Iranian Air Force (IRIAF/IRGC-ASF) | News and Discussions

[Immortals]

The veteran said that when he went through training, he never got any real training for peer-on-peer conflict. "A little bit of talking about it and just a little bit of training, but nothing to the point that would have prepared me for the war in Ukraine," he recalled.

He said that he has seen a lot of Western soldiers struggle in Ukraine as "they already have a set idea about how things should be and everything, and it's just not that way out in Ukraine."

In the US military, he explained, "I believe that a lot of the training that we have is tailored more to fighting in a guerilla warfare nowadays than it is to actually fighting a near-peer adversary like it would be with Russia or China." He said that it is an issue that many NATO members face.

Another American veteran in Ukraine told BI this month that he had similar concerns. He said that his friends still in the US Army ask him for tips on how to fight with drones or in trenches, as they aren't getting training that fully reflects what is happening in Ukraine.


A Ukrainian commander who was trained by US, British, and Polish soldiers said last year that if he had followed those countries' advice exactly, he would have been killed.

Many Ukrainian units used NATO training and tactics when Ukraine launched its counteroffensive last summer, but some of the approaches, such as an overemphasis on maneuver warfare without air support in the face of dense minefields and other daunting barriers, ultimately failed. The Ukrainians then changed their tactics after experiencing serious losses in a switch praised by some war analysts, but it wasn't enough.

Another US Army veteran who has been fighting and training soldiers in Ukraine told BI last year thatUkraine's forces would have been worse off if they had followed US battlefield doctrine.

He said the Ukrainians were actually better at understanding some aspects of modern fighting than the US, though they have also made costly mistakes at times in their execution, but such can be the nature of any war.

….
He said that in many places where he fought in Ukraine, "there is nowhere that is safe," while when he was in Afghanistan and Iraq, if you were half a mile behind the front line, "you could stand outside and have a barbecue, a sandwich, and drink."

Ukraine is fighting in conditions very different from what the US and its NATO allies have fought through in recent decades. And while there is renewed interest in readying for a near-peer or even peer-level fight against an adversary like China or Russia, rebuilding the skills for great power conflict isn't something that happens overnight

Many soldiers have described the war in Ukraine as resembling World War I and II more than any modern conflict, though there are also modern elements like drones and missiles.

It's a comparison the veteran made, too. He said that fighting to clear Russian trenches made him feel like he was "fighting World War I." The overwhelming role of artillery speaks to that as well.

The US spent so much time fighting insurgents that it forgot 'what it means to actually fight a war,' a US vet in Ukraine says

A US veteran in Ukraine said the US has not been sufficiently training for war with a near-peer or peer-level adversary, like Russia or China.

www.yahoo.com

I try to post these mounting evidences so people understand that NATO/US tactics developed over last 30 years do not work in mass conflict.

 

[jauk]

What I did was proved your dishonesty. You made a broad statement without showing the readers any shred of evidence. That is misleading. Now, the readers can see the facts for themselves. No one said anything about IFF being 'magic'. That is also another bit of dishonest debating tactic: putting words into someone else's mouth.

If you charge that the IFF system and/or process is 'unreliable', it is technically important to point out where, how, and environmental factors. If there is no standard operating freq, meaning each country uses their own, then it is not a fair assessment of reliability because there is no interoperability to accurately test the system and process. If the system is unreliable at all queries traffic, then the charge is valid, if not, then the charge is invalid. Anyone can see that. But I guess not you. Let us know when your Iran come up with something better that the world will adopt.

Might as well say the car is 'unreliable' because of the driver.


We have been waiting for that 'near peer' guy since WW II.


I do not have to address everything you said because not everything you said is worth my time.

I believe a big ol' bite was taken out of your credibility during and after #true_promise. The burden is on you to rebuild that. Otherwise I, like most, skip all of your posts. Spend time to rebuild. Bow and express regret for your misinformation. We're forgiving.

 

[gambit]

The readers (especially the reader it was directed to) who have an ounce of logical intelligence understood the context in which I was speaking.

Yeah...Sure...

I type on this site on my iPhone and don’t have time to provide doctorate level references everytime I make a 2 sentence comment.

Your poor attempt at mental gymnastics and wordplay doesn’t save you from the fact that you ended up agreeing that IFF can be unreliable especially in situations I broadly mentioned. Your reasons for it is irrelevant (and debatable), but you ended up at the same conclusion.

Unlike you, I will continue to inform the readers. Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) is actually an idea, and not the application itself. Basically, we want to know who belongs to whom preferably BEFORE the actual shooting starts.

Method 1: Colors

No can do. Team colors belongs in athletics, not in combat. If you can see the other guy's color, he can see yours. So using colors is out.

Method 2: Shape

Shapes are used intensively throughout WW II, from trucks to tanks to ships and of course, airplanes. We continue to use shapes today but this method is proven to have high degrees of unreliability. Today, believe it or not, the one thing that made IFF via shapes unreliable is: Maneuverability. Basically, if I pull back on the stick, how soon will the airplane respond. Modern fighters are so maneuverable that it was found to affect VISUAL PERCEPTIONS especially under maneuver stress. The F-15 and MIG-25 are similar to each other in shape, for one example. Some pilots are better than others at processing visual cues, but precisely because some are better than others, this method cannot be the norm.

Method 3: Interrogation

Query: Who are you?
Response: John Doe

This is the best method to date. Using electronics would be sub method 3A because electronics make the interrogation easier, faster, and more secured. But overall, 'Interrogation' or more precise, over-the-air (OTA) interrogation is the best to date. OTA means the method is vulnerable to interference but the query/response pairing cannot be 'spoofed' at the sources, meaning if you queried, that is you, and if you respond, that is also you. What happens in the middle can be mitigated thru various mechanisms such as encryption. Even if you lied about who are you, aka deception, that lie whether in query or response still came from you.

Overall, the current OTA IFF method is proven to be the most reliable in terms of security, consistency, and range. It does not have to be perfect, nothing is, but it is the best to date.

...you are ignorant, biased, and like to miss the forest for the trees.

You made a blanket statement that IFF is 'unreliable'. Now, the many silent readers out there can see who is truly the ignorant one: YOU.

 

[GoMig-21]

Method 1: Colors

No can do. Team colors belongs in athletics, not in combat. If you can see the other guy's color, he can see yours. So using colors is out.

People would often tell me the EAF is at a disadvantage with those orange day-glows or swaths on the wings & fuselage of some of its fighters as it would be a dead giveaway to the enemy. My response was exactly the above - it makes no difference since if they can see them, them can see they! lol It's just like camo.

OTA means the method is vulnerable to interference but the query/response pairing cannot be 'spoofed' at the sources, meaning if you queried, that is you, and if you respond, that is also you. What happens in the middle can be mitigated thru various mechanisms such as encryption. Even if you lied about who are you, aka deception, that lie whether in query or response still came from you.

That's interesting. So what you're saying is there's no way to manipulate the signals at all to trick the enemy into thinking you're "friendly" so as to let his guard down giving you the advantage in the element of surprise? I figured that would be what they've been working on night & day since the inception of this technology; its counter.

Overall, the current OTA IFF method is proven to be the most reliable in terms of security, consistency, and range. It does not have to be perfect, nothing is, but it is the best to date.

I don't think anyone is saying it's "useless" or anything remotely close to that. But it seems to be one of those 'finicky' technologies and of course, nothing is perfect in this world.

Do you remember Chogy talking about how he would have a bear of a time in his F-15FC just with the interrogator?

 

[Kyussis]

Soon to see more on Su-24 followed up by upgrade to M2 standard

Su-22, 24, are the only ones made for carrying ballistic missiles

Too bad also Rafsjani didn't get Tu-22M and Tu-16, it would have been a great platform for ALBM

If Su-22 can carry it, IRIAF F-4D and E's can also be made compatible with ALBMs as well!

 

[AmirIGM]

General point on IFF, I think most discussion about it is based on the restrictive 1991/2003 rules of engagement. After all there is no such thing as a hostile return on IFF, only friendly or "unknown". You can use other electronic methods from the radar (fan blade signatures I think) and RWR signatures, but IFF itself it limited to just friendly or unknown. Pilot can designate as hostile at his discretion or that can be conveyed over radio/datalink by ground control/AWACS.

Bottom line is that RIO is a USN label and WSO is a USAF label. But they do the same job. The USN seems to be more strict regarding responsibilities while the USAF is more flexible regarding platforms, meaning if the jet can be flown by either seat, front/aft or left/right, then there is nothing to prevent any pilot from doing both.

I get your overall point. I think USN F-4 backseaters were called RIOs as well but F/A-18D/F are called WSOs. A bit ironic that F-4D/Es have flying controls despite terrible visibility in comparison to the F-14 where the RIO has pretty good forward visibility but no flight controls. From what I've read and heard about USN F-14 RIOs/pilots, some have done both roles but most were only ever pilots or RIOs (or WSOs on F-4/F-18). Personally in DCS I mainly fly in the pilots seat but sometimes also can do some RIO stuff (side note - with all your experience I wonder if you've ever tried DCS? No F-111 but there is the F-14, F-15C/E, F-16 and many others).

My main point though was that although the F-14 RIO has other responsibilities (some general aircraft systems, navigation, ECM, countermeasures, air-ground employment though that was more relevant for USN rather than IRIAF), the majority of their job in (BVR) combat was working the radar. The pilot by comparison has NO control over the radar beyond 15nmi (in the IRIAF's Tomcats apparently only to 5nmi) - he only has access to ACM modes. Main reason for this was the complexity and power of the AWG-9 demanding a person's full attention, coupled with a lack of the modern technology and automation (which often meant simpler controls and less granular manual authority over the radar) that allowed later 4th gen. aircraft with similarly sophisticated radars to be single-seaters.

Cockpit Overview — Heatblur F-14 Tomcat 1.0 documentation

To your point regarding IFF reliability (or lack thereof) we actually used to be on an Iranian Defense Forum back in 2009-2013/14 until it closed shop

Are you talking about iranmilitaryforum(.net)? Were you on there? What was your username?

Rumors were Iran had to halt its F-14 upgrade program because it was costing over $10M per plane

Would love to hear the source for this, though I'm guessing it's Babak Taghvaee. Talking about operating for Iran's aircraft is pretty moot as man hours in Iran cost a lot less than they do abroad. Most parts would have been localised by now which would also bring the dollar cost down (less need to smuggle expensive parts). Upgrade costs would only be high if they are using foreign parts too.

 

[hyperman]

Is there any update on those Su-35s? I feel like I read a new article every few weeks about the delivery.

 

[tsunset]

Is there any update on those Su-35s? I feel like I read a new article every few weeks about the delivery.

The informations on it is a mix of just terrible things and communication

Just like us wait until one is seen inside Iran with IRIAF colors, like the YaK deliveries

 

[Cancerous Tumor]

Is there any update on those Su-35s? I feel like I read a new article every few weeks about the delivery.

I'm waiting for domestic F-4 production line .

 

[Cancerous Tumor]

Engine of Kosar/Hesa Saegheh - Modernized version of F-5
Owj (GE J85)


Mr Sattari (interview with IRIB):
Development for building another engine with more than 4x thrust of Owj's engine is ongoing. (21-Aug 2016)


J79 ???

Still no news from this engine ?

 

[GoMig-21]

General point on IFF, I think most discussion about it is based on the restrictive 1991/2003 rules of engagement. After all there is no such thing as a hostile return on IFF, only friendly or "unknown". You can use other electronic methods from the radar (fan blade signatures I think) and RWR signatures, but IFF itself it limited to just friendly or unknown.

True. When the interrogator on the initiating aircraft sends a signal, it's on a specific frequency which the receiving aircraft's transponder then automatically returns a reply using a signal on a different frequency. That allows the initiating aircraft's transponder to automatically recognizes the signal and determine if it's friendly. But if it's not recognized, it only interprets it as unknown as you said.

It probably gets much trickier and complicated when a bunch of different aircraft from different countries are operating as a coalition, but that's when pacts like NATO and such get together and combine their systems for these specific missions.

Pilot can designate as hostile at his discretion

Only if he has the IQ of a cucumber.
Not sure if anyone in their right mind would ever want to tell his enemy that yes, I am your foe so go ahead and shoot me!

I'm guessing the reason the return signals more often come up as "unknown" is most likely because the return signal from the receiving transponder is automated. If it doesn't automatically recognize the interrogator's signal, it will reply "unknown". It most likely returns the same unknown signal if the transponder is turned off, too, for whatever reason. Maybe that's one of the reasons that gives the perception that it's unreliable. It just has to operate under clear & functioning scenarios & equipment all the time and from all parties involved to work like it's supposed to. Which I think it does for the most part.

And the reason why it's difficult to trick the system into pretending being a friend instead of a foe is because most signals sent from IFF interrogators and transponders are encrypted, and in several modes making it almost impossible to decrypt then fake transmission, let alone fast enough.

It most likely gets a bit more complicated when aircraft from different nations & origins are operating under one joint coalition like NATO. But that's where all IFF systems are integrated with certain specification from the US DoD to be sure ROEs are followed like you said.

I get your overall point. I think USN F-4 backseaters were called RIOs as well but F/A-18D/F are called WSOs.

There was also the RSO (Recon Systems Officer) primarily in the SR-71. If I'm not mistaken, he had additional duties from a RIO and was certainly not a WSO since the Blackbird didn't deploy weapons. On top of the radar, he also operated the cameras and reconnaissance equipment. I believe he was also the one who would identify a missile approach warning threat to help direct the pilot on the best escape option. He also was in a completely separated cockpit.

Are you talking about iranmilitaryforum(.net)? Were you on there? What was your username?

No, it was called Iran Defense Forum. Guy who ended up owning it for the last few years was Iranian American and was a member for a while at first. Ended up buying it and it got crazy lol and people just left. It was great while it lasted.

Same username as here. I was active on there from 2007 I believe to around 2012/13 or so when it ended. The guy's username who ended up owning it was Sukoy-30. Does that ring a bell?

 

[Hack-Hook]

Engine of Kosar/Hesa Saegheh - Modernized version of F-5
Owj (GE J85)
View attachment 38343

Mr Sattari (interview with IRIB):
Development for building another engine with more than 4x thrust of Owj's engine is ongoing. (21-Aug 2016)
View attachment 38344

J79 ???
View attachment 38345
Still no news from this engine ?

no they said next engine will be turbofan, hopefully if somebody provide fund for it it'll be like rd-33

 

[Hack-Hook]

True. When the interrogator on the initiating aircraft sends a signal, it's on a specific frequency which the receiving aircraft's transponder then automatically returns a reply using a signal on a different frequency. That allows the initiating aircraft's transponder to automatically recognizes the signal and determine if it's friendly. But if it's not recognized, it only interprets it as unknown as you said.

It probably gets much trickier and complicated when a bunch of different aircraft from different countries are operating as a coalition, but that's when pacts like NATO and such get together and combine their systems for these specific missions.



Only if he has the IQ of a cucumber.
Not sure if anyone in their right mind would ever want to tell his enemy that yes, I am your foe so go ahead and shoot me!

I'm guessing the reason the return signals more often come up as "unknown" is most likely because the return signal from the receiving transponder is automated. If it doesn't automatically recognize the interrogator's signal, it will reply "unknown". It most likely returns the same unknown signal if the transponder is turned off, too, for whatever reason. Maybe that's one of the reasons that gives the perception that it's unreliable. It just has to operate under clear & functioning scenarios & equipment all the time and from all parties involved to work like it's supposed to. Which I think it does for the most part.

And the reason why it's difficult to trick the system into pretending being a friend instead of a foe is because most signals sent from IFF interrogators and transponders are encrypted, and in several modes making it almost impossible to decrypt then fake transmission, let alone fast enough.

It most likely gets a bit more complicated when aircraft from different nations & origins are operating under one joint coalition like NATO. But that's where all IFF systems are integrated with certain specification from the US DoD to be sure ROEs are followed like you said.



There was also the RSO (Recon Systems Officer) primarily in the SR-71. If I'm not mistaken, he had additional duties from a RIO and was certainly not a WSO since the Blackbird didn't deploy weapons. On top of the radar, he also operated the cameras and reconnaissance equipment. I believe he was also the one who would identify a missile approach warning threat to help direct the pilot on the best escape option. He also was in a completely separated cockpit.

View attachment 38340



No, it was called Iran Defense Forum. Guy who ended up owning it for the last few years was Iranian American and was a member for a while at first. Ended up buying it and it got crazy lol and people just left. It was great while it lasted.

Same username as here. I was active on there from 2007 I believe to around 2012/13 or so when it ended. The guy's username who ended up owning it was Sukoy-30. Does that ring a bell?

i think filtering the forum after election was the main reason Iranian left

 

[Cancerous Tumor]

no they said next engine will be turbofan, hopefully if somebody provide fund for it it'll be like rd-33

$3 billions for walls , thanks Obama and India

Clearly they had and have a road map for heavy fighter jets.

---

rd-33 and we need a new platform other than f-4 design !

really rd-33 ????

 

[Persian Gulf]

$3 billions for walls , thanks Obama and India

Clearly they had and have a road map for heavy fighter jets.

---

rd-33 and we need a new platform other than f-4 design !

really rd-33 ????View attachment 38346

RD-33 is a great engine and would be an incredible achievement by Iran

large turbofan jet engines are among the hardest technical challenges any country can embark on

India spent hundreds of millions on developing the "Kaveri engine project" (a turbofan engine in a similar class to the RD-33) and effectively admitted defeat after 20 years of development.