6Likes
February 3rd, 2013, 08:42 AM
Iran has, with the unveiling of its new stealth fighter, shown that it is rapidly becoming a serious threat - to comedians the world over.
Unleashing such a joke publicly will threaten the income of many long-established comedians as rational people switch to laughing at the F-313 fighter rather than the less technological jokes offered by the likes of Steve Martin, Bill Bailey etc.
Should the US and the West take action and fund our comedians from the military budget?
Maybe they include stuff from reverse engineered downed CIA UAV.
Why are there two types of wings, one directly in front of the other? Wouldn't that create turbulance as the wind swept over the first set of wings so that the second set of wings would be getting dirty air and not work well at all?
The forward "wing" (called a canard) is, essentially, the tailplane in a different position.
It has advantages with regard to centre of gravity, allowing a greater tolerance of load position.
It also has potential advantages in that it helps airflow over the wing root area.
Additionally it helps with take-off characteristics: as Bill Gunston once pointed out, a normal aircraft takes off by pushing downwards (on the tail plane) while a canard aircraft takes off by lifting upwards on the nose.
Be careful Dywyddry, you wouldn't want to awaken the wrath of the Zohal...
Iran builds world's first flying saucer: Looks like it belongs in 1950s B-movie | Mail Online
Oh yeah...
The reality turned out to be slightly different:
Presumably the Farsi words for "saucer" and "nothing like a saucer" are the same.
(Except even that turned out be a ripped-off photo of a Canadian UAV).
Lmao. Really? All I remembered was a vague story about Iran and their bs claim of having a flying saucer. There being even more to that story is hilarious.
Yeah, I did a bit of investigating.
The original story was later amplified, and that photo was declared to be the "real" one.
But it turned out, like I said, that all they'd done was post a photo -freely available on the 'net - of a Canadian (designed and built) commercial (rescue-services duty) UAV.
This why I don't take the "stealth fighter" story seriously. Well that and an (admittedly quick) analysis of the photos and videos available of the thing.
The photo in the OP is, effectively, a mock-up of a mock-up of a concept - probably fibre-glass with no working systems whatsoever.
The video of it supposedly in flight appears to be an RC model with the jet noise badly dubbed on.
As shown that "aircarft" would have trouble flying, let alone being a viable combat aircraft, stealth or otherwise.
@Dywyddyr
I'm not picking up on the humor aspect of the F313. Could you explain why the plane is a joke?
From what I see, it does seem more stealthy than fast. Iran didn't say it was fast. I hope the winglets aren't hard mounts. I myself wouldn't want to launch anything from a main wing hard mount with a canard in front of it.
Canard: A canard also generates positive feedback into the pitch — the more it lifts the nose, the greater its angle of attack, and thus the greater its lift, over and over again. It's unstable. That's why you see them mostly on fly-by-wire aircraft because the computer can manage the pitch better than a pilot can. The traditional tail arrangement provides negative feedback to the pitch (ie, wanting to reduce the pitch) — the greater its angle of attack, the more its lift, the more it wants to return to level flight. So, if the pilot releases the stick, the plane levels out.
f313-16.jpg
EDIT: I just saw your latest posts.
One of the main aspects of the humour is the video that's available showing a "pilot" seating himself in the cockpit.
Sizing the "aircraft" against the man makes it appear that the "mockup" is far too small - one estimate is that it's only 66% as large as it should be. The guy's head sticks up above the head rest on the ejector seat.
There's no wiring behind the instrument panel, no cabling to the wheels (brakes), no room in the nose for any sort of radar system.
As for speed Iran has claimed that it's similar in capability to the F/A-18.
The intakes are extremely small, suggesting a low mass flow engine (maybe in the J85 class (we know they manufacture modified F-5s which use this engine and can manufacture the engine itself) but the exhaust (or rather the hole for the exhaust - plated over on the mock-up) is far too large for a J85. It's unlikely that Iran has developed a brand new engine at the same time.
Likewise the intakes are badly placed for smooth inflow in any sort of manoeuvre, yet Iran has claimed that the F-313 is capable of engaging "enemy aircraft".
Uh, no radar precludes a BVRAAM envelope and masking the intakes (and thereby starving the engine) sort of precludes close-range dogfights.
Canards are a poor choice for a stealth aircraft (maybe they used Chinese designers!) and the wing (the outer down turned sections) seem at odds with reducing the signature.
Edit: I've just come across a different photo of the rear end the exhaust does seem to be smaller than I'd orginally supposed (on thinking about it they've altered the fuselage-to-exhaust interface). A single J85 is going to give the aircraft serious problems with power. It's going to have astonishingly poor performance and a miserable warload.
Last edited by Dywyddyr; February 3rd, 2013 at 09:03 PM.
Yes, I am familiar with them. But this aircraft has them not mounted to the very front of the aircraft but right next to the wing itself making one wing disturb the other one behind it. Wouldn't that create a lift problem unlike the real way canards are designed in the very nose of the aircraft?Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Fixed canards can be among the most stable. Look at Burth Rutan's list of amazingly stall resistant aircraft for example such as the Long-EZ.
Oh, I see where I made my mistake. I thought they were positioned directly in front of the main wing but actually they are above it a little, thanks for the information to let me view those other aircraft to se the canards better than the Iranian one.
Iran Stealth Fighter Jet Criticised: Qaher F313 Dominant F313: Photos
one Australian defence analyst said "looks like it might make a noise and vibrate if you put 20 cents in".
.
What did they make that canopy out of, shrink wrap?
It's been suggested that the transparency is deliberately bad so that the pilot can't see that his country is a (theocratic) mess and won't be tempted to defect!
Yeah...it's pretty funny. Here's what a pilot on the JREF forum had to say about the cockpit:
Thanks to advanced Iranian technology, it doesn't need a throttle or flap controls, or landing gear lowering switches.Interesting decision to go with the budget Dynon D100 as the primary EFIS, atop the AvMap GPS - looks like an EKP IV, which is a curious choice since it only ships with North American map data; although to be fair it likely includes at least a worldwide basemap which should at least be able to tell the pilot whether he's over land or water. The two Dynon D10's are likely for engine data - one for each engine, of course. There's a small detail that the Dynon D-series displays are designed only for light piston GA engines like Rotaxes and Lycomings; but I'm confident that Iran has found a way to make them recognize turbojet engine sensor data.
Personally I would've gone with a pair of Garmin G3X's for my EFIS/GPS combo, which are much more badass-looking; especially since it could interface with the rest of the jetfighter's avionics which are all Garmin - for instance the SL30 NAV/COM above the EFIS, the GTX 327 transponder below the GPS, and the GMA 340 audio panel over there on the left side beneath the D10. I don't know what a single-pilot aircraft with a single NAV/COM radio could possibly use an audio panel for; but I imagine that's why I don't design aircraft for the Iranian military - it's their job to prep the platform for ANY possible situation, including ones that nobody sane can anticipate.
By the way, if anybody's looking to create their very own "new fighter jet" (), all the avionics mentioned here are available from your local or favorite internet-based GA plane-components provider, such as AircraftSpruce. I think that particular control stick head is also available from them too, but I didn't check.
Nice shot of the inner surface of the fiberglass shell, too. You'd think they'd sling some more gunmetal gray on that to make it look more military-y, but perhaps they're budgeting.
Here's another image:
Last edited by MacGyver1968; February 12th, 2013 at 11:34 AM.
Maybe it is using Robotech technology found on alien space craft Macross?
The threat has increased!
Iran now knows how to use Photoshop.
Iran's 'fake' fighter jet spotted in the air (with a little help from Photoshop) | Mail Online
The F-313's operational manual has been leaked:
It is operated as follows:
1. Firmly grasp the Fake Iranian JetTM in one hand.
2. Firmly grasp the Imaginary Israeli Animal SpyTM in the other hand.
3. Run wildly around the room making "Vroom! Vroom! rat-a-tat-a-tat-a!" noises
4. When you decide the Imaginary Israeli Animal SpyTM is fatally injured shout "Oy!" and drop the Imaginary Israeli Animal SpyTM to the ground
5. Run around in a circle with the victorious Fake Iranian JetTM held aloft, humming the Iranian national anthem.
6. Put away Fake Iranian JetTM and Imaginary Israeli Animal SpyTM before mom comes home.
Caution: Fake Iranian JetTM and Imaginary Israeli Animal SpyTM are trademarks of the Marksman Anti-Zionist Toy CompanyTM. These toys may constitute a choking hazard and should not be used by children under the age of 3 or by Iranian Presidents under 5' 3". Also, Imaginary Israeli Animal SpyTM might be a Real Israeli Toy SpyTM. Do not let Imaginary Israeli Animal SpyTM out of your sights!
If you look at the image of the "plane" with the canopy closed, and look at the image with the pilot seated in the cockpit...I don't think you could actually close the cockpit without hitting the pilot's helmet.
Why does an Iranian plane have english "danger" signage?
North Korean nukes make you nervous?
It tends to be an international convention.
I hope they put it into full production with the same amount of testing that they put into the creation of this... Then we can go shoot them down with a Cesna...
dmwyant
Why is it that you want to go and shoot down iranians?
Sigh... before you criticize or laugh on Irag and North Korea, i guess you need to do something about the good old debate about US UNETHICAL atomic bombing on Japan during the WW2. OR we do think we are the righteous in the world? Making the heretic, devil, blah blah the ones who oppose US and its allies, like what the Christians did to the witch's image (research if u dont know wats about with the witch).
Perhaps you missed A) the sub-forum title and B) the thread topic.
This is a sub-forum discussing military technology, not politics.
The ethics (or otherwise) of the American use of nuclear weapons is highly debateable (both pro and con) but is completely irrelevant to the actual subject of this thread.
AND, FYI, were this laughable piece of "technology" presented by any other nation it would have come under just as much ridicule.
Xingha, showing that Iran is no real military threat is subversion. How can the Israelis justify pre-emptive strike when everybody knows Iran hasn't a chance?
If only people had talked this way when secular Iraq was made out to be a global threat.
@Dywyddyr are we avoiding? well u may right that my post was off-topic but i would like to state that its not about politics - am talking ETHICS.
@Pong i never said any about Iran being or not a military threat. I dont care about them. What i care is the laughing you doing here. You are making ridicule of something that you seem to be the righteous in this world. Go fuk kill urselves!
As far as i know, this forum section is for discussing military tech and not here for some laughter.
Again, this is a military tech sub-forum, not an ethics one. And even if it were, the ethics, or otherwise, of the US use of nuclear weapons ~60 years ago has nothing to do, AT ALL, with the subject of the thread.
See below.What i care is the laughing you doing here. You are making ridicule of something that you seem to be the righteous in this world.
Except that, unfortunately, the military tech under discussion ( notice that? WE ARE discussing military tech) happens to be a complete (albeit unintended) joke.As far as i know, this forum section is for discussing military tech and not here for some laughter.
Maybe it's a fundamental naivety on the part of Iran's leadership or they severely underestimated the technical knowledge of observers outside of Iran.
The simple fact is that Iran has presented, in public and to the entire world, a supposed military aircraft and made claims about its capabilities.
If you'd bother to actually read the thread you'd see WHY it's a joke: the claims do not stand up and the "aircraft" is a farce.
Like I stated earlier: were this laughable piece of "technology" presented by any other nation it would have come under just as much ridicule.
Or, maybe, since you object to the "laughter" you have some actual input? Maybe you can explain why the apparent discrepancies exist between the claims and the "technology" presented?
Unintended laugh you say? Dont make me laugh. We all know what kind of relationship does US have with the middle-east, enough said. We aint baby.
"US use of nuclear weapons ~60 years ago has nothing to do, AT ALL," - i am pertaining the idea that middle-eastern are nothing but terrorist from the allied eyes and therefore the bad guys. Lets not talk like we aren't horrible as well. ALSO, are we evading? Or you like to sugarcoat AGAIN something that is impossible to make sounds right.
And Dywyddyr is not an American apologist. If you check his profile you will see he is from Scunthorpe. (Now that is a joke!) Being anti-Iranian government does not automatically make you pro-American government. Being anti-Iranian government does not make you anti-Iranian people - when I visited Iran I met some fine people and have had the pleasure of working with a number of Iranians over the years, yet I still think the plane is a joke.
And on a lighter note, so this plane with canards is a plain canard.
Hilarious. That thing looks like a movie prop.
If you want to discuss that subject start a thread.
I'd also like to point out that making a technical analysis of a supposed new aircraft and concluding that it's a joke doesn't make me anti-Iranian government either!
My politics are nothing whatsoever to do the claimed abilities (or otherwise) of a piece of technology.
Unless... not being a fan of Apple Macs means I'm anti-US, not being a fan of the Blackburn Botha makes me anti-British etc etc.
OMG! I hate everyone!
If you are the enemy of Iran, then its really a DANGER. Lets put Country A invented a battle spaceship (like one you see in sci-fi) that has a combat capability exceeding vastly than what we have now. Also, we say that Country A is an enemy of Iran, while Country A isn't an enemy (just neutral) for Country B. Therefore, Iran can also say "NEW DANGER from Country A". BUT for Country B, it rather be conceived that the new creation isn't a danger rather an invention (whether its a failure or watever, dont care).
Saying its "NEW DANGER" pertains to something.
UK is in the Allied Power. US is also in the Allied Power. I'll leave you what certain connection you can get from that fact.
This is an off-topic but i would like to drop it. Im from Philippines (a half-chinese and half-pinoy). The country is tied to US like South Korea and Japan. I'm more on being a Chinese. I don't like what China been doing on the disputed isle(s) near the Philippines. China don't like to bring in the UN summit. If i am to point out the determining factor of the disputed isle(s)' acquisition, it should be better based on: (a) where it is nearest; and (b) to which tectonic plate it belongs. If we use A, then its nearest to the Philippines. I dont know yet to which plate does the isles belonged to. I just dont like China using force just to obtain something (it sounding like US style). I certainly dont know the exact impact of Nov. 19 2011 hostage drama here in Ph over China's view over Ph. China hasn't been this cold over Ph this past years. Just only after that Nov. 2011.
A new photo has been released - this one is more believable:
actually, dywyddyr, i think xingha is correct; you are off topic. this is the military technology forum, and you provided nothing of the sort.
| « Military Industrial Complex | New Laser for Navel ships » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
