranians down as a comedy act, but this one seems good.

My thanks to the experts here ;)

[KenV]

"Appears to be real?" Yeah, real fake. That thing has the craziest mishmash of features, most making no sense at all. For example, the main gear are located forward of the main wing and engines. The only way for it not to be a tail dragger and be able to put weight on the nose gear is if they put massive ballast in the nose. That's nonsense. The intakes are above the LEX which would make flight above a few units AOA essentially impossible (more nonsense) and the intakes are coplanar with both wings. That means all the wing spars/carry-thru structure would have to have huge holes through them to feed the air to the engines. On a modern fighter that's nonsense. The engines have no nozzles, not even fixed ones. That's nonsense. There's no HUD. The list goes on and on.

And the internal layout drawing? Its even worse. The wing trailing edge structure is fixed. No flaps, no ailerons, no flaperons, nothing. The canard has no spars which sorta makes sense only because there's no structure for the canards to attach to. And the canard's actuator linkage is all wrong. No spindle, and instead of causing the canard to rotate about an axis that linkage would cause the canard tip to translate forward and aft, but with no hinge to allow translation. The main wing spars attach to.....nothing. No carry-through structure at all. Even the drawing itself is nonsense like an M.C. Escher drawing with impossible perspectives. They didn't even get real engineers to draw fake drawings. This is the work of high school kids with a good imagination, but zero engineering skills.

[Bigbux]

Titter ye not with all your advanced technical wizardry. This aircraft will NEVER be detected by an enemy AD radar. :ok:

[Rhino power]

There's no HUD.

Hardly relevant, the F-35 doesn't have a HUD either, or have you forgotten that minor detail? And no, I'm not comparing it to the F-35!
As has already been mentioned, it is almost definitely for internal consumption...

-RP

[barnstormer1968]

That cutaway has to be the worst one I've ever seen!
How lazy was it to only show the left hand engine. The detail stops at the centre line then the right hand side of the fuselage is out of proportion.

[Buster Hyman]

"Appears to be real?" Yeah, real fake. That thing has the craziest mishmash of features, most making no sense at all. For example, the main gear are located forward of the main wing and engines. The only way for it not to be a tail dragger and be able to put weight on the nose gear is if they put massive ballast in the nose. That's nonsense. The intakes are above the LEX which would make flight above a few units AOA essentially impossible (more nonsense) and the intakes are coplanar with both wings. That means all the wing spars/carry-thru structure would have to have huge holes through them to feed the air to the engines. On a modern fighter that's nonsense. The engines have no nozzles, not even fixed ones. That's nonsense. There's no HUD. The list goes on and on.

And the internal layout drawing? Its even worse. The wing trailing edge structure is fixed. No flaps, no ailerons, no flaperons, nothing. The canard has no spars which sorta makes sense only because there's no structure for the canards to attach to. And the canard's actuator linkage is all wrong. No spindle, and instead of causing the canard to rotate about an axis that linkage would cause the canard tip to translate forward and aft, but with no hinge to allow translation. The main wing spars attach to.....nothing. No carry-through structure at all. Even the drawing itself is nonsense like an M.C. Escher drawing with impossible perspectives. They didn't even get real engineers to draw fake drawings. This is the work of high school kids with a good imagination, but zero engineering skills.

Do you at least like the colour? :p

[TWT]

'Interpretation provisional'. The drawing is a figment of someone's imagination.

That said,I doubt that the F-313 will prove to be much of an adversary in the future !

[PDR1]

Do you at least like the colour? :p

Is it available in a few shades of grey?

PDR

[MPN11]

I may have missed something up-Thread, but where do the stealthy weapons go?

[melmothtw]

Hardly relevant, the F-35 doesn't have a HUD either, or have you forgotten that minor detail? And no, I'm not comparing it to the F-35!

You kinda are.

[PDR1]

I may have missed something up-Thread, but where do the stealthy weapons go?

They're hanging from the wing pylons. But obviously as they're stealthy you can't see them...

PDR

[Rhino power]

You kinda are.

Er, no, I'm not...

-RP

[PDR1]

Is it pantomine season already?

PDR

[Mil-26Man]

Originally Posted by melmothtw
You kinda are.
Er, no, I'm not...

Oh yes you are!

[melmothtw]

Yeah, what he said. In saying the F-313 doesn't need a HUD as the F-35 doesn't have one either, you were kinda comparing them. There's nothing wrong with that, just saying is all...

[MPN11]

They're hanging from the wing pylons. But obviously as they're stealthy you can't see them...
Thanks. That explains why I missed any sense of mission-effectiveness.

I'm sure the goat-herders are impressed, though ;)

[PDR1]

Well mock all you want, but here is the clear evidence of it being prepared for operational missions:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5cNb5eoI8Uw/maxresdefault.jpg

So clearly it's as real as a Trump press release!

PDR

[KenV]

Hardly relevant, the F-35 doesn't have a HUD either, or have you forgotten that minor detail? And no, I'm not comparing it to the F-35!-RPSo you're saying the Iranians have developed a helmet mounted display system like the F-35, along with all the sensors, processors, display drivers, etc etc required to feed the display system? Nice to know, although the pilot in the "taxi tests" was not wearing one.

[Always a Sapper]

I may have missed something up-Thread, but where do the stealthy weapons go?

Not required if it's a one way trip only type of stealth chariot...

[Haraka]

Anybody else find this episode of most probable deception triggers recall of the "Stealth Blackhawk" bits saga. . These were only seen in public once, following the Osama Bin laden mission nearly six years ago in Pakistan.
That is unless somebody has any substantial evidence of the type's continued existence?

[Lonewolf_50]

Haraka:
If "Stealth Black Hawk" was real, I am pretty sure the Army / SOCOM want to keep that under wraps.
If "Stealth Black Hawk" is not real, then someone did a great job with OPDEC.


Which do you think is more likely, and why?

[KenV]

Anybody else find this episode of most probable deception triggers recall of the "Stealth Blackhawk" bits saga.Seeing as the "deception" involving a "Stealth Blackhawk" included violating the airspace and territory of an ostensible "ally", the death of several individuals, and the destruction of tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars in property, that would be one heck of a deception operation. And to what end?

[tartare]

Haraka - some pretty credible statements at the time (I'll see if I can find the thread) from a few people who obviously knew a lot more than they were saying that there indeed is a Stealthy variant of the Blackhawk. One even mentioned the Project name.
It's been mentioned that 160th SOAR do a lot of mods in house.
If there are only a handful of Stealth Blackhawks - even just one or two - then it's entirely possible it's a type that been concealed until now.

[A_Van]

Gentlemen,

IMHO, comparing this persian plane with F-35, -22 and likes is not correct, as it is seemed to be purposed for a quite narrow set of "use cases", and is not a fighter at all.

Looks like it is a subsonic plane, more likely to fly quite low with terrain following. Is it real or just a mock-up? Look at Boeing BirdOfPrey:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Bird_of_Prey

BTW, its intakes look even more "improperly" located :-)

[Haraka]

Without wishing to set off too much thread drift, one possible reason ( of several) for leaving evidence of a "Stealth" helicopter operation might have been to provide plausible deniability of any cooperation from certain elements within Pakistan.

[hoodie]

Whilst being shaved this morning by my barber, Mr Occam, he said that it is MOST likely that the helicopter was used for insertion, not disinformation.

And he should know.

[PDR1]

Occam isn't a rule - more a sort of "guideline", as Cp Sparrow would say. And the covert ops chappies (of all nationalities) have a long history of maskirovka like Cats Eyes Cunningham and indeed the whole "F-19 programme".

So I wouldn't say it was necessarily that much of a stretch...

PDR

[arw.ryder]

I like the color at least. Also note how far up the main gear is on the best plane ever designed: http://i.imgur.com/J1wI4Gz.jpg

I don't think the Iranian '''plane''' has any engines. Either it's towed by an invisible cable or they put small electric motors in the wheels. It might be designed to use two small Iranian turbojets, explaining the small intakes. The wing could hold enough fuel for turbojets and it would be a subsonic aircraft if it's an aircraft at all.

[Cows getting bigger]

There's lots off oddballs around. This was a BAe thing from the early noughties.

http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/BAE-Replica1.jpg

[PDR1]

That was the Revise programme - essentially a study project into the issues around manufacturing a low-observability airframe. It was never intended to be a real aeroplane; just a collection of the typical materials, processes and shapes that such things have to explore the observability consequences of manufacturing variance.

PDR

[EAP86]

PDR Ahem, ITYM REPLICA.

REVISE was a sort of joint research prog with DERA (or whatever they were called then) into cruise missile in flight release dynamics.

EAP

[melmothtw]

That was the Revise programme

Replica programme.

[tartare]

Thread drift, but c'mon guys?
Occams razor.
They construed an extremely elaborate fake bit of a stealth helicopter and then planted it in the courtyard to distract everyone.
Or some poor pilot got caught in a ring vortex or whatever and smacked one of the 160th SOAR's handful of ghost Blackhawks into the ground.
Conspiracy... or cock up?
I'll go with the latter everytime thanks lads.
The former is just too elaborate to be believed in my view.

[PDR1]

PDR Ahem, ITYM REPLICA.

REVISE was a sort of joint research prog with DERA (or whatever they were called then) into cruise missile in flight release dynamics.

EAP

Replica programme.

It was indeed - my CRS was kicking in again!

Apols,

PDR

[PDR1]

Thread drift, but c'mon guys?
Occams razor.

I do wish people would stop citing Occam as if it was some hard law of physics. It's just a philosophical proposition that actually refers to prefering solutions that rely on fewer assumptions, although it is commonly cited to mean "the explanation with the lowest complexity is more likely to be correct".

But even under that interpretation, if Occam's razor was a hard rule of the universe then we would have no relativity, no quantum mechanics and no women...

PDR

[KenV]

I like the color at least. Also note how far up the main gear is on the best plane ever designed: http://i.imgur.com/J1wI4Gz.jpg
The gear on the YF-23 far forward? Yes. But not forward of the entire wing. To keep the nose gear on the ground and the tail from dragging in such a design, the CG would have to be forward of the main gear and hence forward of the entire wing. That's a non flyable condition. Further, since the wing and fuel it contains and the engines are the most dense parts of the plane, to move the CG forward of the wing with aft mounted engines means adding a massive ballast weight in the nose. That's nonsense.

As an example, look at any Rutan design with no tail surfaces and a canard. If it has a nose gear, the main gear are under the wing. If it has main gear forward of the wing, it has no nose gear and is a tail dragger.

[ricardian]

Perhaps they have read this document (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9035708/Cambridge-scientist-debunks-flying-myth.html)

[BossEyed]

I do wish people would stop citing Occam as if it was some hard law of physics.

Nobody in this thread has done that.