Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Iran Unveils Its Own Stealth Fighter Jet, the Qaher F-313

Posted by timothy on from the not-a-drone-so-20th-century dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Iran has unveiled a new home-made combat aircraft, which officials say can evade radar. The single-seat Qaher F313 (Dominant F313) is the latest design produced by Iran's military since it launched the Azarakhsh (Lightning), in 2007. President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad said it had 'almost all the positive features' of the world's most sophisticated jets.Footage from state TV showed the jet in flight, but not its take-off or landing."

52 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. I've seen a lot of 'shops' in my day by stoolpigeon · · Score: 4, Funny

    and the pixels are a dead giveaway here

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:I've seen a lot of 'shops' in my day by spxZA · · Score: 3, Funny

      Exactly! It's a *stealth* plane. You aren't meant to see stealth anything. Clearly created in a studio.

  2. Looks like the pilot still has to sit in the plane by karlandtanya · · Score: 2

    Well, they did say *almost*.

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
  3. very very stealthy by sribe · · Score: 5, Funny

    So stealthy, that I bet no other country will ever be able to detect one in flight ;-)

    1. Re:very very stealthy by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think this close up of the cockpit makes it clear that that static display isn't functional. The video looked a lot like an RC.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    2. Re:very very stealthy by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's possible that that is simply a mock-up they used for the cameras. This is pretty common amongst western countries so Iran could be the same. And Iran is spending a fair chunk of cash on science and technology. Plus they have had some access to Russian technology so that should give them a decent leg-up.

      I'm not willing to commit to saying this is legit, but I'm reluctant to dismiss it out of hand as well.

    3. Re:very very stealthy by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The most telling part is the shell of the cockpit. Look at the walls... it's clearly fiberglass and only about 1/8" thick. I doubt that would withstand any reasonable airspeed at all. Look behind the seat... more fiberglass. Then there's the even more obvious... where do you put your legs?!? The switches and knobs on the right-side are almost totally obscured by the fiberglass overhang. How would you get to them? And then... the funniest part... all the writing I see is in English... lol

    4. Re:very very stealthy by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's a mock up. Do you seriously think that early tech prototypes designed to showcase potential cockpits are made of production hardware and materials anywhere?

    5. Re:very very stealthy by Thing+I+am · · Score: 2

      Why is the "Danger" sticker in English?

      --
      That sucking sound you hear is my bandwidth.
    6. Re:very very stealthy by strength_of_10_men · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can assure you that AM/FM cassette player at the top is for realz. I have the same one in my car.

    7. Re:very very stealthy by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pretty sure other prototypes don't have that 8 track player in the bottom middle of their console though.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    8. Re:very very stealthy by Kleen13 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think this close up of the cockpit makes it clear that that static display isn't functional. The video looked a lot like an RC.

      The dimpling on the surfaces you can see in that pic looks like the crappy fiberglass repair job on my boat with a coat of paint smeared on it.

      --
      That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
    9. Re:very very stealthy by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 3, Funny

      So their pilots can Rock the Casbah?

    10. Re:very very stealthy by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You'd be surprised at stuff you see stuck in early prototype cockpits. They used to shove production CRT TVs to showcase early versions of multifunctional displays in military prototyping. Because just making a TFT panel back then cost huge amounts to make a couple for every prototype. Then production stuff carried TFTs.

      Regardless, this thing is obvious vaporware aimed at internal propaganda, just like the rest of Iran's fighter jet programs. But cockpit mockup and usage of everyday crap in it isn't the telling part. It's the build of the thing, like ridiculously small engine intakes or radome that couldn't fit any modern military jet radar. Cockpit could actually be a real prototype (though doubtful).

    11. Re:very very stealthy by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Plane itself is internal propaganda. Look at the unveiling date, compare to the rest of Iranian fighter programs. Vaporware aimed at general populace to foster patriotism.

      But cockpit isn't the part that is telling.

    12. Re:very very stealthy by guttentag · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why is the "Danger" sticker in English?

      Actually there's a very good reason for that. I used to work with a guy who was in the Iranian Air Force (he was granted asylum in the U.S.). He once told me that pilots/maintenance workers/etc were required to take English classes so they could read the training materials to fly and support the fighters we gave them. So they would be accustomed to reading English when dealing with fighters. If your brain has already been conditioned in "English mode" when operating/servicing a fighter, it's probably best to stick with it. The Soviets also gave them MiGs, so I'm sure they (or some of them) probably had to learn Russian, too.

    13. Re:very very stealthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Horten 229, which was the world's first stealth plane and most advanced fighter at the time, was made mostly of wood and could go faster than anything in the sky at the time.

    14. Re:very very stealthy by wmac1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The head of the design team himself said they have only performed test flight with two smaller models (one with a propeller, the other with a micro jet). These are from the slides he presented.

      Propeller-powered sub-scale model:
      http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/250662_10151268717323603_1355114109_n.png

      Jet-powered sub-scale model:
      http://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/542333_10151268717468603_1294585182_n.png

      The one in photos was a mock up. Like any of these:

      http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/2667/pavillion22so.jpg
      http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab35/bobro15/NAA-FX-2_zps79959a9a.jpg
      http://i50.tinypic.com/2yl7cs8.jpg (the one in front)

    15. Re:very very stealthy by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 3, Informative

      Indeed. Iran is the only remaining user of F-14's today. It's probable most of their F-14's are no longer operational though, as they date from the days of the Shah. The fact that most of their foreign fighters are so old is what is propelling domestic fighter development, including rather more probable looking fighters based on reverse engineered technology.

    16. Re:very very stealthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The USAF will not certify manuals and tech orders written in any language other than English. So, if country X buys USAF stuff, and they want to translate it in to whatever the native language is, they assume full responsibility for the maintenance, care, and feeding of said equipment. Most countries find: A) It's really expensive to translate hundreds of thousands of pages of very technical data; B) English is the international language of aviation; C) As updates, modifications, operating supplements, emergency supplements, Time Compliance Technical Orders, upgrades, revisions, corrections, etc are published it means constantly paying for translation services over the life of the aircraft (unless the country opts out of the Technical Coordination Group and elects full responsibility for all safety, maintenance, inspections, repair procedures, etc). So, it's just cheaper to keep everything in English.

    17. Re:very very stealthy by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 2

      Because that's the language in which John McCain and his ilk speak.

    18. Re:very very stealthy by Nicros · · Score: 2

      It's a mock up. Do you seriously think that early tech prototypes designed to showcase potential cockpits are made of production hardware and materials anywhere?

      Some questions/thoughts that to me show it is a mock/fake/whatever:
      1. Where are the rudder pedals? In the BBC video the pilot's legs were clearly bent with his knees pointing up in the air. That means his feet were pretty much flat on the cockpit floor and I didn't see rudder pedals there. Maybe the edge of one in the cockpit photo here.
      2. Again back to the knees- with his knees up in the air like that his legs are clearly blocking access to the two front panels on the left and right. The pilot couldn't even SEE those panels. I dunno, but I'm guessing there's stuff a pilot might need there at some point.
      3. A last thought on the knees. I'm not a doctor, but I think that to pull heavy G's that may not be the most optimal body position.
      4. Finally, that thing is SMALL. Like, tiny. What is this aircraft for anyways? It sure can't carry any ordinance.
      5. The vids of the thing flying? Looks, behaves and sounds a lot like this RC F-16

      So I totally agree this thing is a mock up, or prototype, or fake or whatever. What make's them look like idiots is it appears they are trying to pass it off as the real deal, and certainly implying it is functional and 'defending Iran'.

    19. Re:very very stealthy by wmac1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The equipment used on that panel are listed in this image:

      http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2gmNiznAYPk/UQ_kVG4GxUI/AAAAAAAABQY/UIRwfGrF0cY/s1600/Kahir313_Kokpit.png

    20. Re:very very stealthy by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      FYI most of the early prototyping of aircraft involves messing around with small scale drones shaped like various prototypes of the fighter. This is likely one such prototype.

      Same goes for cockpit mockups. Some are used to demonstrate instruments and largely forego controls. This is useful when testing things like layout of instruments when shifting from one type of instruments to another (analogue dedicated instruments to digital MFDs for example).

    21. Re:very very stealthy by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Pretty sure other prototypes don't have that 8 track player in the bottom middle of their console though.

      That's so they can play the music from Iron Eagle during air-to-air combat.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    22. Re:very very stealthy by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      Take a look at early prototyped of various prototypes when things went over one generation. Like first prototype implementations of MFDs, or first HUDs, or first HMDs.

      Why? They're about as relevant as my friends first draft of her new kid's book.
       

      They looked daft and fake as hell because they were bad prototypes when people were trying to figure out what works and what doesn't.

      So? This isn't a first generation fighter - the stuff that's wrong is very, very basic. It's stuff that anyone with even a modest level of knowledge about aviation knows is wrong. It's stuff that nobody with any actual aviation/engineering expertise would even try. In terms of Slashdot's favorite analogy, this mockup is like a mockup of next years Volkswagen - only the steering wheel is in the back seat and faces the right side, the engine has been replaced with a toaster oven, and there's a ski in place of the left rear wheel - and it's pointing at 45 degrees to the normal direction of travel.
       
      You're getting some highly rated comments in defense of this 'mockup', but you really haven't a clue as to what you're talking about.

    23. Re:very very stealthy by cheesybagel · · Score: 3
      It used to be common for aircraft prototypes to carry no radar at all. Even as recently as the SEPECAT Jaguar some production lightweight fighters came without on board radar. I assume this is just a full scale mockup. The radar Iran probably have available would come from the F-5 so it would be small enough to fit on such a small plane.

      Given the present state of Iran's economy they have found themselves to be relying on lightweight fighters. The problem is they cannot manufacture either engines or radar of good enough quality for them. I do not doubt they could manufacture most of the composites for a low observable aircraft it they wanted to. If they can manufacture composite rotors for uranium centrifuges this shouldn't be particularly hard.

  4. Re:Looks like the pilot still has to sit in the pl by 91degrees · · Score: 2

    Iran does have its own home made drones. Drones are actually pretty simple because a lot of the work goes on making them cheap rather than making them technologically advanced.

  5. "Alsmost all features" by MadTinfoilHatter · · Score: 3, Funny

    President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad said it had 'almost all the positive features' of the world's most sophisticated jets.

    Riiight...

    Footage from state TV showed the jet in flight, but not its take-off or landing."

    Well, those were not among the features that this aircraft has in common with its Western counterparts.

    1. Re:"Alsmost all features" by tibit · · Score: 2

      Be honest because honesty leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise. Beware of falsehood because it leads to immorality, and immorality leads to Hell.

      Generally speaking, claiming oneself to be a believer in Islam while being an obsessive liar is a bit of a problem. I guess politicians have their own way of redefining whatever "religion" they associate with... And, before anyone chimes in with the obvious, the below doesn't really apply because Iran is not Microsoft. They don't need Microsoft-style made-up plane FUD for any reason -- most readily because no one who is ostensibly the target of such fairy tales ("westerners") would take them on face value.

      He is not a false person who (through lies) settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good.

      The above quote applies, among others, when you tell a little kid "good job" when they still relatively speaking suck at whatever it is that they are doing. You might argue that fake PR is good for propaganda and for giving the Iranians a sense of pride. Well, careful there, because history tends to uncover such lies with relative ease, and all it does is breed hatred among the people. I'd have thought it easy to understand, but, well, it's the politicians we speak of here. They have their own logic :(

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  6. MST3k line applies here: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    "It's Cardboard."

  7. Note the intense weasel wording by vlm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Note the intense weasel wording...

    built with "advanced materials" and to have a very low radar signature

    So all we really know for certain is its not the "Spruce Goose". Well that's not saying much.

    can evade radar

    Yeah so can the Cessna 172 I trained in. Now doing it well, and doing it easily, and being optimized for that task, that's a whole nother topic.

    Perhaps a little overly ambitious. For people who know nothing about aerospace the best I can do is a standardized slashdot car analogy: This is like Henry Ford hand building his first model T engineering demonstrator but declaring he's going to skip a couple steps and start shipping Tesla model S RSN.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:Note the intense weasel wording by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cessna 172 has a huge radar cross section. Those wing mounts and engine are shiners. You're talking about flying under radar horizon, which is not stealthy as any modern fighter is equipped with look down-shoot down radar which will find you and light you up like a christmas tree in a matter of seconds of entering its range.

    2. Re:Note the intense weasel wording by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So it's safe to assume that this is just to convince the Iranian citizens that Iran has the military might to back up it's bluster? "Yeah, we could totally take the Americans and Israelis in a fight. Their technology may seem formidable, prompting you to question why we're trying to build a nuke and are always threatening them, but it's not tough. Look! Stealth jets! Just came up with this over the weekend! We're all good. Don't question the state, we know what we are doing, and would not throw away your lives in a war we can't possibly win."

      (Note that I'm not saying that the US and Israel are morally right just because we happen to have stronger military forces. I wish both sides acted responsibly and had far fewer weapons.)

    3. Re:Note the intense weasel wording by vlm · · Score: 2

      Doesn't matter. Lets play jeopardy, what model aircraft landed in Red Square on May 28, 1987? As a kid getting into aviation at that time, I got lectured by numerous relatives just to make sure I didn't get any ideas by that story... Yes yes I know that despite the legends of sneaking in, he got detected multiple times, but no one could agree what to do about him, so they logged it, did nothing, and eventually lots of bosses heads rolled (you can tell this happened in the USSR, in the USA we'd have given them promotions)

      I can trivially avoid radar detection merely by keeping far away. Your modern fighter isn't going to look-down and see me 300 NM away... Now its very challenging to avoid a skin painting radar at 10 NM but further away. Thats part of the weasel wording. I'm guessing this Iranian experiment would be an epic fail at 10 NM but maybe at 50 NM it might work?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:Note the intense weasel wording by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 3, Informative

      IIRC, he was detected, just wasn't shot down. More due to "what do we do what do we DO" than any stealthiness of such a basic plane.

    5. Re:Note the intense weasel wording by vlm · · Score: 2

      That's what made is a successful social engineering hack. AKA CIA involvement. Which I'm still sort of inclined to believe.

      Lets say you want to get most of the heads of the USSR airforce out of the way or fired or sent to the Gulag because they won't play along in a blackmail deal or whatever.

      Solution? Send a kid in a Cessna to land in Red Square. Insta-fired. If they shoot the kid down they're fired because he's just a crazy teen in a civilian GA aircraft, if they don't shoot him down they're fired because a kid landed in red square.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  8. Looks like a model by AdamInParadise · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not sure whether this is a hoax or not, but the pictures seems to show a model, not a real plane. Have a look at the cockpit : http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/s/s/19/media19/2013/Feb/2/LiveLeak-dot-com-4347f2b9fa55-f313_17_preview.jpg?d5e8cc8eccfb6039332f41f6249e92b06c91b4db65f5e99818bad29f444cd3d1ca14&ec_rate=200
    I don't know anything about jet fighters, but I can recognize a Thrustmaster Mark II joystick stuck to a pole. And the material on the border of the cabin definitely looks like duct tape. And the canopy does not seem to lock into anything. And so on.

    --
    Nobox: Only simple products.
    1. Re:Looks like a model by Sulphur · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Thrustmaster Mark II joystick stuck to a pole"

      That is the last time I lend my gaming gear to Abdas! I wonder why he wanted to borrow my duct tape as well.

      That is duck tape used to assemble canards.

  9. More info on GlobalSecurity.org by funky49 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I love these guys: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/qaher-313.htm

    David Cenciotti noted that the plane featured “implausible aerodynamics and Hollywood sheen” and was laughably small for a fighter jet. He also commented thatthe cockpit was far too basic for a sophisticated aircraft, and appeared “similar to those equipping small private planes. ... The nose section is so small almost no radar could fit in it ... The air intakes are extremely small, whereas the engine section lacks any kind of nozzle: engine afterburners could melt the entire jet. ... It looks like this pilot is in a miniature plane” and it appeared “nothing more than a large mock-up model.” Iran also broadcast video footage of the Qaher F-313 in flight, which Cenciotti said appeared to fly like a “radio-controlled scale model more than a modern fighter jet.” He also noted it was suspect that Tehran did not release takeoff and landing footage of its new aircraft.

    --
    --- rapper/producer/bachelorette party stripper
    1. Re:More info on GlobalSecurity.org by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Pretty much all of Iran's "own fighters" have been vaporware so far. This is pretty well known. They cannot really make anything of their own with all the crippling sanctions that isn't overly cheap knockoff.

      That said, it doesn't mean that they can't test new stuff. Most planes start off as drones and eventually move to production. Most of the Russian and various Western jets that jumped up in generation had severe teething problems of their own (F-22 and F-35 make great examples here), and those nations actually have great expertise in designing these planes, not to mention economies that can support huge development costs associated with these programs. Iran lacks all of these.

      Iran could, and likely is working on something. It's highly unlikely to be practical and working fighter jet, just like all of its previous fighter jets. Beyond the propaganda bullshit, it shows that with all the sanctions, they still have some degree of expertise and skill and every once in a while they have to show off something like this. Something that will never become a practical application, but to show that they still have some semblance of capability of making a high tech device.

      And then they sell their anti ship missiles that cost next to nothing and manage to cripple a high tech Israeli ship. Or have a NATO general win war games using nothing but their low quality, but cheap and numerous hardware against significantly more technologically advanced NATO forces.

  10. It's for _internal_ propaganda. by Moskit · · Score: 2

    This is obviously targeted at Iranian audience.

    Analysing it outside of political influence on Iran's own people is mostly a waste of time.

    1. Re:It's for _internal_ propaganda. by guttentag · · Score: 2

      This is obviously targeted at Iranian audience.

      I keep waiting for the day when Iran will claim to have invented a next-generation satellite dish that does not require line of sight to a satellite, works underground, and remarkably only receives state-approved channels. Upon inspection we will find it is a large plastic Tupperware bowl screwed onto a cable box, which in turn is hooked up to the local cable network.

  11. Re:Aww it's so cute! by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Not Burt Rutan... Jim Bede (slightly more realistic than an Iranian press release)

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  12. Lool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    That is a Top gun Thrustmaster on the cockpit!!!

    http://www.hak900.com/top-gun-thrustmaster-joystick/

  13. To quote Monty Python by azav · · Score: 2

    "It's only a model".

    Really.

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  14. NOOOOOOO by Malenx · · Score: 2

    Oh crap...

    This is 300 iterations more advanced than our F13s!

    If we don't catch up and start pumping out F500s or heaven forbid, at least F400s... liberty and democracy will end as we know it!

  15. Re:Nice DVD player on that mockup cockpit... by Peristaltic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What gets me is that they're parading this homemade abortion around as the best effort of a -nation-. They actually had the balls to put it on TV with Mahmoud proudly standing next to it.

    Iran will always have a hard time getting their war fighting tactics past the not-so-smart-bombs with semtex wrapped around their midsections.

    The last time Iran had a decent military was under Xerxes.

  16. Looks like an X-36 by Zcar · · Score: 2

    With vertical stabilizers added.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_X-36

  17. Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

    Next up for Iran, thier copy of the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator

  18. Re:Objectivity and evidence by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Religion is individual personal spiritual experiences turned into dogma.

    Just because people accept a particular church's dogma doesn't mean there is any truth or objectivity behind that dogma. It is easily demonstrable that many dogmas of religious institutions are incompatible with those of others. By simple logic they cannot all be correct. People are not accepting "personal experiences", they are accepting stories made up by others which cannot be independently verified. Religious dogma for christianity was established over a thousand years ago. It cannot be affected by your personal experiences. Furthermore with science you are (at least theoretically) able to verify claims whereas there appears to be no possibility of any verification of religious dogma.

    The evidence to examine is spiritual experiences.

    That is a content free statement. If it cannot be verified it is not evidence. In legal terms that would be considered hearsay. I shudder to think how you'll try to explain hallucinations of individuals and groups which are an "experience" of a malfunctioning brain.

    Which is more irrational, to believe in your experiences or to not believe in your experiences because someone else tells you it's not possible?

    You seem incapable of understanding the difference between accepting received "wisdom" that cannot be verified and accepting evidence that you can check yourself. In science it does not matter if someone tells you something is or isn't possible because you always have the opportunity to check for yourself.

  19. Re:Depends by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Yes, ignorance is bliss. Sometimes I wish I could return there.

    I do not appreciate your implication that I am ignorant or your apparent claim to know something I do not without any substantiation of that claim. You really know almost nothing about me so I find that statement quite insulting and condescending.

    Anyways, please don't confuse 'all available evidence' with the 'evidence' you are aware of.

    If you have evidence I am not aware of then by all means present it. But I'm rather confident you have no such thing and are merely engaging in puffery.