Iran Air Force (IRIAF) | News and Discussions

Thanks for reply . I guess past experience is important and weapon designers and purchases must take into account past performance . In this respect , reliable data is needed from actual air combat kills using guns . By various modern jets . Problem is that apart from Korea and Vietnam , there is very little reliable data from jet on jet , dog fights and kills by guns . We should therefore carry out tests , by using different guns by real pilots against target drones . This , short of actual combat , would give most reliable answers .

Totally agree.

Aircraft gun design isn't just a case of making the guns lighter and faster firing and x level of accuracy at y range.

The Soviets in particular have a range of weapon options for different purposes for the role of bringing down enemy targets and shooting at targets on the ground.

Their current solution for most fighters is a single barrel 30mm cannon for air to air use... it is very compact and very light and with a good rate of fire and muzzle velocity but also with a good heavy HE projectile able to do serious damage to most types of aircraft.

The MiG-31, being a specialised aircraft has a specialised gun, a 23mm gatling gun with a ridiculous rate of fire (between 10 and 12 thousand rounds per minute).

A direct comparison between US 20mm gatlings and the MiGs 23mm gatling shows a serious superiority for the Soviet weapon.

The only real superiority of the US weapon was in its higher muzzle velocity but that is a conscious choice... if the Soviet round had a light weight penetrator projectile, its muzzle velocity would be comparable, but they prefer slower moving heavier projectiles with more HE punch, but at a very high rate of fire so bursts deliver a cluster of rapidly arriving impacts that lands like a shotgun blast rather than a stream of rounds.

The old model M61 Vulcan weighed 112kgs bare weight of just the gun, while the improved model weighs 92kgs without the feed system and electric motor that powers it.

The GSh-6-23 weighs 76kgs and does not need an electric motor to power it... it is gas powered by the ammo being fired... which also means it spools up to max fire rate much faster than the electric Vulcan.

The muzzle velocity of the Vulcan is 1km/s with a 100 gramme SAPHE projectile, while the GSh-6-23s round moves at just over 700m/s, but fires a much heavier 185 gramme HE projectile.

Note the Vulcan fires a 20x102mm cartridge, while the Soviet weapon is a 23x115mm round... so more case capacity and larger calibre.

Rates of fire are 6,000rpm for the Vulcan and 10-12,000 rpm for the Soviet gun... so up to 200 rounds per second...

It was one of the reasons I started taking an interest in Soviet equipment.... I had always believed the western myths of inferior but brutal equipment... this proved those theories wrong.

Just as importantly, while the US pretty much had the 20mm gatling as its standard aircraft gun, except for the A-10, the Soviets had a range of guns including 23mm single and twin and 6 barrel weapons, and also 30mm single and twin and 6 barrel models too.

Performance wise they are all excellent weapons each with different features regarding weight and size and rate of fire requirements...

Some of them, like the single barrel 23mm cannon on the Shilka, and several of the 6 barrel 30mm cannon used by the navy had a built in water cooling system... and not just a simple water cooling jacket... a sophisticated evaporation system...

On automated radar or IR guns , I must say that , this of course will improve performance . But in a hostile electronic environment , such as radar jamming or IR counter measures or EMP . Then pilot must be able to shoot in old fashion way . And must practice for it . I think you would agree , that modern pilots need to be able to use guns in dog fights . And must train for them . In case of all else failing . The modern materials for jet body must be known . And factored in , when installing guns . I think we pay more attention to armour on a personnel carrier , in designing our guns . But do we really think about aircraft body , when we install guns ? I heard that the F22 body , in part was made of paper / resin mix . In places . Now paper , used to be used as body armour , in the days of old !

Certainly a pilot needs to learn to navigate by compass, but in a real combat situation it makes sense to take advantage of everything that still works like satellite navigation.

The fire control computer on the MiG-29 can use range input from the radar or a laser rangefinder built in to the IRST to track the target and give range and angle information for the fire solution continuously calculated in real time. There is also a line in the HUD that assists the pilot to show them where they need to place the nose of their aircraft to hit the target so as they manouver around eventually things will line up correctly and the gun will automatically fire a burst when it is aligned and should hit. (the pilot holding the fire trigger while manouvering to confirm he wants the gun to fire).

The British have just announced that drone swarms will be used to suppress enemy air defences . They will most probably mimic bigger aircraft in RCS and signals , and put out ECM . So a pilot has to go up and shoot each one . Cheaply . So in this case small calibre high volume fire is needed . Saving SAM for bigger fish later . Alternatively a drone could be used for close air to air . Using data link . But that may be a few years in the future .

To be honest if the enemy put up drone swarms, the best weapon to use is not actually a machine gun... it is a shot gun... so rather than putting a gun pod with a rifle calibre machine gun on your latest fighters (incidently the Soviets had a gun pod for their Hind attack helos that had a single four barrel 12.7mm calibre HMG gatling gun the same as the weapon in the nose of the D model Hinds, as well as two 7.62mm calibre four barrel gatlings... the HMG with 500 rounds and the two rifle calibre weapons with 1,500 rounds each for hosing down soft targets like infantry in the open.) the problem would be you could fire a lot of rounds for each kill and those rounds could be going in all directions around the base you are defending... rounds that miss the target or go right through don't just suddenly disappear... they can do all sorts of damage to friendly forces.

I think the best solution to a UAV swarm is EM type weapons, plus a UCAV armed with something like a 40mm grenade launcher... the large calibre would allow a lot of fragments in each round with a base fuse set for 30-40m or so. It doesn't have to be an expensive and complex variable time fuse... just set them for a specific range and fly the UCAV around and fire at the enemy UAVs from a distance where the 40mm round explodes 3-7m short of the target so when it explodes and sends forward a blast of fragments it will be like a super shotgun round that is fired at close range to the target.

A shotgun is the ideal weapon for an air target... but it has a very limited effective range. Using a 40mm grenade with the front of the round fragmented to blow forward like a Claymore mine means it is an air delivered shotgun blast that is not that expensive, but should be very effective against light airborne targets.

A flight distance of 30-40m means the target will have little time to avoid the round exploding before detonation.

Laser range finders on the UCAV can ensure optimum distance for firing... a turret mounted gun could make multiple shots at targets all around the UCAV without having to do a lot of manouvering.

Fragments are not usually very aerodynamic so while they start off moving at enormous speeds, they rapidly slow down and become rather less dangerous... at more than 50m from the detonation location of the grenade the fragments would probably be starting to become harmless depending upon their weight.

Very light fragments are still lethal if they are moving fast but light fragments slow down faster and become less lethal faster.

Light fast fragments means a dense pattern of fragments so small UAVs are less likely to get by unscathed, but too light and they might just bounce off.

Of course there is not reason why only one round needs to get kills... for some targets a burst of a couple of rounds could be fired to ensure a kill.

Note this is not new, the standard 30mm aircraft cannon in the Soviet Union had what they called a cargo round that had a fixed fuse that detonated the round at a distance of about 1.8km from the muzzle and it contained fragments in the nose of the round that were blown forward like a shotgun blast. It was to be used against soft targets like aircraft parked on the ground or exposed infantry, and unarmed vehicles.

Agree that UCAV , needs something lighter and shorter range . Since by nature , it can not be too heavy and armoured . I remember somebody saying , there is a need for intelligent maneuverable AAA round . To target cruise missiles in Syria . It may come down to question of cost . UCAV can be relatively cheaply made . And in large numbers . So even a cheaper way needs to be found to counter them . Since they are low RCS and fly with GPS , then they can fly high , to avoid AAA . That is why a manned jet , may be best to counter them at high altitude .

I agree with what you are saying and my suggestion of 40mm grenades is related to cost... with the case of swarm attacks we are talking about large numbers of targets, so using missiles and guns and EMP weapons do make sense but it would be too expensive to take them all out with missiles all the time, and with simple guns like rifle calibre machine guns you will be expending a lot of ammo for each kill because unless the target is 50m away a small suit case sized target that is moving is hard to hit even with a 50 round burst from a machine gun at 1km or so.

A large target like an airfield defended by machine guns would need lots of positions because a 3km long airfield could not be protected from one position with a rifle calibre machine gun, or even a heavy machine gun... even if placed in the middle.

The advantage of these fixed fuse HE frag round with directional fragmentation warheads is that they are fixed, they don't need expensive timing systems that detonate at the precise time needed and there is no need for the complication and expense of a proximity fuse in the projectile and that means the rounds will be cheap. The UAV the gun is mounted on needs a laser range finder and some way of detecting enemy targets in the air... thermal sights and optical targeting systems and laser rangefinders would do, but these are not inside the missiles being launched and expended so pay for them once and keep using them makes them cheap in the long run.

Having a slightly larger UAV with a gun turret or turrets with grenade launchers means the UAV could autonomously fly orbits of the base being defended or fly to a place where the enemy threats are likely to fly past... like through a valley or pass in the mountains to evade radar detection and ground operators could monitor and pull the trigger for attacks on enemy drone targets... you could fit hundreds of rounds in a UAV and perhaps 3-5 rounds per target at most means hundreds of kills potentially.

Once it detects a swarm of enemy drones it can fly with them picking them off... cheaply and it can call in extra help if needed by alerting air defence units as it approaches them... with optical attack methods having IR lights all over your friendly UAV to identify it could save it from being shot down optically... coded flash rates to prevent an enemy mimic attacker...

Meanwhile they have drones that can detect where drone attacks are coming from so attacking the source is important too to stop future attacks from the same location...

For Russian military units I believe the 30mm cannon might get a new lease on life with air burst shells with timed fuses, but the small size of the 30mm rounds counts against them... 57mm rounds have potentially rather more HE power and more fragmentation potential and more room for smart fuses... 57mm shell exploding amongst a group of UAVs could damage or disable a few at a time... and if it is successful it offers a potential future where modern fuses are so small and effective 152mm artillery rounds could be used... as the tracking drone flys near a friendly artillery unit it could climb to a safe altitude and request a few air burst rounds at specific coordinates at specific times to detonate amongst the enemy drones... 40kgs of HE and fragments would be devastating out to quite a radius...

Even if they have the RCS of a marble there are very few marbles flying above 4,000m at 300km/h.... some sort of high speed UAV with that 40mm grenade launcher and ammo would still be the cheapest option for interception... apart from enormously powerful EMP pulse from the ground of course.

I think this aircraft is excellent choice . Simple design . Simple service . Will do great job in close support . I think the next step for Iran , can be to make low RCS frame for this plane . With low RCS external payload . For air to air combat . The cost can be as little as one tenth of fifth generation aircraft . Meaning Iran can have numerical superiority in air combat . Deploy ten to one against F35 . Airframe development far cheaper than making new engine . Keeping existing modified ( materials ) external payload . Fast track to success .

http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13980129000409

Actually rather than going low RCS I would go for a huge RCS.... cover the thing in corner reflectors... it would be seriously cheap and simple... most radar proximity fuses will set off warheads hundreds of metres away from your aircraft, and for most radars seeing an aircraft with the RCS of a battleship... how many planes are there?

Is it a fighter plane... is it a UAV...

Good idea for accompanying UAV .  To have ECM .   Or huge radar reflectors , as you say .  But plane itself will be very low RCS . possible , because the air to air version ,  need not carry external fuel tank , or heavy payload, low wing loading and composite materials  . But two to four short range , heat seekers ( redesigned low RCS versions , carried externally , for keeping plane stream lined ). And internal 20 mm cannon . No need for radar either . Use larger and longer range , ground based radar . Since using it , on the plane , will give position away . Carry more ammo , in nose cone . Radar guided AMRAM , useless against F35 . So engage in WVR ( 20 km )  , dog fight . With numerical superiority .

No it wont be very low RCS...

You can't take an existing design and make it actually stealthy... otherwise why would anyone both designing an aircraft from scratch to be stealthy when they could just convert an existing type for the job.

You make a good point that support UAVs operating with the aircraft could be large RCS and these fighters could hide amongst their RCS technically inside the UAVs they are operating with.

A modern equivalent of LANTIRN could be built in to the aircraft relatively cheaply and offer most of the capabilities that radar can achieve, but I would add an L band wing mounted radar to detect low RCS targets too because you get a better view of your airspace from up in the air... target data can be passed to ground stations to build a good picture of the battlespace for your whole force.

Modern ARH missiles like AMRAAM and R-77 use an autopilot to fly to an intercept point close to the target where they start scanning for targets to intercept... if you are getting target data from L band radar on your wings (which they wont detect) and ground stations then you could put IIR seekers on your medium range missiles and launch them towards targets many tens of kms away and when they get to the area they can start searching for air targets with their IR sensors totally passively... if the target moves while they are on their way the launch aircraft or ground station can send intercept updates to change its flight path for a better position to scan and detect the stealthy target and then chase it down.

You could put the same seeker on HAWK missiles and other long range missiles too, so a large scale strike by Israel or the US could be hammered as it approaches Iranian territory before it releases any weapons...

I think an existing aircraft body , can be converted to be built from composites . For an aircraft that has low wing loading and does not have to carry heavy loads . It can be done . The design and build of aircraft takes many years . So the  design conception for Kowsar , was done many years ago . New materials are now available . Sheets of composites can even be cut and glued by manual skilled labour . Internal fuel and low RCS ( external ) air to air missiles and sharp nose without radar , will keep plane geometry almost identical . Plane flies faster with weight loss .

The yanks had great difficulty in Iraq , with identification of friend and foe system . Not being able to engage Iraq fighters until visual confirmation . The Iranian decoy UAV , can mimic radar cross section and electronic verbal output of yank flier as well as switching to jamming  . For targeting metal planes , the UAV , can carry radar . Plane can carry missile . UAV sacrificial.

I disagree with a radar on stealth , short range , air superiority dog fighter . The yanks will always have longer range radar with wider field of view . And they will have more of them . In Iraq war their AWACS  coordinated the attack by F15 . Putting them in shooting position against Iraq fighters . It is better to jam all radar . And not play on their terms  . Ground radar by Iran should be used instead to direct fighters initially .

The yanks in Iraq war , had impressive jamming too . Both against ground radar and air radar . The net effect was that Iraq fighters were blinded . So to rely on radar is not good idea . At least be ready to loose them quickly . The new problem with radar guided missiles , is also that the F22 and F35 are very low radar . So the standard AMRAAM  , may not work on them .

Agree that IR seekers more useful on air to air missiles . But with advanced chaff systems , even these tended to be of limited usefulness , even against Iraq jet  , running away , with American heat seeker chasing it . I remember an idea , that chemicals could be sprayed into jet exhaust . To make it shine . This gives more prolonged decoy capability.

In my view , Iran needs :

( 1 ) To make jamming all American radar .

( 2 ) To make low RCS , dog fighter,  with small turning radius .

( 3 ) To make decoy drone to confuse FOF system .

( 4 ) To  paint fighter with anti - reflection matt sky blue paint .

( 5 ) To make exhaust of jet to act as IR decoy . Prolonged  burst .

( 6 ) To have heat seeker and auto cannon with laser proximity fuse .

( 7 ) To engage , in initial dog fights in numerical superiority .

( 8 ) To engage with best of best pilot aces to make kills . Gain psychological advantage .

( 9 ) To train in dog  fight school,  all pilots . Teach last minute engagements . Bravery .

( 10 ) Point defence . Pilot knows the ground . Ground support . IR decoy . Visual blinding . AAA .

I would like to add a foot note about importance of speed for air superiority  dog fighter . Speed is not as important a factor as Manuverability.  It can even be a disadvantage . Creating overshoot problems or  large  turning circles . The question of how much speed , is a mathematical problem . Effective dog fighting is a function of  tight turning circle  and speed of plane ( turning circle of plane ,bringing fresh volume of airspace exposed to bore sight and speed of plane ,  bringing fresh airspace into boresight  )  some mathematical  analysis  will give results.

https://youtu.be/di9IkdY7fvs

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_Dash

https://youtu.be/vuJ0IV2Orsg

Iran unveiling fully domestically made pilot training jet plane Yasin





Iran construction processes and Flight test Yasin Training Jet

Excellent news. I like that :

( 1) Engine compartment can accommodate future turbofan or different engine. Engine position on outside allows for installation of different engines within the same airframe.

( 2) The skin plates are small. Numerous. Can be changed to composites.

( 3) The wing area relatively large. Good manouverability. Wing position on outside of body allows various one piece rigid wings. Flexible modular design.

( 4) No after - burner version has less IR signature.

( 5) Dynamic stability can be achieved with various engine / wing configurations by shifting position of internal fuel tanks. And or armaments.


Keep up the good work.

Looks a bit like a MiG-AT...

Iranian "copy" of Taiwanese AT-3A

Good ideas are copied. No shame in that. There are two camps in aircraft design. The first is few very expensive planes. The second is less expensive but numerous planes. The Yanks and others are in a race to produce the ultimate fighter. Very expensive. But they are having problems producing these in sufficient numbers. So they have started to think about producing more reliable less expensive F15 and F16 with more updates and upgrades.

In case of USA, we know that the public is brainwashed into accepting the need for ever more complex and expensive planes. The military industrial complex must extract the greatest added value and profit. And in order to do this, they will go for the most unnecessarily complex and truncated design. Promising immortality to the hapless pilots, who are used to hero worship and riding in Bat mobiles on TV.

I know that pilots die in combat. They are soldiers. Yes soldiers. Not angels in the air. Their example should be of sacrifice. To fight with practical and useful weapons. Weapons that are not made for profit. But for war. This plane has every chance, with some improvements and modifications to be a lethal and cheap and numerous plane in the hands of capable and brave Iranian pilots. Who will shoot and kill all opponents. And yes die too. Meanwhile other airforce can play with indestructible Bat mobile. And their pilot will never die.........Good luck with that!  The Russian proverb :  "  There are old pilots and there are bold  pilots, but there are no old and bold  pilots."

All components made in Iran. Unlike comparable foreign versions. Cost to production less than 20 million Dollars. Possibly less. Cost of planes it has to face from 80 to 150 million Dollars. You get superiority of 8 : 1.




https://youtu.be/_rpPAljngeQ

I presume this is just going to be another pointless upgrade/copy of a F-5. Iran has various homegrown copies of this aircraft one designed for dedicated ground attack and the other a light multi role aircraft that's enough. They keep wasting money these aircraft they decent enough as light strike but there is a limit to upgrades and especially when each time they do it it's nothing great and only produce a small handful. Stick with kowsar and that's it. And save the money and hopefully when sanctions get lifted they will have a big pot of money to buy new better fighters such as Su-30. Throwing money as these stupid projects is wasteful.

Iran to unveil new domestic-made fighter jet ‘in near future

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/202005241079406356-iran-may-unveil-new-domestically-made-fighter-jet-in-the-near-future-in-face-of-us-sanctions/

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/iran-to-unveil-new-domestic-made-fighter-jet-in-near-future/

Actually I can't agree.
The F-5 was a good little plane and I think the F-20 had a lot of promise too.

These aircraft are designed to be light and cheap to use, but they are light fighters, so they already have most of the things you need in a light fighter... unlike a converted LIFT.

The biggest problem with light fighters is that they try to make them as good as bigger expensive fighters.

Light fighters don't need enormous flight range, they don't need enormous payload capacity, and they don't need expensive avionics and equipment.

An F-5 with a modern nose mounted targeting pod like Lantirn III, and a datalink to receive target data from ground and air based radar and systems with the capacity to zoom to 12,000m altitude to mach 1.5 plus to launch some AAMs at targets it can't see but has been given the coordinates of by other platforms is cheap and simple and you can build hundreds of them for the price it would cost to buy and operate 2 F-35s.

With a Gefest & T system it could use both guided and unguided munitions relatively cheaply and with a decent pilot escape system if one gets in to problems and the pilot has to eject it is no big deal...

50-100 of these armed with medium range AAMs and IR guided AAMs would be an excellent way to blunt any cruise missile attack from a neighbour or enemy force.

You could develop a small PESA radar for them so every other aircraft can detect and track targets itself if needed, but most of the time it could operate with larger aircraft.... make it able to operate from short rough airstrips and locate them all over your country for self defence.

GarryB wrote:Actually I can't agree.
The F-5 was a good little plane and I think the F-20 had a lot of promise too.

These aircraft are designed to be light and cheap to use, but they are light fighters, so they already have most of the things you need in a light fighter... unlike a converted LIFT.

The biggest problem with light fighters is that they try to make them as good as bigger expensive fighters.

Light fighters don't need enormous flight range, they don't need enormous payload capacity, and they don't need expensive avionics and equipment.

An F-5 with a modern nose mounted targeting pod like Lantirn III, and a datalink to receive target data from ground and air based radar and systems with the capacity to zoom to 12,000m altitude to mach 1.5 plus to launch some AAMs at targets it can't see but has been given the coordinates of by other platforms is cheap and simple and you can build hundreds of them for the price it would cost to buy and operate 2 F-35s.

With a Gefest & T system it could use both guided and unguided munitions relatively cheaply and with a decent pilot escape system if one gets in to problems and the pilot has to eject it is no big deal...

50-100 of these armed with medium range AAMs and IR guided AAMs would be an excellent way to blunt any cruise missile attack from a neighbour or enemy force.

You could develop a small PESA radar for them so every other aircraft can detect and track targets itself if needed, but most of the time it could operate with larger aircraft.... make it able to operate from short rough airstrips and locate them all over your country for self defence.

I didn't say they were useless did I. I said they have their limits and limits in upgrades. Also Iran already has three Iranian copies of it as well as the USA ones they have. The kowsar design is enough for Iranian light fighter why waste more money on trying to improve it. Especially when we all know they normally only ever build a handful. The light fighter isn't answer for their dwindling air force they would be better saving the cash so eventually when sanctions lifted they can buy replacements for the bigger more capable aircraft it needs to replace.

For a light cheap plane to remain light and cheap you have to draw the line somewhere... if you keep improving it and adding shit you end up with something like the F-35 which was supposed to be the cheap numbers stealthy plane to operate with a much smaller number of F-22s to fill the gaps... they ended up with a plane too expensive to buy or operate... they did the same with the F-16... it was supposed to be the cheap simple light fighter that was going to be made in enormous numbers and fill out a force with a rather smaller number of bigger heavier aircraft...

the light cheap plane just needs to be able to carry air to air missiles an accelerate to supersonic speed and about 12,000m altitude to launch them from to give them max reach. Being able to drop dumb cheap bombs accurately on targets from safe altitudes would be an advantage and being able to direct fire dumb unguided rockets at battlefield targets would also be useful too.

Some cheap PESA radar and a pod mounted targeting system similar to what the Su-25SM3 carries but optimised for air targets too would be good enough... give it large control surfaces so it manouvers well at any altitude and crank out as many as you can make.

A simple version could be used as an unmanned missile truck, and attack drones could be based on it too...

GarryB wrote:For a light cheap plane to remain light and cheap you have to draw the line somewhere... if you keep improving it and adding shit you end up with something like the F-35 which was supposed to be the cheap numbers stealthy plane to operate with a much smaller number of F-22s to fill the gaps... they ended up with a plane too expensive to buy or operate... they did the same with the F-16... it was supposed to be the cheap simple light fighter that was going to be made in enormous numbers and fill out a force with a rather smaller number of bigger heavier aircraft...

the light cheap plane just needs to be able to carry air to air missiles an accelerate to supersonic speed and about 12,000m altitude to launch them from to give them max reach.  Being able to drop dumb cheap bombs accurately on targets from safe altitudes would be an advantage and being able to direct fire dumb unguided rockets at battlefield targets would also be useful too.

Some cheap PESA radar and a pod mounted targeting system similar to what the Su-25SM3 carries but optimised for air targets too would be good enough... give it large control surfaces so it manouvers well at any altitude and crank out as many as you can make.

A simple version could be used as an unmanned missile truck, and attack drones could be based on it too...

I thought what they (Iran) did with the Su-22 was good but I wouldn't suggest any more money spent on it.

The kowsar on paper seem good enough the thing is they keep bringing out another another and another and only a handful are produced. Cut the crap design a light fighter cheaply and with what u need and stick with it and actually produce in decent numbers. They could have done that and completed that a decade ago.

Iran's strategy should have been built this copy of F-5 to what they need and build it to replace the original F-5.

Then with the rest of it's air force upgrade where it can and let's face it any Soviet or Chinese aircraft could be upgraded with russian and Chinese assistance on the sly and done without shouting about it. This would mean their Su-25, Su-24, Mig-29, J-7. They already did the Su-22 themselves. So if they achieved these upgrades and complete replacement of F-5 with their homegrown version, it would only leave the F-4, F-14, and mirage F1 which lets face it they were never going to be able to build a replacement or manage decent upgrades but then this is where they have a cash pot so when sanctions lift they can go out and purchase aircraft and if they bought 36 su-30 and gained production rights they can build the rest for their needs. Iran would be sorted. So in short build what u can, upgrade what u can then save for what u can't build/upgrade. But whatever u do don't fart about with pointless upgrades/copies and waste precious money. This would massively streamline Iran air force and if situation happened again with such brutal sanctions u can maintain Ur air force to a decent standard

Well, they r still learning to build & upgrade fighters.
As 1 Russian saying goes, "repetition is the mother of learning".
There r many incremental upgradings that can still be done on those planes. If the USN/AF kept F-14s/111s, those would be upgraded to, just like F-15/16/18s.
Venezuela could also sell/barter her F-16s to Iran- they could be upgraded just like their F-4/5/14s.
In fact, Russia could "sell" more Su-30s to Venezuela on paper with the intent of transferring them to Iran- circumventing the sanctions, as Caracas has nothing to lose anyway being under US sanctions.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Well, they r still learning to build & upgrade fighters.
As 1 Russian saying goes, "repetition is the mother of learning".
There r many incremental upgradings that can still be done on those planes. If the USN/AF kept F-14s/111s, those would be upgraded to, just like F-15/16/18s.
Venezuela could also sell/barter her F-16s to Iran- they could be upgraded just like their F-4/5/14s.
In fact, Russia could "sell" more Su-30s to Venezuela on paper with the intent of transferring them to Iran- circumventing the sanctions, as Caracas has nothing to lose anyway being under US sanctions.

I think Iran's aviation industry isn't capable of upgrading the F-5, F-14, mirage F1. If they could they most likely would have by now, it's been decades since blocks were put on by USA etc and then sanctions and they still haven't come up with solutions even the thought of Su-30 via Venezuela etc. But have done upgrades for F-5 which is nothing to brag about and most likely the capacity of their aviation industry even their toophan helicopter has seen very little production. They do seen to struggle with production. It's not an easy industry to master just take a look at India as an example and China hoe much investment those two countries have had to make to achieve what they have or haven't achieved, and Iran has not even spent a fraction of what they have spent.

And yes the USA could have upgraded those aircraft u mentioned further but there is two big things you have missed, one USA produced those aircraft and know them very well and have the experience and skills,machinery, and engineers and two they have the money to upgrade and produce in decent numbers. Iran however has neither of the above.

If Iran as I mentioned got hold of Su-30 to replace F-4, F-14, and F1 they could get away with the rest of their aircraft through upgrades (Su-25, Su-24, mig-29, J-7) and replaced the F-5 with homegrown kowsar, their Su-22 already upgraded and still useful. They could of course replace their mig-29(2 squadrons) with mig-29m or mig-35 wouldn't cost too much as their current mig-29 are old and limited in upgrades and range. Su-25 and Su-24 upgraded are decent at what they do and the J-7 upgraded still decent enough as a light fighter role these are probably the newest airframes they have. Another option they could do is get the rights for Su-30 and mig-29m buy an initial batch build the rest and replace F-4, F-14, F1 with su-30 and replace at least their mig-29, J-7, F-5 with mig-29m and eventually their su-22 with mig-29m this would streamline their air force and parts etc. And In time (2030) they could replace the su-24 with su-34 (if su-24 upgraded now) the good thing about these options is they would have the expertise (in time) to maintain and build parts to keep them flying and both the su-30 and mig-29m could receive future upgrades designed for su-35 and mig-35. I think Iran has learnt it's lesson from western aircraft and USA knows that hence keeping sanctions in place because they know Russia is likely going to reap sales and Israel Saudi etc will be pissed off at Iran getting better equipment

Most upgrades r with engines & avionics/weapons. Even if they get new batches of fighters, I expect them to keep F-1/4/14s flying for some time- if they r still capable of performing, why not, esp. since they can't produce copies of them or similar fighters yet?
It's also a lot cheaper than buying new planes & training extra maintainers & pilots for them.

Of course if and it’s a big if, post October when the arms embargo ends, Russia and China may offer weapons including fighters to Iran. Potentially a big market in Iran.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Most upgrades r with engines & avionics/weapons. Even if they get new batches of fighters, I expect them to keep F-1/4/14s flying for some time- if they r still capable of performing, why not, esp. since they can't produce copies of them or similar fighters yet?
It's also a lot cheaper than buying new planes & training extra maintainers & pilots for them.

These aircraft are getting old and they are struggling to keep in flying condition. And the potential threats they face these aircraft are not fit for purpose. And there is only so much money you can throw at an old fighter before it becomes wasteful. And just because they can upgrade a basic light fighter doesn't mean they can do it to more sophisticated aircraft and I think the proof is there. In the many decades they have had the aircraft what upgrades have they did to F1, F-14, F-4???? And considering that these are the most capable aircraft they yet they don't upgrade them? Yet they choose to spend money of the light fighter. I know that they produced a AAM that's about it. The F-14 is quite a problematic aircraft in terms of electrics. However these three aircraft are probably the most capable threat to any attacker yet no upgrade. Many sources claim many aren't in flying condition