Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26629/iran-claims-it-tested-a-submarine-launched-anti-ship-missile-capable-of-standoff-strikes

Iran recently released footage showing one of its Ghadir-class submarines firing a new Jask-2 submarine-launched anti-ship cruise missile during a major drill stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, including in the highly strategic Strait of Hormuz. This came less than a week after the country commissioned the first of its larger Fateh-class subs, which reportedly also have the ability to employ these weapons.

The Jask-2 launch occurred on Feb. 24, 2019. This was the third and last day of Velayat 97, an annual exercise that included naval, air, and shore-based elements, which began on Feb. 22, 2019. The Fateh-class submarine, which is still undergoing trials, also reportedly took part in the drills, as did the Iranian Navy’s new corvette Sahand. Iran said that the missile hit a mock target, but there is no indepedent confirmation of the test's success.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 641
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Befitting a missile named Phoenix first produced about 50 years ago.

 

Iranian F14s are well suited for the peer opponent and showing the flag missions. Less so for the fighting against the overwhelming strength, stealth, and jamming dominance superiority of the USAF mission, but the same would have to be essentially said for any 4th generation fighter the Iranians could conceivably use in that setting.

 

Being forced to create an indigenous technical and parts manufacturing industry from scratch versus relying on Grumman technicians and spares deliveries cannot have been cheap or easy, but it also has apparently created an indigenous Iranian knowledge base for a Tomcat SLEP and (along with its work on keeping Iranian Phantoms and F5s in the air) the nucleus of a fighter jet aviation industry in general.

 

Given the state of Japan's indigenous combat jet aspirations, the Iranians are worthy of some respect here in various ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they didn't do that, they contracted foreign firms to build parts under various pretexts, particularly those Iranian industry couldn't reproduce, but sanctions did away with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Two months later, on 7 December 1986, the Pentagon's Joint Intelligence Group, along with the CIA, top Grumman engineers, and a large group of US Navy engineers and technicians started a two-week meeting at the Foreign Technologies Laboratories... At the meeting, a list of 132 F-14 parts was presented, along with nine cases of actual Iranian Tomcat parts. The objective of the meeting was to determine whether Iran was capable of manufacturing spare parts, or if they were being produced elsewhere. The general conclusion was that Iran was manufacturing spares for its F-14 fleet."

 

Cooper T, Bishop F. Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat. Osprey Publishing 2004;p.67:ISBN 1 84176 787 5

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they didn't do that, they contracted foreign firms to build parts under various pretexts, particularly those Iranian industry couldn't reproduce, but sanctions did away with that.

 

Iran does keep trying to smuggle in parts for various older Western systems. 2-4 times a year one reads about someone getting caught trying to smuggle weapons parts to Iran or being convicted of same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran doesn't take its own air defense that seriously. Look at the layout: most of the country is merely covered by SA-5, sometimes single launchers. Yes, there are S-300s (ironically deployed at MIM-23 sites) but those as far as I can tell are coastal and local to their most important air bases or nuclear facilities. Karg Island is absolutely defenseless; you can see what used to be an SA-2 site there but it is empty now. 95% of their oil goes through that facility. Clearly they consider politics and distance their best defense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its more a case of them preferring to put air defence over things that would be a threat to the survival of the regime if they lost. Kharg island would be a blow, but it would bring the regime down. Hitting anything in Tehran might.

 

Its a big country, and they aren't rich, they cant defend all of it.

 

 

 

Its just a personal view, but I think its getting easier to do replacement of components, at least, the electronic ones. There is a guy called curiousmarc on youtube that restores computers. He demonstrates there is a company in the US that does rapid prototyping of circuit boards. You give them the dimensions and the configuration, they make what you need. I find that hard to believe hats the only part of the world where that can be done.

 

 

The real difficulty would be the unavailability of chips. But its been demonstrated, if you can get chips of a similar type and you have the code you downloaded from the chip, you can reflash new ones. Marc was restoring an AT terminal, got some new chips, I think from China, and a burner, and he made his own.

 

 

 

Ive no idea if they are doing any of this I might add. I just say, if you have the money, its probably doable, assuming no political interference. The only question is how much either applies to Iran, which is probably not a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The politics and distance defense sounds like a plausible one to use in Iran's case, considering the weight of airpower its adversaries would likely deploy against it.

 

It also makes Iran's 40-year effort to keep its F-14s aloft that more interesting. It appears to be motivated as much if not more by national prestige and face than utility. Funding for it will probably continue on that basis.

Edited by Nobu
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Two months later, on 7 December 1986, the Pentagon's Joint Intelligence Group, along with the CIA, top Grumman engineers, and a large group of US Navy engineers and technicians started a two-week meeting at the Foreign Technologies Laboratories... At the meeting, a list of 132 F-14 parts was presented, along with nine cases of actual Iranian Tomcat parts. The objective of the meeting was to determine whether Iran was capable of manufacturing spare parts, or if they were being produced elsewhere. The general conclusion was that Iran was manufacturing spares for its F-14 fleet."

 

Cooper T, Bishop F. Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat. Osprey Publishing 2004;p.67:ISBN 1 84176 787 5

 

That they came from Iran doesn't mean they were made in iran.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The politics and distance defense sounds like a plausible one to use in Iran's case, considering the weight of airpower its adversaries would likely deploy against it.

 

It also makes Iran's 40-year effort to keep its F-14s aloft that more interesting. It appears to be motivated as much if not more by national prestige and face than utility. Funding for it will probably continue on that basis.

Hell, I think we should buy them back, reverse engineer them and use them as a basis for an AST-21 F-18E/F replacement, would make a great compliment to the F-35.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The politics and distance defense sounds like a plausible one to use in Iran's case, considering the weight of airpower its adversaries would likely deploy against it.

 

It also makes Iran's 40-year effort to keep its F-14s aloft that more interesting. It appears to be motivated as much if not more by national prestige and face than utility. Funding for it will probably continue on that basis.

Hell, I think we should buy them back, reverse engineer them and use them as a basis for an AST-21 F-18E/F replacement, would make a great compliment to the F-35.

 

 

I feel the Iranians would be reluctant to let them go. :D

 

That said, there is clearly a lack in the USN for a fleet defence fighter and long range strike platform. The Superhornet is a great aircraft, but its arguably jack of all trades, master of none. Even that would be less of a hardship if someone hadnt got rid of all the S3 Vikings that were proving so useful as tankers. Im not sure Tomcat 21 would have been a good substitute for the Superhornet, but it would have been a good supliment. I guess we can blame Dick Cheney for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell, I think we should buy them back,

 

The State Department was in negotiations with Iran to in 1979 up until the hostage crisis. Restarting those negotiations at some point couldn't hurt.

 

On the Super Hornet, the maintenance standardization efficiency argument for it alone versus a CV air group F-14 mix sounds like a decision to purchase a Mercedes but not the leather.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its worth reading the article RETAC posted in the Cold War at sea thread on the Soviet Kamikazes. There is one ex Soviet Naval Airman whom is convinced binning the Tomcat was a mistake. Mind you, he is also convinced binning the F111B was a mistake because it could carry more Phoenix missiles. :D

 

I dont think the return of the Tomcat is the answer, technology has moved on. Only Russia still persists in making Swing Wing Aircraft after all. That said, the US clearly needs SOMETHING like a Tomcat. So a Tomcat II as a concept is probably the way to go. I was listening to a podcast the other day, where an American admiral summarily rejected VSTOL carriers because you are limited in range of the aircraft. Its worth reflecting America keeps making more and more expensive carriers, and in removing all its tankers from the flight deck (other than buddy tankers anyway) has achieved the same end. Go figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I dont think the return of the Tomcat is the answer, technology has moved on. Only Russia still persists in making Swing Wing Aircraft after all. That said, the US clearly needs SOMETHING like a Tomcat. So a Tomcat II as a concept is probably the way to go.

 

Indeed, though I don't think we should necessarily discount swing wing aircraft, at least for naval applications where optimum approach speed design and optimum high performance designs conflict. If we free it of the requirement to be ultra LO (a niche filled by the F-35), suddenly there is tremendous flexibility for designers to make it excel in other areas to complement the F-35 across the spectrum of naval air operations, while also addressing the limitations of the F-18E

Edited by Burncycle360
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I dont think the return of the Tomcat is the answer, technology has moved on. Only Russia still persists in making Swing Wing Aircraft after all.

Not only technology has moved on, but also USSR, the only equal opponent to US, is now gone. Russia is stick to producing Swing Wing Aircraft as we are the only country on the planet both in potential danger of opposing technologically developed opponent while not having massive numerical superiority, and having technology to build planes able to do this task. Still, Russian swing wing aircraft production is limited to 1980th designed bombers, while i do not know single modern Russian swing wing project.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Swing wing is going to introduce new maintenance issues, as well as prevent any folding wing. Theres no reason you cant design a naval aircraft without it. The F-35s limitations were driven by the USMC requirements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Swing wing is going to introduce new maintenance issues, as well as prevent any folding wing. Theres no reason you cant design a naval aircraft without it. The F-35s limitations were driven by the USMC requirements.

Please note, I'm not saying it should have swing wings, I am saying they shouldn't dismiss it out of hand or shy away from the possibility if it turns out they provide the performance characteristics the designers are looking for.

 

Swing wings are more maintenance intensive than fixed wings but that isn't the end of the world, not even close, lets keep it in perspective here. Any new design, swing wing or not, that addresses the Superhornet's shortfalls is going to be more maintenance intensive than the Superhornet, but also less maintenance intensive than legacy aircraft like the F-14 by virtue of advances in technology and best practices from an engineering standpoint. Examples include advances in electronics and miniaturization, easier hot swapping of serviceable components, thoughtful access panel locations and UI design, diagnostic software that predicts failures before it happens and monitors component fatigue, subsystems with graceful degradation characteristics, commonality of major components with the F-35 (engines, radars, FCS, etc), you're easily at the point of overall net maintenance benefits even if it was a swing wing.

 

In some ways it would be even less of a headache than the F-35 assuming it doesn't emphasize LO, it's a constant chore to prevent and mitigate degradation of the F-35's RCS reduction features especially in a maritime environment, just wait till they're 40 years old.

 

Edited by Burncycle360
Link to post
Share on other sites

You could have a functional aircraft without a swing wing. Point of actual fact, no one has produced one since the late 70's/early 80's, regardless of what requirements they are trying to fulfill.

But as for the compromised kinetics of the F-35, that is totally on the Marines and the small elevators of the gator freighters, perhaps compounded by lift fans. Convince me otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I dont think the return of the Tomcat is the answer, technology has moved on. Only Russia still persists in making Swing Wing Aircraft after all.

Not only technology has moved on, but also USSR, the only equal opponent to US, is now gone. Russia is stick to producing Swing Wing Aircraft as we are the only country on the planet both in potential danger of opposing technologically developed opponent while not having massive numerical superiority, and having technology to build planes able to do this task. Still, Russian swing wing aircraft production is limited to 1980th designed bombers, while i do not know single modern Russian swing wing project.

 

 

You stuck with swing wing because it was the only strategic aircraft you have uncompleted at the end of the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union had been building a flying wing like a B2, I somehow doubt you would feel the need to go back to Swing wings. Sukhoi whom were the first and most loyal adherents to the swing wing principle in the USSR has completely abandoned them in the Su34 for example.

 

All swing wing aircraft, whether it was Tornado, F14, F111 or the B1, all displayed maintenance problems. And whilst that will be in many cases down to the problems of aging electronics, you cant help but notice that aircraft that didnt have them, whether it was the F4, F15 or the F16, aged a hell of a lot better. The Swing Wing is a hell of a clever trick, and I can certainly see why it was useful for carrier aircraft. Im not convinced it proved itself as worth the extra maintenance hours. Certainly after the cold war anyway.

 

As for the F35B, at present its showing a greater availability (15 percent) than the F35C (5 percent). Which is hardly going to set the world on fire, but it does suggest at this early stage that the lift fan is probably not going to be a big issue. If nothing else at least you aren't going to be slamming the aircraft on the deck and stressing already unreliable components further. It is ironic however, how the USN and the USAF refused to heed the lesson's of the F111B, and just ploughed on and got an aircraft that isnt really what anyone wants (unless its the marines or the Royal Navy).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I dont think the return of the Tomcat is the answer, technology has moved on. Only Russia still persists in making Swing Wing Aircraft after all.

Not only technology has moved on, but also USSR, the only equal opponent to US, is now gone. Russia is stick to producing Swing Wing Aircraft as we are the only country on the planet both in potential danger of opposing technologically developed opponent while not having massive numerical superiority, and having technology to build planes able to do this task. Still, Russian swing wing aircraft production is limited to 1980th designed bombers, while i do not know single modern Russian swing wing project.

 

 

You stuck with swing wing because it was the only strategic aircraft you have uncompleted at the end of the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union had been building a flying wing like a B2, I somehow doubt you would feel the need to go back to Swing wings. Sukhoi whom were the first and most loyal adherents to the swing wing principle in the USSR has completely abandoned them in the Su34 for example.

 

Aerodynamic scheme of any airplane is defined by this plane task. If you want your airplane to be able to both fly very long distances with heavy load, rich supersonic speeds and have more or less acceptable takeoff\landing performance - some kind of adaptive wing is only option (and swing wing is the most practical one at current level of technology). Flying wing is not step forward, but step back in terms of technology - and it was done because USiaans decided that low visibility (and absence of strong enemy) is protection by itself, no more need for supersonic speed.

Yes you are right Russia is currently restoring Tu-160 and Tu-22 production because this planes are USSR heritage (ыуу ьн штшешфд зщые ыфнштп учфседн ершы), but it does not mean this planes (especially Tu-160 with fully welded 20-m wide titanium central structure, welded by ray welding in giant neutral gas chamber). Next generation Rus bomber is believed to be much cheaper low visibility flying wing.

1-125.jpg

By the way i do not remember maintenance problems with Tu-160 and Tu-22 - their main problem was USSR collapse - older planes like Mig-27 are still flying in India

32-1-1120x0.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...