Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Iran Air Force New Aircraft (Thunder)!  
User currently offlineShahram16216 From Iran, joined Feb 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 21731 times:

Yesterday in the day of Saeghe (Thunder) ceremony ; 2 Iranian military aircrafts made a formation flight over Tehran/Mehrabad airport.Iranian Air Force men during last few years changed and overhauled Northrop F-5 with their own equipments! and made this strong and fresh aircraft and named it Saeghe ( Thunder ) that is an abbreviation of Iranian glorious , volition , belief and chivalrous , morover it means Thunder.They wrote persian affirmative on the fuselage of this aircraft that means " We Can "
This is the picture of thier flight over Tehran airport.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1272144/L/

They said they want to make more of this changed aircraft and operate them in the air force as an essential member.

66 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1724 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 21689 times:

I didn't know the Blue Angels were allowed to fly into Iran.  Silly

User currently offlineSprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1855 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 21659 times:

Quoting Shahram16216 (Thread starter):
They said they want to make more of this changed aircraft and operate them in the air force as an essential member.

Sad that they want "warmed over" F-5's vs getting their F-14's in flyable condition.

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5747 posts, RR: 44
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 21636 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 2):
Sad that they want "warmed over" F-5's vs getting their F-14's in flyable condition.

I would surmise that what they want and what they can realistically achieve may be two different things.



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 21615 times:

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 3):
I would surmise that what they want and what they can realistically achieve may be two different things.

A possible rationale was given here.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/gr...ns-f5based-fighter-signs-of-1.html

.....which I also posted in the other thread.....

Iranian Csaf Vows To Bomb Israel If Attacked. (by Venus6971 Sep 19 2007 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

And for old threads on the subject.....

RE: Iran Tests Upgraded F5 (by Dougloid Sep 12 2006 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

RE: Azarakhsh - Iranian F-14? (by Spacepope Aug 18 2007 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineMD90fan From Bahamas, joined Jul 2005, 2931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 21538 times:

Iran must feel special, doing new modifications on a 45-year old aircraft!  Wow!


http://www.devanwells.blogspot.com/
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29840 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 21523 times:

Quoting MD90fan (Reply 5):
Iran must feel special, doing new modifications on a 45-year old aircraft!

Hard to belive that sucker is isn't it. 1959!

But seriously, it does look like a foam RC model of a F-18 in those colors.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 21382 times:

Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 2):

Sad that they want "warmed over" F-5's vs getting their F-14's in flyable condition.

This piece outlines the efforts and little success in that goal.....

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2007918225711.asp

Quoting L-188 (Reply 6):
But seriously, it does look like a foam RC model of a F-18 in those colors.

http://www.payvand.com/news/07/sep/1232.html

"Thunderbolt and Lightning" - make one almost expect Freddie Mercury to pop out of the cockpit!  Smile



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 21322 times:

Iranian expenditure in this area is perhaps misspent. They would be much better off buying Russian fighters than spending any real time re-building these F-5s. There's plenty of more capable MiG 29s out there available for probably about the same as they're spending turning these F-5s into aircraft that can't compete with their expected opponents.

If they spend any money on the F-5s it ought to be for re-engining them with something they can produce in house, or with something they can buy on the open market.

On the other hand I'm glad they aren't buying anything more effective.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineMD90fan From Bahamas, joined Jul 2005, 2931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 21276 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 8):
There's plenty of more capable MiG 29s out there available for probably about the same as they're spending turning these F-5s into aircraft that can't compete with their expected opponents.

Exactly, Sudan recently purchased 12 ~1990-vintage MiG-29s from Soviet stocks, had them refurbished and delivered for $120,000,000.



http://www.devanwells.blogspot.com/
User currently offlineTexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 299 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 21242 times:

Would this even compare to the 20-year old F-20 Tigershark? Wasn't that rejected precisely because it couldn't compete with F-16's (block 25 at that!)?

For a Persian Gulf country rationing oil among it's citizenry, it really is simply stupifying. I refuse to believe they didn't even change the engines.


User currently offlineStrudders From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 21220 times:

Those are 2 diferent versions (although the same F5 under neither)

Seems they have changed the In takes, Square, verses rounded and there are differences on the tailplanes as well.

Different engines perhaps?

Regards

Struds


User currently offlineQueso From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 21197 times:

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 10):
Would this even compare to the 20-year old F-20 Tigershark?

No. And that's what I was thinking when I saw these planes.

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 10):
Wasn't that rejected precisely because it couldn't compete with F-16's (block 25 at that!)?

It could compete quite favorably, it's just that Northrop didn't have the political muscle at the time to have their design accepted. It would have been as difficult to push out an already inventoried machine (the F-16) as it is to unseat an incumbent Senator or Representative.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 21189 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 8):
Iranian expenditure in this area is perhaps misspent. They would be much better off buying Russian fighters than spending any real time re-building these F-5s. There's plenty of more capable MiG 29s out there available for probably about the same as they're spending turning these F-5s into aircraft that can't compete with their expected opponents.

I think their near-term aim is not so much to come up with a world beater, than gaining the knowledge and experience. The ultimate goal of course is to eventually be capable of independently manufacturing a credible, reliable jet fighter able to mix it up with what others have to offer.

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 10):
Would this even compare to the 20-year old F-20 Tigershark?

If they retained the J-85 engines, its relative the Tigershark, would probably smoke it.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AirNikon



Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 10):
Wasn't that rejected precisely because it couldn't compete with F-16's (block 25 at that!)?

On the contrary, the F-20 was hamstrung because it presented too much of a competition.

Anyway, thanks to Shahram (I guess the OP and the photog to be the same person) for providing us with photos from inside Iran.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinePilotNTrng From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 897 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 21180 times:

Sorry for the dumb question, but how did they get the F-5 frames?


Booooo Lois, Yaaaa Beer!!!
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2990 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 21171 times:

Quoting PilotNTrng (Reply 14):
Sorry for the dumb question, but how did they get the F-5 frames?

We sold tem to the Iranians, pre 1979.

What are we up to now, 3 different modifications of the F-5?

F-5 with twin fins
F-5 with twin fins, square intakes, and only one 20mm cannon
F-5 with mid mouinted wing and LERX....

Can't wait till they do this with their F-4s!



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 21139 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 8):
If they spend any money on the F-5s it ought to be for re-engining them with something they can produce in house, or with something they can buy on the open market.

An engine equivalent of the F404 ... which would allow them to produce something akin to the F-20?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineTexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 299 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 21139 times:

Can a mid-mounted wing be a good thing for an F-5?

User currently offlineHunterson From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 144 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 21104 times:

With many thanks to SHAHRAM16216 for the info provided on the "new" Iranian fighter, this is obviously turning now into a kind of guessing game about how many variants of the "good old F-5 " have the Iranians managed to copy and develop, let alone prduce and deploy.

Can somebody please explain what are we talking about here? What exactly is the SAEGHE and what differences are there between it and the AZARKHSH, and which if any has attained production and/or service, and why?

Does anyone have any credible data on the performance and operational features of these planes, or their engines, equipment, armament, ..etc?

Are the Iraniians simply re-manufacturing the old airframes of their original F-5s supplied to them by the US back in the days of the Shah more than 30 years ago, or are they building ( or copying ) them from scratch as new?

And why on earth are they doing this and spending their time and effort and money on trying to copy and "upgrade" a design which is essentially nearly 50 years old( going back to the days of the original T-38 Talon and F-5A/B Freedom Fighter in the 1950s) , when they have ready access to the latest top of the range Russian fighters , some of which they already operate, such as the MiG-29 and Sukhoi-24, and others which they are on the verge of receiving, such as the Sukhoi-30 and MiG-31?

Or is it all part of a bigger and wider "PR" game to try to tell the rest of the world: see what we can do on our own?


User currently offlineOD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1925 posts, RR: 32
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 21079 times:

Quoting Hunterson (Reply 18):

These are exactly my thoughts. Nothing has been released as regards of the performance and other technical data and as you mentioned could be a PR propaganda and a morale boost to the Iranians.

But as DEVILFISH said in his post, it is an effort maybe for future designs.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29840 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 21076 times:

Quoting Hunterson (Reply 18):
Or is it all part of a bigger and wider "PR" game to try to tell the rest of the world: see what we can do on our own?

I think that is what it is exactly.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 21071 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 13):
On the contrary, the F-20 was hamstrung because it presented too much of a competition.
What a bunch of nonsense. The F-20 was the last attempt to squeeze as much as possible left in a 1950's design with absolutely no room for any growth. It was basically a dead end. F-16 opened a new era of fighter jets, is one of the biggest commercial successes in fighter jets, and is still commercially very alive after almost 30 years.Even the 104 pilots of the RNLAF (the Dutch had F-5's and F-104's alongside which where both gradually replaced by the F-16) called the F-5's dinky toys.

Quoting Hunterson (Reply 18):
Or is it all part of a bigger and wider "PR" game to try to tell the rest of the world: see what we can do on our own?
I guess it's because Persia and Iran (despite the current political situation) has always been focused on the west and the united states. They are still more familiar with the US product and they have ambition to have their own production capability. If they would buy of the shelve Russian planes, they will never achieve autonomy in that respect. Developing their own aircraft based on Russian technology is harder (they are not that familiar with it) and the Russians (which they need) probably won't let them (or they have to pay dearly).

my 2 cents..

[Edited 2007-09-23 10:25:00]

User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 21017 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 21):
What a bunch of nonsense. The F-20 was the last attempt to squeeze as much as possible left in a 1950's design with absolutely no room for any growth. It was basically a dead end. F-16 opened a new era of fighter jets, is one of the biggest commercial successes in fighter jets, and is still commercially very alive after almost 30 years.

It wouldn't be nonsense if you consider that most of the eventual F-16 customers would have bought the less expensive but very capable Tigershark were they given the chance as it wouldn't require extra infrastructure support, them being mostly existing F-5 operators. The original J79 F-16 didn't offer much over the F-20, and wouldn't have been improved as quickly and had as wide a client base much later were the Tigershark there. That "growth" was the reason the F-20 was deliberately stifled as the F-16 allowed the defense industry to sell ever increasing and expensive weapons to those countries. Not to mention the officials pushing for their pet F-16 project.

[Edited 2007-09-23 15:34:26]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 20937 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 22):
It wouldn't be nonsense if you consider that most of the eventual F-16 customers would have bought the less expensive but very capable Tigershark were they given the chance as it wouldn't require extra infrastructure support, them being mostly existing F-5 operators. The original J79 F-16 didn't offer much over the F-20, and wouldn't have been improved as quickly and had as wide a client base much later were the Tigershark there. That "growth" was the reason the F-20 was deliberately stifled as the F-16 allowed the defense industry to sell ever increasing and expensive weapons to those countries. Not to mention the officials pushing for their pet F-16 project.

I think you are being rather emotional. The F-20 was still a 3d generation fighter. The F-16 a 4th generation fighter. Just look at the way they are built.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 20916 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 23):
I think you are being rather emotional. The F-20 was still a 3d generation fighter. The F-16 a 4th generation fighter. Just look at the way they are built.

And I think you're the one being non-sensical in dismissing the value of an effective economical platform to the countries it was offered to. And its a testament to Northrop's build quality that even now, F-5s are being upgraded with updated systems and continue serving their adopting countries making the initial investment pay off many times over. Meanwhile, the costlier F-16s were often relegated to the boneyard at a comparatively younger age if not given still another expensive mid-life upgrade.

And as to being emotional about fighters and their generations, look who said this.....

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 15):
would take on a Rafale with a block52 F-16 any day


[Edited 2007-09-23 23:07:33]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
25 TexL1649 : I really think it is well documented that the F-20 offered 90 percent of the performance for about half the cost of F-16's, but much less glamor. If y
26 Hunterson : Is it not missing the point slightly when the emphasis here seems to have shifted from exploring whatever info we might ,or might not , have on the Ir
27 Post contains images F27Friendship : and with absolutely no growth whatsoever, while in the end the F-16 is the biggest commercial succes ever for a jet fighter (not just for industry) a
28 Hunterson : It might be worth mentioning that the far more interesting , and important , weapon system that the Iranians revealed in their recent military parade,
29 Wvsuperhornet : While I agree I dont consider the Iran jets a threat you are wrong in your assumption that the F-16 could out compete the F-20 Tiger Shark and very w
30 Post contains images F27Friendship : Come on, not another axis of evil. We've been there, done that.. couple of countries are in ruins now.. I nearly fell of my chair laughing about this
31 KevinSmith : Geez, next thing you know the Chinese will be making second hand copies of the F-16.....Oh wait.
32 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Absent performance figures, it serves as a point of comparison of the observable differences from which discussion of the possible rationales could b
33 Hunterson : [ I am not exactly sure what do you mean by " another " axis of evil. It is the bloody SAME axis of evil, and if you can not see it now, wait till it
34 F27Friendship : hey, I''m not contesting Iraq had them in the past, but, after the first gulf war they did massively disarm. The isreali's already put an end to the I
35 KevinSmith : I didn't say that. F27 did. Has anyone else noticed people's quotes being linked to the wrong username? Any idea why that happens?
36 Hunterson : To KevinSmith, Yes indeed. My apologies to you. But it is really not my fault. I thought I had used the right quote from F27 but for some unknown reas
37 DEVILFISH : That was the perfect comparison since the F-16/J79 was the one put up against the F-20 for the FX program, and both were in the same price bracket. O
38 F27Friendship : lol. the export version was meant to be shitty. The eventual F-16 is a beauty. I can follow you that the F-20 might have been a good export product (
39 EBJ1248650 : No! The F-20 offered significantly greater performance than the F-5E. That the F-16 was superior isn't in question because it was. What killed the F-
40 F27Friendship : sure it gave significant better performance over the F5-E, but that was about all they could sqweeze out of it. Your other points I totally agree wit
41 Post contains links Highlander0 : Right, so back to the topic in hand. So there are 3 'new' a/c. Shafaq- seemingly all new fighter Saeqeh- twin tailed F-5 Azarakhsh- mid mounted, squar
42 F27Friendship : That Shafaq looks rather interesting! Allthough I can't help to think it looks a lot like the latest Alenia and Yak trainers.
43 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Okay, going back to the feasibility of changing the engines...... They could've adapted an old engine from one of their MiGs. For a new engine and sim
44 L-188 : I don't know, maybe they are re-working old Lear-25 motors. There ain't a lot of diamter in those plants.
45 Hunterson : Now that Iran and Russia have officially signed a deal for 50 RD-33 engines reportedly intended to power the so-called Azarakhsh variant of the F-5E T
46 L-188 : I hate to say it but that sounds like a screamer.
47 Post contains images Acheron : Its actually a design based on the cancelled MiG-i-2000
48 JetJeanes : I assume they will be doing airshows or something with these planes like tha angels.. I guess if they get severl more they could be the blue devils
49 Post contains links Silentbob : http://www.thejewishbugle.com/content/view/1194/150/ Another interesting development for Iran.
50 F27Friendship : Maybe the Isreali's will learn the meaning of "shooting oneself in the foot"
51 Post contains links DEVILFISH : I'm still skeptical that Iran would expend much effort and money on old F-5s beyond a few prototype/demonstrator frames (unless they're remanufacturi
52 Hunterson : I'm still skeptical that Iran would expend much effort and money on old F-5s beyond a few prototype/demonstrator frames[/quote] I agree with you. It
53 DEVILFISH : Weren't the GE CJ-610s on those basically the same as the J85s and less powerful? Now that you mentioned it, those former Iraqi MiG-29s could be a pl
54 Miamiair : Great, manned target drones.
55 Bennett123 : IMO, these are essentially interim types. The F5 is simple and widely available, (unlike the F14). Iran may buy planes from Russia/China but will ulti
56 Post contains images SCAT15F : There is no question that in terms of dogfighting maneuverability, the F-20 is superior to any variant of the F-16, including block 60. The F-20 has
57 SCAT15F : Finally, the truth is spoken!
58 L-188 : Yup, the CJ-610 is just the civilian version of the same motor......lacks the afterburner. Honestly I think you are right on both counts there.
59 Post contains links DEVILFISH : This Flightglobal article from Dubai 2007 seems to reinforce my first theory in Reply 51 that the beneficiary of all that experimental work and RD-33
60 F27Friendship : please support these claims with facts.
61 Hunterson : Here we are again talking about some ficticious possibility of Iran developing a 4th.. even 5th. generation fighter , with whatever that may mean as f
62 SCAT15F : Most of this information came from Janes 1986 aviation annual and an issue of Wings/Airpower from around 1990, what facts I do remember are: -Instant
63 Post contains images F27Friendship : I'm afraid your data is slightly incorrect; yes, the F-20 has a turn rate of 13,1 deg/sec, -but this is the sustained turn rate at 0.8M/15k ft. -The
64 LMP737 : Which is perfectly understandable. Having two aircraft doing the same job just is another added expense.
65 Hunterson : I quite understand, and admire your insistence to clarify the point. We seem to be in agreement about a lot of issues, something which I feel quite g
66 F27Friendship : thank you so much for your kind words!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Iran Air Force New Aircraft (Thunder)!
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Iran Air Force - Boeing 741 posted Mon Dec 12 2005 13:24:39 by AirbusA346
A340-200 D-ASFB Ex-Brunei For Iran Air Force? posted Thu Dec 5 2002 13:30:55 by Alpha
Chinese Air Force's New Toy: J-10 posted Mon Jun 3 2002 12:15:35 by Daweixia
Brazilian Air Force´s New Fighter posted Mon May 6 2002 03:03:44 by Rodrigo Santos
Czech Air Force New Fighter...? posted Fri Oct 5 2001 20:51:24 by Sterne82
Israeli Air Force Preparing For Iran Mission posted Sat Apr 28 2007 18:48:28 by RJpieces
Any Immediate Plans For A New Air Force One? posted Fri Mar 9 2007 18:07:56 by B777A340Fan
New US Air Force Base In Romania posted Mon Dec 11 2006 04:09:59 by RampRat74
First New IAF "Air Force One" posted Thu Nov 30 2006 23:26:51 by DEVILFISH
New U.S. Air Force Bombers Planned For 2018, 2035 posted Fri Oct 13 2006 06:48:45 by AerospaceFan
A340-200 D-ASFB Ex-Brunei For Iran Air Force? posted Thu Dec 5 2002 13:30:55 by Alpha
Chinese Air Force's New Toy: J-10 posted Mon Jun 3 2002 12:15:35 by Daweixia
Brazilian Air Force´s New Fighter posted Mon May 6 2002 03:03:44 by Rodrigo Santos
Czech Air Force New Fighter...? posted Fri Oct 5 2001 20:51:24 by Sterne82
Auction Of Zimbabwe Air Force Aircraft posted Sun Mar 4 2012 15:15:06 by bennett123
New Footage Of Iranian Air Force Il-76MD Crash posted Sat Jun 4 2011 03:28:39 by JBirdAV8r
Iran Forbid Overflight Of German Air Force Airbus posted Mon May 30 2011 23:09:43 by wilco737
Air Force One Retrofit: What's New posted Tue Oct 26 2010 09:29:09 by ua777222

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format