[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39450143]Where are the pylons for external payloads?[/QUOTE]
they might [I]just[/I] be underneath the aircraft
[QUOTE=DrLuckyLuke;39446953][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_device[/url][/QUOTE]
eh, wouldn't say they really look like wingtip devices
the part of the wing with the large anhedral angle is quite a big portion of the whole wing
that looks pretty cool.
[QUOTE=T553412;39445581]It looks like something out of Ace Combat.[/QUOTE]
i was going to post that :suicide:
but seriously looks like one of those super fighters you unlock in ace combat after beating everything lol.
I don't know, if my measurements are correct and my weight estimation is anywhere near what it's supposed to be, it'll be able to fly. (I'm assuming it's using the SNECMA Atar engine, as found in the Dassault Mirage) This is also assuming that my really, really crappy math skills are working fine too. So take all of this with a grain of salt, as I'm not aeronautical engineer.
I don't know how stealthy it would be, especially with those wingtips. Speaking of it's wings, the canards are probably strictly there for low-speed lift capability (given that it's supposed to be able to take off from short runways) and their shape alludes to potential supersonic flight. I doubt it could go very fast, as those type of wingtips cause massive drag at high speeds, but since it's clearly not built for strict air-to-air combat that's not a problem. I'm assuming it's lack of external pylons is an indicator of an internal weapons bay, so it might be a nice answer to the F-35 but I doubt it could compete with something designed for air-to-air combat.
Judging by it's size, estimated flight capability and probably limited (I'm guessing equal to the F-117, so still pretty good) stealth capability, it would make a good addition to the Iranian Air Force but the latest US, Russian and Chinese designs could take it down. Not surprising since Iran is, well, Iran and doesn't have the resources and funding like the superpowers have. Oh, and I'd probably bet on other "independent" designs like the JAS39 Gripen from Sweden being better overall.
Guarantee it barely functions.
It's designed for air-superiority, that's for sure, but if you're Iran wouldn't you want tons of cheap, semi-modern aircraft to throw at your enemy and overwhelm rather than try and utilize incredibly expensive, hard to produce, technically demanding aircraft in small numbers?
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;39455073]I don't know, if my measurements are correct and my weight estimation is anywhere near what it's supposed to be, it'll be able to fly. (I'm assuming it's using the SNECMA Atar engine, as found in the Dassault Mirage) This is also assuming that my really, really crappy math skills are working fine too. So take all of this with a grain of salt, as I'm not aeronautical engineer.
I don't know how stealthy it would be, especially with those wingtips. Speaking of it's wings, the canards are probably strictly there for low-speed lift capability (given that it's supposed to be able to take off from short runways) and their shape alludes to potential supersonic flight. I doubt it could go very fast, as those type of wingtips cause massive drag at high speeds, but since it's clearly not built for strict air-to-air combat that's not a problem. I'm assuming it's lack of external pylons is an indicator of an internal weapons bay, so it might be a nice answer to the F-35 but I doubt it could compete with something designed for air-to-air combat.
Judging by it's size, estimated flight capability and probably limited (I'm guessing equal to the F-117, so still pretty good) stealth capability, it would make a good addition to the Iranian Air Force but the latest US, Russian and Chinese designs could take it down. Not surprising since Iran is, well, Iran and doesn't have the resources and funding like the superpowers have. Oh, and I'd probably bet on other "independent" designs like the JAS39 Gripen from Sweden being better overall.[/QUOTE]
Looking at the cockpit airspeed indicator, its velocity never exceed is 260 knots, which is about 450kmh. Slow...
Seriously? Nobody's noticed? It looks like a fucking miniature, why do you think there are no exterior shots? [thumb]http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/530744_10151266956883603_350700790_n.jpg[/thumb] The lighting looks like a miniature set, here's a miniature, [thumb]http://gofatherhood.com/Images/railroad-museum-miniatures-02.png[/thumb] It's all fake
Its pretty obvious to me this thing is fucking fake or it sucks dick in the air.
So where does the radar go? Typically that goes in the nose.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/dJ99Wxz.jpg[/IMG]
[editline]2nd February 2013[/editline]
Also, is that pilot a mannequin?
[QUOTE=Ridge;39455845]So where does the radar go? Typically that goes in the nose.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/dJ99Wxz.jpg[/IMG]
[editline]2nd February 2013[/editline]
Also, is that pilot a mannequin?[/QUOTE]
Might not have a radar? It doesn't look like it has any offensive capability. It doesn't have a OLS either. And no, that pilot isn't a mannequin.
[editline]2nd February 2013[/editline]
But its a prototype, they showed 3d models on computer screens so it looks like they're showing us all they have for a prototype.
It kind of looks like a frog sliding forward on its belly.
[QUOTE=Nexus435;39455843]Its pretty obvious to me this thing is fucking fake or it sucks dick in the air.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because the idea of a foreign country being able to innovate or build decent military hardware is just impossible, right?
I never understand these 'lol it will crash' or 'must be fake' comments every time some new Chinese, Iranian, North Korean, or (to a lesser extent) Russian military technology is posted here. Believe it or not, but the Iranians aren't a bunch of spear-throwing primitives. Modern, Western armies of the US, UK, and other NATO countries have historically gotten their asses handed to them by third-world insurgents with half-century-old technology, given the right circumstances. These countries have had decades to study US military technology and copy it, with their own innovations, and have a home field advantage in any plausible deployment scenario. They're indisputably more dangerous than insurgents, so there's really no basis on which to dismiss them entirely just because they can't go toe-to-toe with the US.
If a cheap RPG designed over 50 years ago by the quantity-over-quality Soviet Union is still a threat to modern militaries, then a modern air superiority fighter sure as hell is, no matter who's designing it.
[QUOTE=catbarf;39456457]Yeah, because the idea of a foreign country being able to innovate or build decent military hardware is just impossible, right?
I never understand these 'lol it will crash' or 'must be fake' comments every time some new Chinese, Iranian, North Korean, or (to a lesser extent) Russian military technology is posted here. Believe it or not, but the Iranians aren't a bunch of spear-throwing primitives. Modern, Western armies of the US, UK, and other NATO countries have historically gotten their asses handed to them by third-world insurgents with half-century-old technology, given the right circumstances. These countries have had decades to study US military technology and copy it, with their own innovations, and with a home field advantage in any plausible deployment scenario are absolutely a threat.
If a cheap RPG designed over 50 years ago by the quantity-over-quality Soviet Union is still a threat to modern militaries, then a modern air superiority fighter sure as hell is, no matter who's designing it.[/QUOTE]
You have to admit that getting an air-superiority fighter right is a hell of a lot harder than brute forcing your way through armor.
[QUOTE=Apache249;39456475]You have to admit that getting an air-superiority fighter right is a hell of a lot harder than brute forcing your way through armor.[/QUOTE]
They don't have to get it 'right', they just have to get it. It doesn't matter if five are lost in exchange for a single F-15 (let alone a Raptor), because that is still enough to give serious pause to US commanders. Real world commanders don't like Pyrrhic victories- it's not just a matter of whether or not you can win, but how much you can win by.
An RPG is by no means an optimal anti-tank weapon, but it's cheap and it works and that's enough of a threat.
It's pretty obvious that any of the third world or underdeveloped nations don't have a hope in hell of competing with the latest fifth generation aircraft.
Air-superiority will remain the domain of the wealthy for the foreseeable future.
How has no one mentioned this yet:
[img]http://anerdoccurrence.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/stag-vtol.jpg?w=604[/img]
My guess is that it will probably be comparable to aircraft like the alca l-159 and similar.
So apparently (and this is all hearsay, I heard it from someone else) someone did some maths and worked out that it really couldn't fly.
No idea if its true but I just find it funny.
[QUOTE=catbarf;39456457]Yeah, because the idea of a foreign country being able to innovate or build decent military hardware is just impossible, right?
I never understand these 'lol it will crash' or 'must be fake' comments every time some new Chinese, Iranian, North Korean, or (to a lesser extent) Russian military technology is posted here. Believe it or not, but the Iranians aren't a bunch of spear-throwing primitives. Modern, Western armies of the US, UK, and other NATO countries have historically gotten their asses handed to them by third-world insurgents with half-century-old technology, given the right circumstances. These countries have had decades to study US military technology and copy it, with their own innovations, and have a home field advantage in any plausible deployment scenario. They're indisputably more dangerous than insurgents, so there's really no basis on which to dismiss them entirely just because they can't go toe-to-toe with the US.
If a cheap RPG designed over 50 years ago by the quantity-over-quality Soviet Union is still a threat to modern militaries, then a modern air superiority fighter sure as hell is, no matter who's designing it.[/QUOTE]
Waging conventional warfare and working a counter insurgency are two entirely different things. The US, China, and Russia would each be able to absolutely crush the Iranian military through both superior numbers and technology.
The Iranians might have decent engineers, but if you think anything manufactured by Iran can come close to competing with the 60 years of experience, testing, competition, and warfare which countries like the USA, Russia, Britain, German and other European nations you're sadly mistaken. Not to mention there's a hell of a lot more that goes into stealth than just how the plane looks. It might have some features which resemble that of western stealth fighters but I can guarantee it doesn't have anywhere near the same radar profile reduction.
Additionally an RPG-7 is only a threat to infantry and light vehicles like the HUMVEE. They just glance off modern NATO MBTs and I'm sure as hell the Russians have developed countermeasures for them.
fueled by the might and prayers of islam
Looking at this model/plane, it only has one engine which means it will have to be a very powerful one like the one on F-35 to go supersonic. Secondly, the intakes seem to very small and also lacks a diverter suggesting to me that this plane was made for subsonic flight.
The cone in front looks far too small to hold a proper radar, not to mention the overall size of the plain is quite small, comparable to the L39 trainer which raises serious doubts about it's internal bays, fuel capacity Etc.
One final thing that bothers me is the cockpit size, maybe the angle, but it seems a bit too small compared to other planes.
Just my 2 cents
[QUOTE=Marbalo;39446795]NATO, Russia, and China. (contrary to popular belief)
Yes, those three entities have an established and well-funded military complex that is filled with brilliant scientists that work around the clock to produce the best possible machinery to support troops. Air superiority complexes are almost half a century old and have a significant head start on smaller nations like Iran, for example.
That, and the fact that Iran has never produced anything that attracted worldwide praise or attention, means Iran is terrible at making equipment.
Iran isn't the "underdog" that you need to defend at every turn.[/QUOTE]
It's like you don't even comprehend english.
I don't defend underdogs at every turn, I am just tired of this one-sided parade.
This same bandwagon of "hurrr it sucks" happens with everyone who is considered a "challenger" to the USA. I suppose you weren't around when China revealed their new brand new fighter model. Everyone repeated basically the same what has been said in this thread.
Even when that one time a Chinese drone crashed, the thread was basically "Chinese quality XD" x2541 funny. Two leeks later a thread popped up about USA drone crashing and I thought it would be approtiate to say "American quality" and that royally upset everyone plus box ratings (but like those matter). Call me biased but fucking hell if everyone else aren't.
[QUOTE=smeismastger;39457902]It's like you don't even comprehend english.
I don't defend underdogs at every turn, I am just tired of this one-sided parade.
This same bandwagon of "hurrr it sucks" happens with everyone who is considered a "challenger" to the USA. I suppose you weren't around when China revealed their new brand new fighter model. Everyone repeated basically the same what has been said in this thread.
Even when that one time a Chinese drone crashed, the thread was basically "Chinese quality XD" x2541 funny. Two leeks later a thread popped up about USA drone crashing and I thought it would be approtiate to say "American quality" and that royally upset everyone plus box ratings (but like those matter). Call me biased but fucking hell if everyone else aren't.[/QUOTE]
remember that time when Iran managed to down a US drone (supposedly by spoofing GPS satellite signals, making it think it was back home and it was time to land)
at first it was unconfirmed and everyone was all like "no way dude US drones are waaay too awesome and advanced to be taken down by Iran"
then it was confirmed, and suddenly the tone changed to "OH that's like the cheapest shittiest drone we have anyone could make that with model airplane parts xd this doesn't even matter" and i think a few people even went as far as saying that the US [I]intentionally[/I] gave Iran the drone, because it's so bad or something
[editline]3rd February 2013[/editline]
yeah, that was a fun time of pointless, blind nationalism
[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;39457968]remember that time when Iran managed to down a US drone (supposedly by spoofing GPS satellite signals, making it think it was back home and it was time to land)
at first it was unconfirmed and everyone was all like "no way dude US drones are waaay too awesome and advanced to be taken down by Iran"
then it was confirmed, and suddenly the tone changed to "OH that's like the cheapest shittiest drone we have anyone could make that with model airplane parts xd this doesn't even matter" and i think a few people even went as far as saying that the US [I]intentionally[/I] gave Iran the drone, because it's so bad or something[/QUOTE]
no you're confusing two incidents
1. Iran downed a US RQ-170. Everyone was surprised by that. Some thought it might have been an accident. No one belittled it.
2. Iran captured a "US Navy Scan Eagle", which literally is one of the simplest drones used by the USA, except maybe the Raven. Its an RC toy. And Iran never proved it was an American scan eagle (Scan Eagles are the most common UAVs in the world), it had no markings, and the story quickly died down. That's the one people joked questioned and ridiculed.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39458001]no you're confusing two incidents
1. Iran downed a US RQ-170. Everyone was surprised by that. Some thought it might have been an accident. No one belittled it.
2. Iran captured a "US Navy Scan Eagle", which literally is one of the simplest drones used by the USA, except maybe the Raven. Its an RC toy. And Iran never proved it was an American scan eagle (Scan Eagles are the most common UAVs in the world), it had no markings, and the story quickly died down. That's the one people joked questioned and ridiculed.[/QUOTE]
haha nope. I remember the thread about the RQ-170, as soon as it happened everyone thought Iran was lying then once it was confirmed everybody starting magically speculating that it was useless or somehow bait and that the technology is dated even though its a brand new drone, the only missing feature is RAM coating which is unneeded because it was operating in Afghanistan on a COIN mission.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39458001]no you're confusing two incidents
1. Iran downed a US RQ-170. Everyone was surprised by that. Some thought it might have been an accident. No one belittled it.
2. Iran captured a "US Navy Scan Eagle", which literally is one of the simplest drones used by the USA, except maybe the Raven. Its an RC toy. And Iran never proved it was an American scan eagle (Scan Eagles are the most common UAVs in the world), it had no markings, and the story quickly died down. That's the one people joked questioned and ridiculed.[/QUOTE]
no, i'm talking about the first one, and i definitely remember posting in that thread and how stupid the whole thread was
[I]i was there man[/I]
look for yourself, dude.
I was there too. 56 winners by the way, 0 disagrees or dumbs.
RQ170-[URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1145235"]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1145235[/URL]
ScanEagle-[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1230388&highlight=Iran+drone"]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1230388&highlight=Iran+drone[/URL]
Drones are fucking shit compared to the F35 anyway.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.