Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Luis Dias on February 08, 2013, 07:51:06 am
-
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
To fight the "Great Satan"...
Iran recently took the wraps off its Qaher-313 "new super modern fighter plane," seen here nose-on. The quality of the aircraft shown in these pictures is leading some observers to wonder if Iran is playing a joke on the rest of the world. This plane is almost certainly a mock-up, because if it's not—well, look, I can only assume that the country employs at least one aerospace engineer, right? This has to be a joke, right?
http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/02/world-trembles-in-confusion-andor-fear-at-irans-fiberglass-airplane/#image-1
Look at the GLASS.
(http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/iranplane-pilot02.jpg)
-
Iran, Not sure if real, or trolling. :wtf:
That plane looks like its made of Cardboard. :P
-
Mahmoudenijad recently express interest in being Iran's first man in space
-
Well, I suppose they could try to borrow the Vostok rocket and Gagarin's old spacecraft... Somehow, I don't think that ancient Russian ballistic missiles besides R7 are man-rated.
As for the plane, it seems to have a gaming joystick handle on a stick and off the shelf instruments (ones which are only good for light civilian aviation, too). It's so obviously fake I'm surprised they even thought of showing this around.
-
Reading the description of each picture is so damned hilarious
"The cockpit boasts instrumentation plucked directly from civilian aviation and appears to lack a heads-up display. It also appears to be made of fiberglass. I showed this picture to Science Editor Dr. John Timmer, who knows a thing or two about how science works, and after a moment of silence he responded by saying, "No f------ way."
Has to be one of the better ones
-
Googling the planes number yields similar lolly reviews.
unrelated link (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/photoshop-phriday/obama-gun-skeet.php?page=2).
-
Looks like it would lose a dogfight with the Wright Flyer.
-
seems legit.
edit: I wonder if it floats on water..
-
Highly doubtful. It'd probably start leaking everywhere the moment you put it in water.
-
:wakka:
-
Even if they had done a more convincing job to make a fake plane look legit (A low budget amateur film maker could have done better), why make all the markings in English and not Arabic?
-
I feel like every Western intelligence community probably pissed themselves laughing over this. :D
-
Heh, I recently posted about this in IRC a few days ago. To me it kind of resembles an F-35 blended with the wings of the fictional MiG-31 Firefox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_%28film%29).
The film of it apparently flying shows it performing some aerobatics; most maiden flight test footage would presumably show the take-off and landing. But anyway, as others have speculated, that's more likely to be a R/C model. Flies nicely enough though.
EDIT: Here's an article including the footage: http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/02/iran-new-stealth-fighter/#.URViuvKIirg (http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/02/iran-new-stealth-fighter/#.URViuvKIirg)
-
I love the cockpit view where you can see the interior side of the chassis material :)
Supersecret plane appears to be made of the same material and manufactured with the same precision as disney land ride vehicles :)
-
This should give Israel a run for their lulz :lol:
-
More info and a summary of the analysts doubts here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-313).
According to Iranian government sources, the F-313 Qaher was designed and is indigenously produced in Iran by the Aviation Industries Organization (AIO), a division of the Ministry of Defense, and IRIAF. The project manager is Hassan Parvaneh.[2][3]
The aircraft design is a canard configuration. It is stated to be a stealth fighter built with advanced materials with a very low radar signature[4] and with low-altitude operations capability.[5] It was also claimed that the Qaher can take off and land on short runways and has "easy maintenance".[6] Qaher has a payload capacity of carrying two 2000 pound bombs, or greater number of smaller smart guided missiles, or at least 6 air-to-air missiles in the category of PL-12.[7]
It features a downward Wingtip device which Flightglobal.com noted vaguely resembles the Boeing Bird of Prey prototype, but with a more faceted design similar to the 1970s-era Lockheed Have Blue that was developed into the now retired F-117 Nighthawk. Flight Global also said, "given the apparent small size of the aircraft and its single engine design, the Qaher 313 could be powered by reverse engineered variants of the General Electric J85 turbojet that Iran is known to have in its possession."[3] Iran has General Electric J85s as well as a dozen other jet engines as a result of old Northrop F-5s and other American aircraft in its inventory from pre-1979 as well as newer engines from Russia and China. Iran also builds various turbo fan engines like the Toloue-4 and Toloue-5 for its UAVs.[8]
The aircraft is designed with extra stability and so does not need a fly-by-wire (FBW) system.[9]
A prototype version of the Qaher-313 was been portrayed to have test-flown at some point before the presentation.[10] According to the head of the design team, two sub-sized models have been created and tested. One of the models uses a propeller engine while the other uses a small micro jet engine.[11] The models were shown in a video clip (along with descriptions by the head of the design team) the same day.[12] According to Haaretz, the "blurry video published by the Iranians purporting to show the Qaher 313 in flight seems to show not a manned fighter jet but a small radio-operated drone "[13] which agrees with what the designers said about the videos at the Qaher-313 introduction ceremony.
Given that a stealth drone (an RQ-170 Sentinel) was captured over a year ago, with enough time the stealth technologies could eventually be transferred over to future indigenous Iranian designs. Maybe not here and now in this example, but at some point it could happen.
-
Ahmadinejad is an engineer, he must have been holding back the laughter when he saw that thing...
-
Even if they had done a more convincing job to make a fake plane look legit (A low budget amateur film maker could have done better), why make all the markings in English and not Arabic?
Because Iranians don't speak Arabic? :p
-
Ahmadinejad is an engineer, he must have been holding back the laughter when he saw that thing...
He's a Civil Engineer. If it isn't an I-beam, concrete or a Teamster, they don't know much about it.
-
What puzzles me is that they didn't use Farsi.
-
What puzzles me is that they didn't use Farsi.
this is not meant for their people. its meant to intimidate its rivals. unfortunately they underestimated the quality of our built in bull**** detectors.
-
this is not meant for their people. its meant to intimidate its rivals. unfortunately they underestimated the quality of our built in bull**** detectors.
Nah come on, they can't seriously expect any of us 'rivals' to fall for that. These people are running a country with 75 million inhabitants, they couldn't possibly be that naive... could they? :nervous:
Given that it was 'unveiled at the anniversary of the 1979 revolution' and currently 'on public display', I'd say this is meant to impress the 99% of the indigenous population that does buy it. I.e. just another propaganda stunt.
-
Nah come on, they can't seriously expect any of us 'rivals' to fall for that. These people are running a country with 75 million inhabitants, they couldn't possibly be that naive... could they? :nervous:
When it comes to living inside a vacuum, you have to go to North Korea to do it better.
-
When it comes to living inside a vacuum, you have to go to North Korea to do it better.
Not so sure on that, actually. I met a couple Iranian students in the Netherlands (faculty of aerospace engineering - oh, the irony :D), and they never struck me as being off-the-world or living-under-a-rock. At least, not nearly as much as the Chinese.
Iran also had its own Arab Spring, remember? It was beaten down, but nonetheless it shows that the Iranian people are generally aware of what's happening around them. It seems unfair to throw them on a bunch with North Korea, where the government is truly totalitarian and - IIRC - internet connections are not even allowed for private individuals.
-
It seems unfair to throw them on a bunch with North Korea, where the government is truly totalitarian and - IIRC - internet connections are not even allowed for private individuals.
I'm not saying it's not a vast difference between them an the DPRK, but that is the next step up. It's a fairly big step, but it's still the next step.
-
It looks kinda, not good...
Yes well, thats what the enemy will think, get it?
I see. Very good, it even fooled me!
-
Yep, I'm sure that was the plan. First, build the best stealth fighter ever. Then make it look like it's crap. While the Americans are busy laughing, attack and have a single plane take out all carrier battlegroups, NORAD, and Chuck Norris all in one strike.
-
Yep, I'm sure that was the plan. First, build the best stealth fighter ever. Then make it look like it's crap. While the Americans are busy laughing, attack and have a single plane take out all carrier battlegroups, NORAD, and Chuck Norris all in one strike.
Why got through all that effort when you can just break into Fort Knox and taint the supply of gold with a dirty bomb?
-
Ahmadinejad is an engineer, he must have been holding back the laughter when he saw that thing...
He's a Civil Engineer. If it isn't an I-beam, concrete or a Teamster, they don't know much about it.
I take offense to that.
*****
On a serious note, this aircraft looks a bit like something from modern stealth concepts with... way too much 80's style polygon shapes thrown in. They need a better way to run those simulations on Maxwell's equations! The main design planform looks like it was borrowed from the X-36, albeit with the addition of canted vert stabs. If they plan to have the actual prototype flying with all that ugly geometry on there, then certainly they will be needed. Further images along in the gallery show an image of McDonnel Douglas' (then re-named by Boeing) Bird of Prey, which makes an interesting comparison to the wing design. The general planform of that wing does have merit in the broad sense, being able to trap a high pressure system beneath itself. For a short span, this is a sensible consideration, though the fact remains that such an aircraft will have a very high wing loading.
Other elements of the design are also questionable. The topside air intakes are certainly of poor design, though certainly that sort of design can be made viable. The main problem facing fighter aircraft using those types of inlets is the fact that high-alpha maneuvers, or sudden postitive pitch movements may create... almost a vacuum of sorts - or, more concisely put, the same problem that affects the upper surface of a wing in stall affects those inlets. Once laminar flow ceases (or nominal levels of turbulent flow) and separation ensues, the engines become starved for air. This of course happens at the time you need engine power the most!
The worst part is... I can see enough thought into the design to validate that this is indeed a real design. Unfortunately, it looks like it was designed by a team of sophmore or junior undergrads rather than a seasoned design team. There's just this ugly jumble of sharp edges and then conventional airfoils - no blending in what was certainly meant to be an aircraft that generates a lot of lift from the fuselage itself! I wonder if they got a copy of CATIA, crunched some numbers, and then all you got was this shoddily-made result just boolean'd together...
But then, the last fighter project I know of them working on indigenously was this:
http://defensetech.org/2011/09/12/irans-f-5-knockoff-fighter-now-at-squadron-strength/
...In that sense, they've actually come a long way. As for final notes, the small sizes of the inlets and exhaust, no apparent weapons or radar, may suggest at most that this is intended to act as a mockup for a small/mid-scale technology demonstrator. A frontline fighter with a single engine that small just wouldn't be putting out enough thrust to survive in current air combat conditions.
-
My favorite part is it looks like there's literal duct-tape wrapped around the stick. Hmm, maybe Mackie's the test pilot? :D
-
yeah i noticed that too. i also couldn't find the throttle.
-
Yep, I'm sure that was the plan. First, build the best stealth fighter ever. Then make it look like it's crap. While the Americans are busy laughing, attack and have a single plane take out all carrier battlegroups, NORAD, and Chuck Norris all in one strike.
Alpha 1 could pull it off, even if the plane was only as good as it looks.
-
Alpha 1 could pull it off, even if the plane was only as good as it looks.
You have been assigned to the TV-202, a fighter few can handle. Its predecessor, the TV-101, killed most of the test pilots. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8IL2vQ77cI)
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/irans-new-stealth-fighter-jet-caught-out-by-bloggers-in-faked-photoshop-image-blunder-8493530.html
Oh god. :lol:
-
omg ahahah
-
Two Iranian officers talking:
"To develop an advanced fighter, we must first develop a large industrial complex, invest in technological research, strike agreements with industrial providers, transfer the technological know-how from other countries, form a consortium with other investors, and seek for potential buyers in the international market. Then, maybe in a decade or two..."
"Screw it! How much is a Photoshop license?"
:p
-
Although the Islamic Republic may be no closer to building the perfect stealth fighter, it is getting better at using Photoshop.
Well at least they are getting better.
Right?
-
In their defense (and for the sake of conversation), I want to point out that publicity photos and aeroplane glamor shots are nothing new, anywhere. They are made for real aircraft and hypothetical aircraft alike, and often fake ones as well. Because I don't know what the official press release said, I have nothing to go off except the linked article. If they are simply advertising the aircraft and noting that flying low can reduce the chances of being detected by radar, then, well, wecome to combat doctrine from 50 years prior (and then a few years earlier still). Furthermore, being able to carry a payload is rather essential to being of any use as a frontline combat aircraft, as it or some future version of it is advertised to be...
One must also consider, if they are indeed serious about pursuing this project, what the design criteria of the total project is. Consider the ubiquitous F-16, found about everywhere Western governments exist or where resources exist which Western countries like. The F-16 is an unstable, supersonic fighterplane which is able to fly due to a highly sophisticated electronics suite which was among the first of its kind... in fact, it was the first of its kind. The avionics package on the fighter allows it to attend to just about any modern fighter mission, and it has proven the ability to do so in this facility within the rigors of combat.
Now consider if the F-313 is a mock-up for a tech demonstrator, which may be close to full size or full size. The aircraft has been stated to be stable (and lacking any advanced FBW), looks to have thick airfoils which would be helping in that advertised short-field capability, and not a whole lot of room for avionics. So... This at least proves one advertised lie so far - it's nothing like an F/A-18 Hornet, except for maybe one thing: this could be being developed along the A-4 Skyhawk or the Q-5 Fantan... an attack plane. Granted, not an attack plane of Hornet caliber, but a simple, subsonic attack fighter which needs no radar. With GPS or INS, simple, low-cost avionics provide all the functionality the pilot needs to navigate and drop unguided ordnance. Being a bit more stealthy than your old F-4s, F-5s, and F-14s, and being targeted by countries which have all the latest gadgets of death, you might just want a cheap LO fighter should somebondy decide that you must be invaded next.
In conclusion, before someone actually finds the official press release, I will argue that if the F-313 is intended to become a working design within what has been shown, it will not be a modern "superfighter." From what has already been echoed from the official press-release in reporting articles, it cannot take down modern fighter craft not only due to avionic/stability/structural issues (all are related in this instance), but due to aerodynamic issues as well, which I discussed in my prior post. No, it will be an attack plane maneuvering very little and staying out of the high-alpha flight regime. It probably will employ a small afterburning or even non-afterburning turbojet engine, make use of a small internal weapons bay, and rely on large amounts of off-the-shelf hardware which Iran can either manufacture locally or get relatively easily from outside markets. I assume their command staff recognizes that it would be impossible to win a war of attrition with their potential attackers, so why attempt to match them when that goal cannot be attained? This is a product of a MAD policy of sorts - Iran will lose a conflict should it begin, but they will attempt to get a few jabs in before they go.
-
In conclusion, before someone actually finds the official press release, I will argue that if the F-313 is intended to become a working design within what has been shown, it will not be a modern "superfighter." From what has already been echoed from the official press-release in reporting articles, it cannot take down modern fighter craft not only due to avionic/stability/structural issues (all are related in this instance), but due to aerodynamic issues as well, which I discussed in my prior post. No, it will be an attack plane maneuvering very little and staying out of the high-alpha flight regime. It probably will employ a small afterburning or even non-afterburning turbojet engine, make use of a small internal weapons bay, and rely on large amounts of off-the-shelf hardware which Iran can either manufacture locally or get relatively easily from outside markets. I assume their command staff recognizes that it would be impossible to win a war of attrition with their potential attackers, so why attempt to match them when that goal cannot be attained? This is a product of a MAD policy of sorts - Iran will lose a conflict should it begin, but they will attempt to get a few jabs in before they go.
This bit certainly has merit on certain Strategic levels. There are certain strategic doctrines which use the concept that in order to deter a war you dont need to match your opponent in capability and capacity, just build a force which would be capable of inflicting unacceptable losses on the enemy. Pre WWI German naval doctrine was based on this IIRC to try and prevent the British Empire getting involved in a war with them. In the current political climate for the West the general populations are very shy about casualties, especially in an offensive wars meaning that if Iran can offer a fight which although they would loose will inflict notable casualties then it could be enough to keep the west out of the country
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/irans-new-stealth-fighter-jet-caught-out-by-bloggers-in-faked-photoshop-image-blunder-8493530.html
Oh god. :lol:
Bwahahahaha.
-
In conclusion, before someone actually finds the official press release, I will argue that if the F-313 is intended to become a working design within what has been shown, it will not be a modern "superfighter." From what has already been echoed from the official press-release in reporting articles, it cannot take down modern fighter craft not only due to avionic/stability/structural issues (all are related in this instance), but due to aerodynamic issues as well, which I discussed in my prior post. No, it will be an attack plane maneuvering very little and staying out of the high-alpha flight regime. It probably will employ a small afterburning or even non-afterburning turbojet engine, make use of a small internal weapons bay, and rely on large amounts of off-the-shelf hardware which Iran can either manufacture locally or get relatively easily from outside markets. I assume their command staff recognizes that it would be impossible to win a war of attrition with their potential attackers, so why attempt to match them when that goal cannot be attained? This is a product of a MAD policy of sorts - Iran will lose a conflict should it begin, but they will attempt to get a few jabs in before they go.
This bit certainly has merit on certain Strategic levels. There are certain strategic doctrines which use the concept that in order to deter a war you dont need to match your opponent in capability and capacity, just build a force which would be capable of inflicting unacceptable losses on the enemy. Pre WWI German naval doctrine was based on this IIRC to try and prevent the British Empire getting involved in a war with them. In the current political climate for the West the general populations are very shy about casualties, especially in an offensive wars meaning that if Iran can offer a fight which although they would loose will inflict notable casualties then it could be enough to keep the west out of the country
For those absolutely certain that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program, balls-to-the-wall, then this aircraft certainly has the potential to drive either the fear-mongering or war-mongering rhetoric up to necessary levels to support greater levels of military force in the region - if most people weren't so busy laughing about it. A cheap LO strike bomber would make a lot of people nervous. Especially if it had "the bomb."
-
"The Bomb" would probably be bigger and heavier than that paper plane, Thaeris.
-
"The Bomb" would probably be bigger and heavier than that paper plane, Thaeris.
in this context a "small" tactical nuke would probably suffice, its more about the weapon being nuclear based and the psychological threat surrounding it than anything else.
-
from the looks of the plane i can only assume that the biggest nuclear threat from iran is all the radioactive iranians.
-
Radioactive zombie army?
-
in this context a "small" tactical nuke would probably suffice, its more about the weapon being nuclear based and the psychological threat surrounding it than anything else.
Making a nuke small enough to hang off that plane would be an order of magnitude more difficult than making a nuke at all.
-
Make the plane into a nuke?
-
nukes have been made into mortars, howitzer shells, and even small-arms fired munitions.
-
On a serious note, this aircraft looks a bit like something from modern stealth concepts with... way too much 80's style polygon shapes thrown in. They need a better way to run those simulations on Maxwell's equations!
I think maybe you meant Navier-Stokes equations. Maxwell's equations are about electromagnetism.
The main design planform looks like it was borrowed from the X-36, albeit with the addition of canted vert stabs. If they plan to have the actual prototype flying with all that ugly geometry on there, then certainly they will be needed. Further images along in the gallery show an image of McDonnel Douglas' (then re-named by Boeing) Bird of Prey, which makes an interesting comparison to the wing design. The general planform of that wing does have merit in the broad sense, being able to trap a high pressure system beneath itself. For a short span, this is a sensible consideration, though the fact remains that such an aircraft will have a very high wing loading.
Other elements of the design are also questionable. The topside air intakes are certainly of poor design, though certainly that sort of design can be made viable. The main problem facing fighter aircraft using those types of inlets is the fact that high-alpha maneuvers, or sudden postitive pitch movements may create... almost a vacuum of sorts - or, more concisely put, the same problem that affects the upper surface of a wing in stall affects those inlets. Once laminar flow ceases (or nominal levels of turbulent flow) and separation ensues, the engines become starved for air. This of course happens at the time you need engine power the most!
The worst part is... I can see enough thought into the design to validate that this is indeed a real design. Unfortunately, it looks like it was designed by a team of sophmore or junior undergrads rather than a seasoned design team. There's just this ugly jumble of sharp edges and then conventional airfoils - no blending in what was certainly meant to be an aircraft that generates a lot of lift from the fuselage itself! I wonder if they got a copy of CATIA, crunched some numbers, and then all you got was this shoddily-made result just boolean'd together...
If it's actually made from structural materials and balanced right, and given a real powerplant, I'm sure the design would fly... a bit. However, as far as ability to function as a modern aircraft, I very much doubt the design's capability to do that.
The most revealing fact to me is the unbelievably thick wing. The chord ratio seems like it would be more at home on a pre-WW2 fighter aircraft built of wood and fabric. A wing that thick will produce a lot of lift (which it would surely need due to the rather small wing area) but it would produce so much drag that I doubt the plane would go much faster than maybe 300-400 km/h.
The anhedral winglets would cause some interesting lateral stability issues (roll), but I suppose they COULD enhance the directional stability (yaw), but only if they are placed far enough behind the centre of gravity. The problems about the intake placement have already been discussed and there is no way in hell those are going to work. They are, firstly, too small to provide meaningful airflow, and will choke if the aircraft does any meaningful amount of maneuvering. Additionally, on the bottom half of the fuselage, there are large areas which are essentially a flat face at rather high angle on wing, and that will produce a lot of drag; I suspect that is where someone originally wanted to put the air intakes on the design concept, but someone with more knowledge about "art" questioned such conventional placement and instead put the intakes above the wing plane instead.
But then, the last fighter project I know of them working on indigenously was this:
http://defensetech.org/2011/09/12/irans-f-5-knockoff-fighter-now-at-squadron-strength/
...In that sense, they've actually come a long way. As for final notes, the small sizes of the inlets and exhaust, no apparent weapons or radar, may suggest at most that this is intended to act as a mockup for a small/mid-scale technology demonstrator. A frontline fighter with a single engine that small just wouldn't be putting out enough thrust to survive in current air combat conditions.
There's no question that it's a mock-up. The question is why would they make a mock-up with so radically dysfunctional features, rather than make the mock-up look like an aircraft that could actually function?
There are basically two possibilities here: Either they really thought someone would fall for this, or it's a misdirection of some sort. Considering Iran's history of spectacularly stupid actions I can't discount the former, and for the latter I see no point as they would rather want to boast with REAL progress than hide it behind a faked failure...
-
There are basically two possibilities here: Either they really thought someone would fall for this, or it's a misdirection of some sort. Considering Iran's history of spectacularly stupid actions I can't discount the former, and for the latter I see no point as they would rather want to boast with REAL progress than hide it behind a faked failure...
I suppose you cant rule out some kind of scenario where the mockup was made with incorrect features to give a false impression of it's capabilities knowing full well that a number of the worlds prominent intelligence agencies are paying close attention to the country so they *will* find out about the project and *will* attempt to monitor development so by presenting a flawed design knowing that short of infiltrating the design team or the ground crew it will be difficult to get detailed images of the real design making this the clearest look they will get for a good while in order to lower the interest in the project.
-
On a serious note, this aircraft looks a bit like something from modern stealth concepts with... way too much 80's style polygon shapes thrown in. They need a better way to run those simulations on Maxwell's equations!
I think maybe you meant Navier-Stokes equations. Maxwell's equations are about electromagnetism.
Nope, definitely not Navier-Stokes. We knew how to do aerodynamics way before computers were ever around to solve them. The faceted shape was for electromagnetic calculations alright:
The F-117A's faceted shape (made from 2-dimensional flat surfaces) resulted from the limitations of the 1970s-era computer technology used to calculate its radar cross-section. Later supercomputers made it possible for subsequent planes like the B-2 bomber to use curved surfaces while staying stealthy, through the use of far more computational resources to do the additional calculations needed.
-
Ahhh, yeah.
I was so stuck on thinking why it was aerodynamically implausible I didn't even consider the stealth aspect. That would indeed involve Maxwell's Silver Hammer to calculate the effective radar cross-section from different angles.
-
in this context a "small" tactical nuke would probably suffice, its more about the weapon being nuclear based and the psychological threat surrounding it than anything else.
Making a nuke small enough to hang off that plane would be an order of magnitude more difficult than making a nuke at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
The way I see it, the pilot would lean out of the canopy, fire the nuke bazooka and then turn as quickly as possible (which isn't saying much) to avoid the blast. Praying to Allach, fasting and reading holy books would, of course, be a necessary part of the procedure, to be started at preflight (or earlier) and maintained through the whole mission. :)
-
Avoid a 150m blast?
-
It's more like 400m. Considering it's likely operational speed with these wings (which would be pretty good... around WWII), it'd be a valid concern. :)
-
It's more like 400m. Considering it's likely operational speed with these wings (which would be pretty good... around WWII), it'd be a valid concern. :)
Well that's why we have retarded bombs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unguided_bomb#Retarded_bomb), right?
-
there are dumb bombs and then there are the REALLY dumb bombs :lol:
-
You're right. If they make the bomb match the plane, it might improve it's effectiveness somewhat (which isn't saying much). :lol:
-
when dumb bombs simply aren't enough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohka)
-
in this context a "small" tactical nuke would probably suffice, its more about the weapon being nuclear based and the psychological threat surrounding it than anything else.
Making a nuke small enough to hang off that plane would be an order of magnitude more difficult than making a nuke at all.
As informed as you generally seem to be about these things, you're really not in this instance. A weapon like the B57 tactical nuke was tiny, quite light (lighter than many conventional bombs), and quite small:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B57_nuclear_bomb
Tactical nukes bridge the problem faced with usage of large nuclear weapons, in which the user only deals with the weight and volume of conventional munitions while getting a lot of destructive potential. Simultaneously, the destructive force, while nasty and with all the stuff you don't like about nukes, is not so much that you must destroy all of what you might be fighting over. The problem with tactial weapons is getting good enough at making weapons at all to even think of miniturizing the technology.
-
The problem with tactial weapons is getting good enough at making weapons at all to even think of miniturizing the technology.
That's pretty much what he said. It's not like it's impossible to make a nuke that small, but to make an effective tac nuke one needs to have a good deal of experience and technology in making nuclear weapons, which Iran doesn't have. It took almost 20 years to go from Little Boy to B57, and this was the US nuke program with top scientists of the world, astronomical budget and no international organization breaching down it's back and trying to take the program down. I don't see Iran building such a nuke in the near future, and it's unlikely they'd be able to get them from abroad.
-
The problem with tactial weapons is getting good enough at making weapons at all to even think of miniturizing the technology.
That's pretty much what he said. It's not like it's impossible to make a nuke that small, but to make an effective tac nuke one needs to have a good deal of experience and technology in making nuclear weapons, which Iran doesn't have. It took almost 20 years to go from Little Boy to B57, and this was the US nuke program with top scientists of the world, astronomical budget and no international organization breaching down it's back and trying to take the program down. I don't see Iran building such a nuke in the near future, and it's unlikely they'd be able to get them from abroad.
there is a small difference though, because of the American and Russian nuclear programs Iran now have an idea of what is generally possible and can better target specific research goals meaning they can avoid some of the dead ends that the original programs no doubt went down which will save some development time and resources. Also the American and Russian physicists were literally writing the book on nuclear physics as they went along, these principles are much better understood now and taught to a much wider cross section of people, heck from my physics lessons at age 15 I understand the gist of an uncontrolled nuclear event.
-
also, computer simulations/design. we were building our first nukes with a slide rule.
-
It would still be very difficult for the Iran to come up with a functional tactical device in 10 years or so, and that's a generous estimate. The principles on which a nuke is based are simple, but the actual technologies used to make an effective nuke are really complicated and usually classified, meaning Iranian engineers would have to pretty much start from scratch. That goes double for a small, tactical device. And unlike US during Cold War, they don't exactly have access to top engineering teams in the world. While it's true that a large part of the job has been done "for them" during the Cold War, this only makes developing such a device in Iran possible at all. I'd say, they'd need 10-20 years to come up with anything workable in tac nuke department, assuming the whole program survives this long (unlikely, considering everything).
-
Russian and Pakistani know-how is historically often available.
-
i disagree with that assessment (dragon). the nuclear know-how cat is out of the bag. that part isn't even classified, it's common academic knowledge. and "classified" isn't as strong of a thing as people think. i'd be willing to bet iran already has or can get nuclear weapons data if they want it. not necessarily ours, but someone's. discounting willful aid, russia is rather infamous for not keeping a lid on it's nuclear.... stuff. it is frequently said that the hard part of making nukes isn't designing them, it's obtaining the materials, and we know they are actively pursuing this. as for the people to make this happen, it doesn't take the absolute best in the world. you just need them to be competent, and iran undoubtedly has at least a few of those.
-
Highway to the Ahmadinejad zone!
-
As informed as you generally seem to be about these things, you're really not in this instance.
On the contrary. Nukes, like anything else, have steep requirements in machining and engineering technique the smaller you make them. The technology here also has very few other applications. As North Korea will be happy to demonstrate, materials aren't the real problem either: the real difficulty with manufacturing nuclear weapons is developing the precision industrial capacity. Building a small nuke makes that problem much, much worse.
-
Russian and Pakistani know-how is historically often available.
Know-how, not blueprints. They'd still have to design the bomb. Also, remember that creating a nuclear device doesn't end at designing the warhead. You also need to develop production lines, machinery and everything that's required to turn a pile of Uranium and spare parts into whatever is on the blueprint. Iran doesn't have precision industry to produce advanced nuclear weapons (tactical weapons among them) in any useful quantity. To make a tactical nuke, you can't use a simple gun type device, since you need to detonate a very small mass of the fissile material. For that, you need the implosion type device which would compress the material into a near-perfect sphere. This has to be extremely precise, and thus the manufacturing process is very complicated and expensive. Iran could probably develop and produce a tac nuke in a science lab, but it would hardly be of any use, since labs are not suited for industrial production of the warheads, and those are not war-ending tools of apocalypse, but simply very, very destructive iron bombs. Having just one wouldn't cut it.
-
Russian and Pakistani know-how is historically often available.
Know-how, not blueprints. They'd still have to design the bomb. Also, remember that creating a nuclear device doesn't end at designing the warhead. You also need to develop production lines, machinery and everything that's required to turn a pile of Uranium and spare parts into whatever is on the blueprint. Iran doesn't have precision industry to produce advanced nuclear weapons (tactical weapons among them) in any useful quantity. To make a tactical nuke, you can't use a simple gun type device, since you need to detonate a very small mass of the fissile material. For that, you need the implosion type device which would compress the material into a near-perfect sphere. This has to be extremely precise, and thus the manufacturing process is very complicated and expensive. Iran could probably develop and produce a tac nuke in a science lab, but it would hardly be of any use, since labs are not suited for industrial production of the warheads, and those are not war-ending tools of apocalypse, but simply very, very destructive iron bombs. Having just one wouldn't cut it.
I dont know, would you like to be the one deciding to go to war knowing there is a chance that a nuke will be deployed against your forces.
In the situation where Iran would deploy such a weapon the government would be looking at a situation where they have a good chance of being toppled/killed by the invaders so would have not a lot really to loose. the invader on the other hand will have to deal with the political backlash from sending troops into a nuke armed country with delivery capacity and the media sensationalism that would surround such an event if deployed.
indeed 1-5 warheads would be enough to stall an invasion by months if not a couple of years while the wider world tries to use political solutions to whatever the days problem is rather than risk the above scenario. After the described time span the political backing for an armed solution to Iran's actions will have probably dwindled and Iran will have hidden whatever activity it was again.
-
I dont know, would you like to be the one deciding to go to war knowing there is a chance that a nuke will be deployed against your forces.
What I would do would be to send in a DEVGRU unit to blow up their sole nuke just before the invasion. Or find out where they keep it and Tomahawk the place. Or shot down the plane delivering this nuke. There are ways of dealing with such threat. 5 bombs are hardly a deterrent, especially tactical ones. They could be used for political purposes (though I'm not sure if just 5 bombs would accomplish anything), but once actual ordnance starts flying, they'd have a very slim chance of actually doing damage. Considering all that, Iran would most likely focus on developing larger bombs which it actually could produce on a larger scale. They'd have more political power that way and would not be susceptible to being destroyed in a single, daring raid or precise missile strike.