Can that thing even fly? It looks kind of fat.
3rd February, 2013 @ 11:21 p.m. (California Time)
Design ques from a Klingon Battle cruiser?
3rd February, 2013 @ 11:35 p.m. (California Time)
according to aviation experts, no it can't. it's looks like a bad mock-up
3rd February, 2013 @ 11:39 p.m. (California Time)
I think it looks neat.
4th February, 2013 @ 1:23 a.m. (California Time)
it fly,and pass many tests.
4th February, 2013 @ 1:32 a.m. (California Time)
Assuming that the engine is of a much better designed I believe it will fly and be remarkably maneuverable (In other words almost fatally unstable) and I doubt it will be even transonic.
Stealth? Not a chance.
4th February, 2013 @ 3:01 a.m. (California Time)
Ofcourse it fly
it passed a perfessional 1000-hour test
4th February, 2013 @ 4 a.m. (California Time)
Based on how it looks, it can't really fly, or if it does, it flies really, really fast.
4th February, 2013 @ 4:22 a.m. (California Time)
Looks like one-way, suicidal mission, cruise missile. Does not need to be that much manoeuvrable, just fast and undetectable. Actually, not that bad DELIVERY solution!
4th February, 2013 @ 4:55 a.m. (California Time)
Anything will fly, given enough power. Look at rockets, although question is whether they 'fly' in the pure sense of the word. Add some protrusions resembling wings to that rocket, and a digital flight system to overcome instability problems and you have an airplane that 'flies'.
Have this done by people who have an above average understanding of aerodynamics, electronics, mechanical- and reverse engineering and you might end up with something that would pass for a modern fighter aircraft.
Also, the flying capabilities of a platform for weaponry is second in importance to the weaponry itself, meaning anything that flies and can deliver an advanced weapon is valid.
What is surprising is that Iran didn't go for a pilotless platform (UAV) because the pilot nowadays is more of a liability than an asset.
Bas Klein Bog
4th February, 2013 @ 6:01 a.m. (California Time)
It doesn't resemble the F5 or the F18. Neither of those aircraft have canards. And it's hard to believe this plane just sprung into existence with no news of it prior to yesterday. Planes also need engines.
4th February, 2013 @ 6:06 a.m. (California Time)
It looks like it is made of plywood
Artisteroi Rlsh Gadgeteer
4th February, 2013 @ 6:17 a.m. (California Time)
Interesting. The cap on the exhaust port has instructions written in english. I call BS.
4th February, 2013 @ 6:17 a.m. (California Time)
Please note the fixed "hovercraft" style undercarriage complete with curtains designed for water and unimproved field operations. There is even a picture of their lead test pilot in the upper left hand corner ;-) Perhaps we should send Clint Eastwood in to steal it but, why even bother? All kidding aside: Even now, it's at least 20 years behind current technology. At this stage of the game, the greatest limitation to human piloted advanced fighter technology is the "meat in the seat". Let them develop their obsolete toys. It gives boys from wealthy, well connected families something to play with.
4th February, 2013 @ 6:18 a.m. (California Time)
Would love to see the 313 in a dogfight with an F-35C. It might be a fair fight with an A-10, possibly.
4th February, 2013 @ 7:10 a.m. (California Time)
The Israelis probably had the plans a year or more ago.
4th February, 2013 @ 7:56 a.m. (California Time)
Remember a US drone crashed in Iran? Perhaps there were enough spare parts left to patch this thingy together? (Including the engine :)
4th February, 2013 @ 8:12 a.m. (California Time)
While I'm skeptical of this aircraft's performance, it's never good to underestimate your enemy!!!
4th February, 2013 @ 9:06 a.m. (California Time)
This thing doesn't even win the psychological battle, let alone the air superiority. Less credibility than the wolf in Grandma's bed.
4th February, 2013 @ 9:27 a.m. (California Time)
Simple maintenance? Like a air cooled VW?
4th February, 2013 @ 9:34 a.m. (California Time)
Looks like a model...notice the carousel with the tiny cord attached to it???
4th February, 2013 @ 9:39 a.m. (California Time)
The included BBC link shows the A/C in flight but no T/O's or LDG's... am skeptical of its true performance or capabilities...as advertised. I have no doubt it could be semi stealth though.
4th February, 2013 @ 10:08 a.m. (California Time)
I might be mistaken, but I think there's a picture of the designer of the left-hand side of the picture.
The wings do look remarkably thick, which means high drag, and those large pods at the end of the wings look a bit strange, but hey, it looks like a mean machine.
This is meant to deter American imperialism.Good luck to them.
4th February, 2013 @ 10:14 a.m. (California Time)
The grandsons of the "experts" who said Japan couldn't design its own fighter will deprecate this because of where it's from, not for what it is. The pilots who went up against the Zero early in the war don't have grandchildren.
The size ratio between canard and main wing is aggressive and innovative. That suggests high roll and pitch rates as well as high g-tolerances. Overall, it looks like a credible design that's bound to have its share of teething problems. If the Iranians work through them they'll have a quality dogfighting platform.
4th February, 2013 @ 10:57 a.m. (California Time)
I'm sure it will be very effective at fighting dogs.
Against other fighter aircraft however...
4th February, 2013 @ 11:27 a.m. (California Time)
Heres the thing. The design may be viable but this pic is of a mockup of a badly finished composite fabrication. My wooden model boat has better finish and I believe it still needs work. The mockup may fly but it will be a poor performer due to the poor finish. The intakes are smaller than required to give a modest single jet a decent airflow to the compressor inlet. I will withhold any comment on the weapon systems.
The design may work but this is not a final design by a long shot. This is a PR stunt for the Iranian government. Any aerodynamics expert worth his wings will point out these and many other flaws. The Military intelligence units of the world will merely shrug and say till it does better than fly 10,000 hours It is not a real combat threat. Till the aviaonics, aerodynamics and finite element analysis is complete it wont be a threat to any but the ignorant.
While UAVs are the safest cheapest way to go. I shudder when considering that a pilot in an aircraft is insulated when he decides to not fire his weapons on innocent civilian targets. The UAV pilot on the other hand is sitting within a couple feet of a superior's command and defying an irrational order to kill innocents will be much more difficult to achieve since an override may easily be achieved.
The drones are fast becoming a greater menace to innocent lives in war-torn nations than suicide bombers. I'd rather have Iranians fooling around in a piss poor plane than the state of the art UAVs at the fingertips of Washington.
4th February, 2013 @ 12:17 p.m. (California Time)
I wouldn't write this aircraft off so quickly. Israel has the most advanced technology of all of its military neighbors in the Middle East. Especially so since most of it's technology comes from US...as in the USA.
4th February, 2013 @ 7:52 p.m. (California Time)
This plane looks like an inflatable balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.
4th February, 2013 @ 8:06 p.m. (California Time)
This looks very much like Boeing's X36 tailless experimental plane but with dual inward canted tails. See link:
I would have thought that the downward slanting wing extensions would preclude the need for dual tails.
4th February, 2013 @ 8:29 p.m. (California Time)
@ Artisteroi Rlsh Gadgeteer, more likely wood chip pressboard, easier to mold. must have a huge engine for that much drag from the wings, as a pilot I would love to have the engine air intakes right next to the cockpit, deaf
4th February, 2013 @ 8:39 p.m. (California Time)
The scale on that looks weird. Like its the size of an RC plane.
4th February, 2013 @ 11:30 p.m. (California Time)
I guess it's on charge given that its plugged in. Wonder if it comes with a long cable or spare triple AAA's
5th February, 2013 @ 2:52 a.m. (California Time)
It looks like a 15-year old kid's idea of how a fighter should look.
Almost all the features on it are aesthetic rather than functional.
The wings are far too short, yet very thick. The down-turned tips would serve no purpose at all, other than to look good. The Boeing Bird of Prey needed these for directional stability because it had no vertical tail, this has two huge f-22 style tails.
The cockpit instruments look like they are straight out of a Cessna and the pilot seems to stick out of the cockpit. His head extends over the top of the head rest.
How did it get on that pedestal? The roof structure has no cranes and there isn't the space behind the pedestal for it to have run up a ramp.
The frontal geometry looks very like an f-22 yet the inlets are in a completely different location. So it has been shaped like an f-22 for no reason other than aesthetics. The inlets themselves would not function over mach 1 due to being located deep in those ventral cuts that would make the airflow and shockwaves impossible to handle. The inlets and nozzle are also far too small for any kind of performance.
The 'stealth' features are also almost non-existent.
I suspect it is a wood and plastic propaganda tool with little-or-no engineering thought behind it
5th February, 2013 @ 4:19 a.m. (California Time)
Just by looking at it you can see all sorts of flaws in it's design and it's Stealth design. Just because something looks kind of cool and stealthy does not mean it's a stealth aircraft. Just because it's RCA is lower than a conventional aircraft that uses no stealth techniques, it does not mean it's a real stealth aircraft. This plane is not big enough, to be in the same league as an F-22, or even a T-50. (FYI, there is a relationship between size and fighter capability. USAF studies back in the 70's determined this relationship, which led to the development of the F-15 and the increase in size of the F-18 Super Hornet)
This is more of a PR campaign than a real military project. Lets see how many they manufacture and deploy, that's where the rubber meats the road. Same litmus test I have for the Chinese and Russian stealth planes.
For example, F-22, ten years and counting. USAF already in planning stages for it's successor and it's not the F-35.
5th February, 2013 @ 6:16 a.m. (California Time)
LOL...might be a flying R/C mockup at best. Someones been watching too many movies...
5th February, 2013 @ 10:30 a.m. (California Time)
This is clearly either a fake or a "fiberglass" etc. mockup. It lack the necessary details of any functioning aircraft. The most obvious is the lack of locking rails for the canopy and the pressure seal where it seats into the fuselage. Take this image for example: http://strikefighterconsultinginc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/url12.jpg
It's the little details.
5th February, 2013 @ 2:14 p.m. (California Time)
it does fly
5th February, 2013 @ 2:31 p.m. (California Time)
Iran could get technology from other countries that hate the US, so even though it looks primitive, i don't trust them.
5th February, 2013 @ 5:03 p.m. (California Time)
Fake, fake, fake.
5th February, 2013 @ 6:51 p.m. (California Time)
@jdadojr. Agreed on the flying. Its the touted performance as well as the finish of the prototype that scares me. The inlet size will starve any but a small turbojet. The size as another poster points out is quite small and reduces the likely fuel and weapon payload possible.
The wing tips are oversized winglets (which are supposed to reduce drag not as mommus attempts to say would remove the need for the vertical stabiliser) since they dont appear to have any controls added. Also putting controls out there would make the control horribly unstable. Flight would be more of a pipe dream than it is. They do however increase the drag by being too large.
They claim semi stealth which means low signature which any composite plane could claim. Low flight requires high performance flight computers to avoid downdrafts and low lying lines or other hard to detect obstacles.
Nothing here is newsworthy besides it having been built in iran. It is not groundbreaking in design or performance or level of finish. As hec031 said Lets see how many they manufacture and deploy, that's where the rubber meats the road.
6th February, 2013 @ 5:10 a.m. (California Time)
Every one… just read this nice technical article by aviationintel.com
"MY MESSAGE TO THE WEST CONCERNING IRAN’S F-313 “FIGHTER:” ARROGANCE CAN GET YOU KILLED"
6th February, 2013 @ 2:26 p.m. (California Time)
If i invented a new STEALTH fighter, I wouldnt tell anybody about it (or its features). It makes no sense.
7th February, 2013 @ 11:18 a.m. (California Time)
I'm just curious why there is an extension cord hanging from it ? Does it need to be plugged in ? It's probably a rope like one grabs onto like on a the Macy Thanksgiving Day Parade float. This really looks like something my local model shop had in their window from some sci-fi series.
7th February, 2013 @ 12:39 p.m. (California Time)
in another view of the so-called conversation with the pilot, yo can see multiple ripples in the canopy: it appears to be hand molded and that can only mean a mockup.
8th February, 2013 @ 5:31 a.m. (California Time)
"Iran’s state-owned English language Press TV says that although the aircraft resembles the F-5E/F Tiger II, it is said to be similar to the F/A-18"
Just a couple of point to remember:
1) This monstrocity doesn't look anything like a F-5E or F/A-18.
2) The F-5E is a more than 50 year old plane. The F/A-18 is about 40 years old now.
3) You know those kit cars, where you can put a plastic shell around a VW to make it look like a Lamborghini? Just saying...
8th February, 2013 @ 11:37 a.m. (California Time)
The problem Iran has is not building its fighter, it is mass producing them. So until we see the infrastructure to bring them into service, the whole made in Iran military industrial complex, sourced, designed and manufactured in the home country, the world need not concern itself. However if it is there and has been mass producing in the same way the F117 was introduced, different story. Something other than nuclear isotope cyclotrons might have been put into those underground factories.
9th February, 2013 @ 2:33 p.m. (California Time)
This wooden/cardboard mock-up. and in the fly video we can definitely see an RC model. you can see it by its flight characteristics and roll speed. another fairy tell about Iranian arms. they are weak and are very primitive, this is the reason they need nukes. look haw outdated north Korea spread fear among the countries with its nukes.
10th February, 2013 @ 2:47 a.m. (California Time)
If Iran had spent its wasted Nuke money on aerospace engineering it would now have real F-313's to defend its country with instead of a massive drag on its economy.
There is a big sales market for the first commercial stealth fighter, even if it has no radar and primitive avionics which for most of the world 'is' an advantage. Missiles have their own radar (i.e. R-37), in Britain we often had missiles fitted onto elderly aircraft who's radar and avionics were vastly inferior to that in the missile cone.
The nice point is the scale model flying, they never claimed this was the aircraft in flight, as yet it has never flown(as far as we know). However the model as proof of concept shows the airframe fly's quite well, which also shows that Iran has the technicians available to make 1/25 scale working jet model aircraft and if wars were decided by model competitions I would be quite worried.
11th February, 2013 @ 4:17 a.m. (California Time)
Got my vote for coolest most furturistic looking.
4th April, 2013 @ 3:36 p.m. (California Time)
". . . can operate at low altitudes. . ."
So, how long is that stick they will have it propped up on?
22nd October, 2015 @ 10:10 a.m. (California Time)
I would like to poke at this plane except I don't see a traditional fighter, rather I see a UAV similar to the X36 in disguise (just because it has a cockpit doesn't mean it's going to be used). In the video's it appears over 35 feet long but its design is for short very maneuverable payload encounters, rather than fast penetration missions.
Better video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0DGZfc-nJQ
This coming from a country with an ACTIVE nuclear program, a fleet of over 500 aircraft (has 40 F14, 25 Mig29, 25 F1 & F7, and 60+ F4 & F5), and country that already produces 3 military aircraft (the HESA Saeqeth & Azarakhsh I & II) makes this a serious threat to the region.
For the US, Russia, & China this doesn't matter but for the surrounding countries (Isreal, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) it is a threat.
23rd October, 2015 @ 7:01 a.m. (California Time)
Looks cool, but is the pilot sitting backwards? May be my imagination.
24th October, 2015 @ 7:19 a.m. (California Time)
I looked at the picture and my first thought was that do to the extreme curvature of the upper surface of the wing there is no chance that it would fly supersonic. It probably can't go much faster than an A-10.
29th October, 2015 @ 12:46 p.m. (California Time)
It's great to know that the Iranian "Hobby Lobby" is making money. You expect me to "Believe" that Iran is Capable of Manufacturing a "Sophisticated Stealth Fighter", when their TOTAL INEPT in "Reverse Engineering" a 39-year old F-14A Tomcat. And produce the Parts to keep it flying.
The 1 TaiN
3rd November, 2015 @ 7:53 a.m. (California Time)
Nice plane made out of cardboard and fiberglass..
I think they've been watching the movie "fire fox" too much.
Plane looks almost exactly like it.
I doubt the Iranians could even duplicate the A-4 Skyhawk.
Bird been obsolete for 30 years.
26th November, 2015 @ 10:36 a.m. (California Time)