Iran Airforce Capabilities - Analysis by Iranian Aviation Analyst

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jet-designer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Analysis Aviation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the current capabilities and historical context of the Iranian Air Force (IRIAF). An aviation analyst provides insights into the fleet's past strength, highlighting its acquisition of advanced aircraft like the F-14 Tomcat before the Islamic Revolution. Participants express skepticism about the operational status of these aircraft, noting that many are outdated and lack necessary support for maintenance. The conversation also touches on the integration of Iraqi aircraft into Iran's inventory and the challenges of maintaining operational readiness under current conditions. Overall, the thread emphasizes the complexities of Iran's air power and the significant decline since its peak.
Jet-designer
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Hello, this topic is about Iran Airforce and its capabilities. I am an aviation analyst from Iran and I will provide you any information you need...

Thanks,

waiting for replis...:biggrin:
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
How about a general "state of the fleet" kind of report. As far as I know, the Ayatollah let things in the IIAF dwindle to nothing. What is their current state of readiness? What is their inventory consist of?
 
My friends, thanks for your participation, but let me clerify something for you: You think Iranians are those people who support terrorism and are very bad people! But do know that when europians and the native americans lived in wild life, that were iranians who invented new things and were studying science, from anykind...we had a lot of great scientists, philsophs and so on in our country...iran was one of the three great imperiums of the past times...
Of course I confirm that Iran's regime is a dictator one, but be sure that iranian people are 180 degrees different. Iranians are really culturist and also very knowledgeable and also intelligenet, please draw a red line between iranian people and iran regime in your mind...
______________________________________________________________
OK, IIAF or Imperial Iranian Air Force is known as IRIAF or Islamic Republic Iranina Air Force today. Airforce inventory has been filled with the american-built aircrafts and weapons from any kind. Shah (it means the king in persian) of iran had invested a lot on iranian airforce before the revolution, and as I mentioned before, IIAF was the third scareful (!) and powerful airforce after USAF and USSR airforce in the world.
Iran had purchased 180 F-4Ds, F-4Es and RF-4Es, about 200 F-5Es, and 80 F-14A tomcat which was the most advanced fighter of that days, and even todays. The tomcats were delivered with a package of 280 deadly Phoenix AIM-54A missiles.
The US had been supposed to deliver about 180 more F-14As and new F-14Bs, about 200 F/A-18s, about 300 F-16A/Bs and 300 more F-4s and also 7 E-3A AWACS aircrafts until 1985. With these reinforcements, there was no doubt that IIAF was going to be the most powerful airforce in the region. But, Islamic revolution didn't leave anytime to do these amazing things.

For today, it's enough. Tomorrow, I'll talk about Iran-Iraq war and the role of both countries airforces and the present day capabilities of IRIAF...thanks, waiting for your opinios...
 
You didn't really give us a current status on how things are. You gave us a history and what could have been. The F-14's that Iran has are not in service. There's no way that the current government or the Ayatollah's received any technical or parts support. Those F-14's haven't flown in years. I am assuming that the entire air force is soviet built and supported aircraft.

What do they currently own and operate?
 
lunarmansion said:
Which means you work for those religious loonies running the country. What is it like working for them? I would imagine it must be hard to be any kind of scientist in such a place. On the one hand, one wants to work for the good of one's country, but then on the other hand, one has to work under a fundamentalist regime.
Let's not get into mud slinging here. I happen to know a few people of Iranian descent here in the states and they are good people. Don't paint with such a broad brush. We have a chance to learn about Iran's armed forces from someone who is there and covers this. Let's give him a chance.
 
Oh my Godness! (or may I say Oh my Allah in this thread).

I pretty much know that this thread is going to end burning...
 
Jet-designer,

I happen to know a thing or two about jets. :smile:
Jet-designer said:
Iran had purchased 180 F-4Ds, F-4Es and RF-4Es, about 200 F-5Es, and 80 F-14A tomcat which was the most advanced fighter of that days, and even todays.
I think the "today" part of this statement is highly debateable. The F-18 is much more advanced than the F-14, and when you start to look at the capabilities of F-117, F-22, F-35, Eurofighter, and many others it is difficult to say that any of the aircraft on your list are the most advanced fighter of today. And I have not even mentioned the "black" fighters that are not even acknowledged today... :biggrin:

Rainman
 
I think the F-14A was out of the running back in the late '80s. When it was retired, I think it was up to the super D.
 
Clausius2 said:
I pretty much know that this thread is going to end burning...
I hope it doesn't. It's not too often that we get a chaance to talk to someone from a country that is pretty shut off from western culture. That's why I was hoping his blog was in English.
 
  • #10
FredGarvin said:
I hope it doesn't. It's not too often that we get a chaance to talk to someone from a country that is pretty shut off from western culture. That's why I was hoping his blog was in English.
Will any of the web-based translators work on his home page? I don't know much about the translator software capabilities.
 
  • #11
berkeman said:
Will any of the web-based translators work on his home page? I don't know much about the translator software capabilities.
You know, didn't even think about that. I'll try it. Thanks for the suggestion.
 
  • #12
how much of the IRAQ airforce does IRAN have in useable condision
IRAN got a large number of modern fighters in the resent war flown in
by pilots who didnot want to face the americans
do they have parts and tecks to use these planes
are they getting other russian aircraft also
 
  • #13
About 130 Iraqi aircrafts including Su-24s, Su-20/22s, MiG-29s, Il-76s, Mirage F1EQ/BQs, MiG-23 have flown to iran in 1991. about 60 of them are operational now. 3 Il-76s fully loaded with the Mirage and Su-24s spare parts have also flown to iran, but no other supports available and the spare parts are mostly indigenously manufactured.

Iran have ordered 40 MiG-29As, 40 Su-27 and Su-30 MKs, 10 Su-39s and an unknown number of MiG-31BM Foxhounds.
_______________________________________________
From the 57 remaining F-14s, about 40 of them are fully operational with the the domestic-built phoenix missiles, equaling the AIM-54C in service with USN, and the 17 tomcats that are not operational are being overhauled for entering service as soon as possible.

In fact, by retiring the F-14s, the USN has limited its fighters engagement range to only 30 miles, while Iranian F-14 are capable of scaning and engaging targets-including those dummy F/A-18- from 120 miles away, before even the F/A-18 pilot can understand the situation, a phoenix comes and explodes everything...

I'll talk about IRIAF more later...
 
  • #14
Jet-designer said:
In fact, by retiring the F-14s, the USN has limited its fighters engagement range to only 30 miles, while Iranian F-14 are capable of scaning and engaging targets-including those dummy F/A-18- from 120 miles away, before even the F/A-18 pilot can understand the situation, a phoenix comes and explodes everything...
Your intelligence, that was used in your analysis, that lead to your conclusions is severely flawed. I'm certainly not going to correct your analysis, but if you think engagement ranges for F-18 are limited to 30 miles, you are missing several other pieces of the puzzle. I hope the Iranian government is not relying on your analysis for military planning, because if they are things don't look so good. :eek: And by the way, one has to detect and lock-on to a target before one can engage it. Know what I mean?

Rainman
 
  • #15
Jet-designer said:
From the 57 remaining F-14s, about 40 of them are fully operational with the the domestic-built phoenix missiles, equaling the AIM-54C in service with USN, and the 17 tomcats that are not operational are being overhauled for entering service as soon as possible.

In fact, by retiring the F-14s, the USN has limited its fighters engagement range to only 30 miles, while Iranian F-14 are capable of scaning and engaging targets-including those dummy F/A-18- from 120 miles away, before even the F/A-18 pilot can understand the situation, a phoenix comes and explodes everything...
So you're saying that Iran has operational F-14A's? With operational Phoenix missiles? Do your aircraft use the Hughes radar system that was built for the phoenix? Where did the 30 mile number come from? Can you tell me about the maintenance infrastructure Iran has to keep the F14's operational?
 
Last edited:
  • #16
I didn't watch this thread from the beginning, but let's keep it civil, ok? This doesn't need to be a pissing contest, but to be redundantly frank, good analysis requires good analysis and internal honesty.

For example, one of those pieces of the puzzle RainmanAero was referring to is AWACS, a capability that shouldn't be underestimated and AFAIK, Iran doesn't have. Though the AWG-9 was a pretty spectacular thing when it was conceived, modern AWACS rendered it obsolete for western air forces.

Also, I don't know where your information comes from, but respectfully submit that due to the nature of your country's government, external sources are probably more reliable than insternal ones. And the picture external sources paint is not quite so rosy. For example:
As of 2000 it was estimated that only 40 of the 132 F-4Ds, 177 F-4Es and 16 RF-4E. Phantoms delivered before 1979 remained in service. At that time, approximately 45 of the 169 F-5E/Fs delivered are still flying, while perhaps 20 F-14A Tomcats of the 79 initially delivered were airworthy. Another 30 F-4s, 30 F-5s and 35 F-14s have been cannibalized for spare parts. One report suggested that the IRIAF can get no more than seven F-14s airborne at anyone time. Iran claims to have fitted F-14s with I-Hawk missiles adapted to the air-to-air role.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm
 
Last edited:
  • #17
  • #18
Jet-designer said:
Dear Fred, Of course iran has operational F-14s, I have seen them in the sky many times, delta-winged...

here is a new picture of Iranian F-14A fully loaded with AIM-54/7/9.

http://f-14tomcat.persiangig.com/phpBlxU0LAM.jpg
Quite honestly, I am amazed. The last estimate I heard was that an F-14 required approximately 4 hours of maintenance time per hour of flight time. Since Iran acquired these aircraft in the '80s, that means Iran has kept some flying for 20+ years with no support in terms of engine or airframe parts. This just brings up more questions in my mind.

Just to give you another barrage of questions...How often do these aircraft fly (hours/year)? What is done as far as maintenance and replacement of engines? What kind of training does the air force partake in?

The F-14 isn't a true delta wing, but I can see where you'd see that. I haven't seen a picture of a flying F-14 with glove vanes in quite some time.
 
  • #19
FredGarvin said:
Quite honestly, I am amazed. The last estimate I heard was that an F-14 required approximately 4 hours of maintenance time per hour of flight time.
Holy cow. Are you serious? No wonder you guys are drop-punting them. ;)
 
  • #20
Most military aircraft are very maintenance intensive, though 4:1 isn't as much as you might think if they have 8 guys working on the plane at once.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Understandable. I'm only learning about maintenance programs now, so that number probably won't shock me as much by the end of the semester. It just seemed like a lot of work per aircraft.
 
  • #22
That was one of the big reasons that the Navy wanted to replace them with the super Hornets. Less spare parts to carry and fewer manitenance hours. They were not going easily though. They upgraded and retrofitted F-14's many times to keep them in the fleet. In her day, the ability to carry the Phoenix was it's big selling point as an interceptor. Now, that's not a huge necessity any longer.

Honestly, coming from a rotary wing guy, I didn't think 4 hours was all that bad myself.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Hi Fred,
FredGarvin said:
Honestly, coming from a rotary wing guy, I didn't think 4 hours was all that bad myself.
It's not. And Russ hinted at the appropriate metric by which these things are tracked:

Maintenance Man Hours per Flight Hour (MMH/FH)

It is a statistically averaged metric, and it is not solely dependent only upon the aircraft design. How you structure your maintenance program can have a big impact (positive or negative) on the actual MMH/FH you achieve. Some might be familiar with the typical commericial aircraft phase checks (A, B, C, and Heavy D maintenance checks). It is the time involved in the C and D checks that really drive the overall metric. Most A checks can be done in about 2 man-hours (1 hour, 2 people). Most B-checks can be done in about 12 man-hours (4 hours, 3 people). A C-check on a FedEx MD-11 (I used to work for them) is a 4-5 day event with at least 10 mechanics working it in a 2-shift operation. A Heavy D check can last well over 30 working days (depending on what you find in inspections) and can involve over 20 mechanics.

But if you want to consider a large MMH/FH just consider the most technologically advanced bomber ever built: The B-2. I'm not permitted to reveal the actual MMH/FH, but I assure you it is higher than 4:1.

Rainman
 
  • #24
RainmanAero said:
I'm not permitted to reveal the actual MMH/FH, but I assure you it is higher than 4:1.
Rainman

and a lot, I would think. I know a few MMH/FH, although the big variable here is the experience of the crew chiefs. Also there is probably more than one order of magnitude of flying hours difference per airframe per year between the the different air forces. And there is also a definition question about the number of flyable aircraft.

Some air forces could only the prepared, double checked, tanked, loaded fully serviceable aircraft on the ramp, while others counts everything that can fly within a couple of hours, taking for granted that some may not remain in the air long enough to perform a decent landing. That difference can easily amount between 20-80% or something.

that was used in your analysis, that lead to your conclusions is severely flawed.

I second that. Numbers are useless here; as has been learned in the air battles of Korea and the Gulf wars and probably the least interesting is the range of a BVR missile if you have no clue what is happening.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
What an interesting coincidence! I went to work today (at Northrop-Grumman) to read the following article about the "final flight" of the F-14. So this makes it official... The F-14 is now an obsolete technology.

"Thousands Bid Tomcat Farewell in Last Long Island Flight"

More than 2,300 Northrop-Grumman employees and family members said goodbye to the F-14 Tomcat recently at a ceremonial last Long Island flight in Farmingdale, N.Y. The activities to mark the sunset of the Tomcat – and the final flight itself – took place on June 15 and 16. For employees this was a bittersweet occasion. The Tomcat first joined the fleet in 1972, and legacy Grumman Corporation built a total of 632 F-14s for the U.S. Navy. It functioned as the Navy’s premiere air-superiority fighter through its life and, in later years, as an air-to-ground strike aircraft as well. Numerous upgrades and modifications over its three-and-a-half decade service life gave the F-14 unsurpassed capabilities. Yet, in addition to celebrating the plane’s legacy, the two days of commemorative activities were also a celebration of the know-how that went into designing and building this fighter. Most of that work took place on Long Island. For many employees, working on the F-14 program was the highlight of their professional careers, and all could take pride in its masterful performance over the decades.

The two-day “Tomcat Sunset” tribute began on Thursday, June 15, with a flyover of the company’s Bethpage, N.Y. facilities. The two planes also flew over the Grumman Memorial Park in Calverton, N.Y., which is located on the former site where final assembly of the Tomcats took place. The two planes and their crews then landed at Long Island’s Republic Airport, where they were on display to the public for the remainder of the day at the co-located American Airpower Museum.

Rainman
 
  • #26
In recent years, iran also tested an air-launched version of MIM-23B Hawk anti-aircraft SAM missile and it proved to be performing extremely well.
 
  • #27
RainmanAero,

Do you work in Bethpage? When I moved to LI I desperately wanted to get in there but there was nothing available for MEs at that time. I wish I still lived there for this. I used to work right down Southern State from Republic Airport in Garden City.
 
  • #29
Hi Fred,
FredGarvin said:
RainmanAero,

Do you work in Bethpage?
Nope. I work in El Segundo, CA (right next door to LAX) on the new NASA Crew Exploration Vehicle. Rumor on the street says we (with our Boeing teammate) are going to be announced the winner on 31 August. That would get me to retirement! :wink:

Rainman
 
  • #30
RainmanAero said:
Hi Fred, Nope. I work in El Segundo, CA (right next door to LAX) on the new NASA Crew Exploration Vehicle. Rumor on the street says we (with our Boeing teammate) are going to be announced the winner on 31 August. That would get me to retirement! :wink:

Rainman
Oh yeah? I looked into trying to get in with Wyle out there as well. I looked at a lot of places.
 
  • #32
No, No... Not at all, this is an """""Air Launched"""" version of MIM-23B Hawk SAM Missile...
 
  • #33
This is all very well and good I guess. However, you seem to be really lacking any of the in depth knowledge we were hoping. You mention a lot of superficial things, but don't really get into the real workings. What are the average flight hours flown per aircraft type? What are the force capabilities? What kind of maintenance infrastructure does the air force have? How/where does the air force get help with spare parts? These are the type of questions I was hoping to discuss. Not hey...look at this missile on an old Tomcat.

What is it that you actually analize for the Iranian Air Force?
 
  • #34
Jet-designer said:
Hello, this topic is about Iran Airforce and its capabilities. I am an aviation analyst from Iran and I will provide you any information you need...

Thanks,

waiting for replis...:biggrin:
But why on Earth would you decide to do that? As an Iranian I myself think I don't have enough information about our own Airforce. So if you really want to do something useful, I guess you better give more information about our own airforce to Iranians!
BTW, I guess you get to know that discussions regarded to some topic like Iran and Iranians is sort of wasting of time here.:wink:
Clausius2 said:
Oh my Godness! (or may I say Oh my Allah in this thread).
Allah is Arabic! You should say "khoda" which is persian.
 
  • #35
Jet-designer said:
No, No... Not at all, this is an """""Air Launched"""" version of MIM-23B Hawk SAM Missile...

I find this a truly fascinating innovation. What is the range on this veriation? Is that the weapon with the 120-mile range you mentioned earlier?

Also, do you know anything about the engineering challenges involved in adapting a SAM for air-to-air usage? I bet it was fairly challenging.
 
  • #36
I don't mean to be completely rude, but this thread is really setting off my propoganda-radar... or at least my "fake-o-meter." An Iranian "aviation analyst" volunteering to answer any questions we have about their air-force's capabilities? It seems to me people can get far more credible information with a quick search on Google.

It seems to me that the only information being presented here is a series of pictures of F14's with "missiles" bolted to them. Just because the missile is physically bolted to the plane says nothing about its ability to hit a target or even be fired (other than kamikaze style)... F-14 Tomcats, in the past were an incredibly advanced airplane, but are now obsolete in every sense of the term, and their so called "hi-tech deadliness" (paraphrased from the "Ramjet Topic!" thread) has passed.

However, as Fred pointed out I do find the point of view from someone in Iran quite interesting. Is it a widely held opinion in Iran that the IIAF's F-14's are technologically superior to any planes flown by western countries? Where did you determine that the "US Navy has limited its engagement range to 30 miles by retiring its F-14's"? Why is it you refer to the F-18 as a "dummy"? the fact is that the US Navy has retired the F-14's because it has planes that outperform the Tomcat.
 
  • #37
Mech_Engineer said:
... F-14 Tomcats, in the past were an incredibly advanced airplane, but are now obsolete in every sense of the term, and their so called "hi-tech deadliness" (paraphrased from the "Ramjet Topic!" thread) has passed.

However, as Fred pointed out I do find the point of view from someone in Iran quite interesting. Is it a widely held opinion in Iran that the IIAF's F-14's are technologically superior to any planes flown by western countries? Where did you determine that the "US Navy has limited its engagement range to 30 miles by retiring its F-14's"? Why is it you refer to the F-18 as a "dummy"? the fact is that the US Navy has retired the F-14's because it has planes that outperform the Tomcat.

I don't agree (personally, I think the retirement of the Tomcat was a bad idea). Although the Hornet does have superior versatility, it is not even close to being a match for the Tomcat in a fight. The Tomcat was a dedicated air superiority fighter, the Hornet is a jack-of-all-trades. The Navy retired the Tomcat because it's cheaper to use the Hornet and get everything you need in one package; interceptor, air superiority platform, and ground attack all in one airframe. I suspect that they also anticipate being able to use a naval version of the F-22 (or the JSF) soon.

But many in the Navy agree that the Hornet should not be relied upon to do everything. "One man, one bomb, one hour" is the slogan you'll hear sailors using to describe the F-18, it just doesn't have the tools for bombing like a true ground-attack aircraft, or for fighting like a dedicated air-to-air specialist. It does many jobs adequately, but excels at none.
 
  • #38
LURCH said:
I suspect that they also anticipate being able to use a naval version of the F-22 (or the JSF) soon.

BINGO! The F-22 is indeed a formidable aircraft, but I think the Navy is planning on using the F-35 Lightning II (A.K.A. X-35 JSF) to take over strike-fighter duties of the F/A 18.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
Here's a pretty good article
http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/f14f18/f14f18_1.asp

I had no idea of the aero problems they had with the wing.

It has always been a contention that the Hornet would have range issues when compared to the F14. However, the issues raised with the F-18 E/F especially in regards to acceleration and turn radius are more than pretty significant. This does appear to be all politics and bean counting. Is Macnamara running the DoD again?
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Thanks for the article, Fred. Very interesting indeed.
 
  • #41
Mech_engeenier, what I mention here is somthing the aviation experts also say. please don't defend your opposition when you don't know well about the subject we're talkin' about.
 
  • #42
Jet-designer said:
Mech_engeenier, what I mention here is somthing the aviation experts also say. please don't defend your opposition when you don't know well about the subject we're talkin' about.
Well, perhaps you could provide something to back up your position? Are you referring to the notion that usually, visual contact has to be made prior to any engagement?
 
  • #44
russ_watters said:
Boy, that's a depressing article. I had no idea the E/F was that bad.
Yeah. They really make it sound like a sick pig, don't they?
 
  • #45
OK, so you knew that I was right. Please collect enough information for the discussion first then come here and give a "right" opinion.
 
  • #46
Jet-designer said:
OK, so you knew that I was right. Please collect enough information for the discussion first then come here and give a "right" opinion.
Mellow out, JD. You aren't really in a position to be saying things like that. At least not based on your posts so far in the two threads.
 
  • #47
Besides, J-d - very little of that article applies to the Iranian Air force.
 
  • #48
Anyways...

Where did you get the range of 120 miles for the Iranian Tomcat, JD? Was it the range of the MIM-23B?
 
  • #49
Mech_Engineer said:
I don't mean to be completely rude, but this thread is really setting off my propoganda-radar... or at least my "fake-o-meter." An Iranian "aviation analyst" volunteering to answer any questions we have about their air-force's capabilities? It seems to me people can get far more credible information with a quick search on Google.
I am unfortunately starting to agree here. Originally I thought troll, but I held out hope that this could be an opportunity to get a different viewpoint on a usually heavily slanted topic. This thread is nothing more than a huge disappointment. JD started off (and still says according to his bio) that he is a jet engine designer. He definitely is not, especially when he doesn't even know what a diffuser is. He then changes his tune and says that he is an Iranian Air Force analyst from Iran, but his bio says he lives in the US. His linked website is in arabic, so there is no way to tell if it his work or not. I have a sneaky suspicion that JD is really a young kid or teen that likes aviation, but has absolutely no idea what he is talking about and no analysis or engineering knowledge to his name. It appears his analyses are simply pictures collected from various places on the net.

I would suggest to the mentors that this thread be axed unless JD can come in here and provide some kind of relevant information or anything other than "hey...here's a picture of an F-14." Plenty of questions have been presented by myself and others which has not even acknowledged, let alone answered.
 
  • #50
FredGarvin said:
He then changes his tune and says that he is an Iranian Air Force analyst from Iran, but his bio says he lives in the US. His linked website is in arabic, so there is no way to tell if it his work or not.
:smile:
No comment on other part of your post since I'm not an expert in this area so I can't say whether he's wasting our time or not, but I just want to say that's persian not arabic!:rolleyes:
Hmmm..he's not replied my own question too. I still don't know what's made him to start this thread!:confused:
 

Similar threads

Turbofan Combustor Aero Design: Getting ready for interview
Replies
1
Views
4K
Stress Analysis of Lifting Plate With Bail
Replies
1
Views
2K
Engines' aggragated technical data for a presentation
Replies
2
Views
1K
Vibration and Modal Analysis: Adding massless springs to a shaft
Replies
6
Views
2K
Other Possible tracks during Masters Aerospace Engineering?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Non-Newtonian Fluids: Understanding Strength for Armor Experiments
Replies
3
Views
2K
Is this the right career for me?
Replies
3
Views
3K
Mechanical Engineering Thesis Topic Suggestion
Replies
3
Views
3K
Supporting structures used in machines/production lines
Replies
12
Views
2K
Inverse Kinematics: Oscillators and Multi-Bar Links
Replies
2
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top