×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

timothy posted about a year ago | from the not-a-drone-so-20th-century dept.

Space 260

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

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

260 comments

I've seen a lot of 'shops' in my day (4, Funny)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about a year ago | (#42784873)

and the pixels are a dead giveaway here

Re:I've seen a lot of 'shops' in my day (3, Funny)

spxZA (996757) | about a year ago | (#42785055)

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

PERSIANS BUILT IT IN A GYMANSIUM !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785991)

Now how to get it out ??

Plexiglas canopy ??

Two-thirds size ??

Inadequate landing gear ??

Tail planes much too short ??

It's not a photoshop flop, it's a drugged-out Persian's "cool plane man !!" who only has ever seen a camel's shit end up close !!

Looks like the pilot still has to sit in the plane (2)

karlandtanya (601084) | about a year ago | (#42784883)

Well, they did say *almost*.

Re:Looks like the pilot still has to sit in the pl (2)

91degrees (207121) | about a year ago | (#42784911)

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

Re:Looks like the pilot still has to sit in the pl (1)

second_coming (2014346) | about a year ago | (#42785179)

Didn't they have wreckage from US drones which had been brought down to base them on?

very very stealthy (5, Funny)

sribe (304414) | about a year ago | (#42784903)

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

Re:very very stealthy (5, Interesting)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about a year ago | (#42784929)

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

Re:very very stealthy (5, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | about a year ago | (#42784997)

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

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

Re:Does it take AA batteries? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785015)

And how many?

Re:very very stealthy (5, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#42785161)

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

Re:very very stealthy (4, Interesting)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#42785181)

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

Re:very very stealthy (4, Funny)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#42785329)

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

Re:very very stealthy (5, Interesting)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#42785499)

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

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

Re:very very stealthy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785369)

all fine and and good if it was a mockup prototype - but the thing was supposed to be functioning in flight!
no way and definitely looked had the characteristics of an rc model.

Re:very very stealthy (4, Insightful)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#42785519)

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

But cockpit isn't the part that is telling.

Re:very very stealthy (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about a year ago | (#42785985)

I've spent a pretty good amount of time sitting in the cockpit of F-14s. (on the ground as an enlisted grunt) That cockpit says as much as the rest of the exterior.

Re:very very stealthy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785631)

Don't blame them for comments in English; Most airplanes desgined/operated by arabs are labeled in English, since Arabic is not a good language for technical writing. Farsi is similar in that context, though I don't have specific knowledge on Farsi. We westerners have done an excellent job of integratinng

Re:very very stealthy (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785685)

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

Re:very very stealthy (2)

Thing I am (761900) | about a year ago | (#42785253)

Why is the "Danger" sticker in English?

Re:very very stealthy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785517)

Why is the "Danger" sticker in English?

Iranian stealth plan. Rather than spend a large portion of their military budget researching how to avoid radar detection, they are using a "redirective stealth" method. Cover the plane with english stickers and US flags.

Re:very very stealthy (3, Interesting)

guttentag (313541) | about a year ago | (#42785549)

Why is the "Danger" sticker in English?

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

Re:very very stealthy (0)

deathguppie (768263) | about a year ago | (#42785285)

It's also quite obvious to anyone with material knowledge that the shell/skin of the aircraft is made of composites (carbon figre/fibreglass). My point is that a supersonica aircraft it is not, because the friction heat would destroy a composite skin. The f22 uses a titanium skin, for the heat problems, and some internal carbon fibre parts.

Re:very very stealthy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785885)

You're thinking of the SR-71. The F-22 uses composite for a fair amount of its external parts. The F-35 skin panels are almost exclusively composite, and it's a supersonic fighter. Also, if they're using an engine that was introduced in the 1950's, there won't be much stealth about it.

Re:very very stealthy (3, Informative)

Kleen13 (1006327) | about a year ago | (#42785337)

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

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

Re:very very stealthy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785503)

mod the parent up... the display and controls are fine, but the structure of it makes it look more like something you give kids rides with at a theme park... not something that is meant to be a sealed canopy hatch at Mach 1.

Nice DVD player on that mockup cockpit... (1)

PseudoCoder (1642383) | about a year ago | (#42785579)

Thanks for the link to the "cockpit". Looks like a homebuilt aircraft you'd find in some EAA enthusiast's garage. The stick looks like a reuse from an F-4 Phantom or something of that era. Oh, and I'm sure they are up for a bit of a surprise when the first pilot accidentally hits the landing gear knob with his left knee. And check out the thin fiberglass structure by the right hand controls. You can see some more fiberglass behind the seat. Speaking of the seat, they're in for another surprise when the first pilot has to eject (won't be long) and lands without his lower legs because he left them under the front console.

Consider that this is the kind of stunt Saddam Hussein was up to in his defiant years before the invasion, before we called his bluff. Now put this silly PR move in the context of a hypothetical scenario where Hussein was still around. It's not hard to imagine the tension between Iraq and Iran if there were two megalomaniacs trying to outdo each other in the Middle East, instead of just one megalomaniac. The arms race would be "pedal to the metal" right about now.

Re:Nice DVD player on that mockup cockpit... (4, Insightful)

Peristaltic (650487) | about a year ago | (#42785773)

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

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

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

Re:very very stealthy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785637)

You can tell from that photo that the airspeed indicator has a red line at 250 (knots? mph? kph?). Looks like they've just taken standard Cessna-type equipment and shoved it into a control panel. It's clearly a mock-up, not a prototype.

Re:very very stealthy (1)

mk1004 (2488060) | about a year ago | (#42785803)

In other, unrelated news, the Wright Flyer that was hanging in the Smithsonian is missing.

Re:very very stealthy (1)

MatthiasF (1853064) | about a year ago | (#42785925)

Iran's first stealth fighter has warning stickers in English?

Gee, I wonder who they produced the plane to impress.

Re:very very stealthy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785999)

Why is "Danger" in English?

"Alsmost all features" (3, Funny)

MadTinfoilHatter (940931) | about a year ago | (#42784913)

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

Riiight...

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

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

Re:"Alsmost all features" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785071)

But it is launched from a slingshot like the angry birds. YaaHEEyah!

Re:"Alsmost all features" (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#42785207)

Riiight...

Sure it does. It has wings, wheels, all the usual control surfaces. A wiggly thing just near where the pilot sits. Lots of knobs and dials, and a really low radar signature.

That's almost all the features.

Except it doesn't actually fly.

That's all but 1!

Re:"Alsmost all features" (2)

tibit (1762298) | about a year ago | (#42785525)

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

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

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

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

Compatible with politics (1, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | about a year ago | (#42785681)

claiming oneself to be a believer in Islam while being an obsessive liar is a bit of a problem.

Explain to me how anyone who seriously claims to follow any organized religion is anything but an obsessive liar. They believe in a bunch of (mostly) made up stories that they by definition cannot prove to have any basis in fact. Hence they are liars at a minimum to themselves and quite probably to others. Making up stories shows no incompatibility with politics whatsoever.

Pretty sophisticated.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42784945)

Why is it that every time Iran has a press breifing / conference / whatever it looks like its done in a high school gymnasium?

Note the intense weasel wording (3, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | about a year ago | (#42784967)

Note the intense weasel wording...

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

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

can evade radar

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

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

Re:Note the intense weasel wording (4, Informative)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#42785211)

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

Re:Note the intense weasel wording (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#42785273)

Seems to me there's a difference between "evade radar" and "doesn't show up on radar". I think of evading as active - in this case, flying in such a way as to avoid the actual radio waves whereas "doesn't show up on radar" is more about minimizing cross section, radar-absorbing paint, etc - passive methods.

Re:Note the intense weasel wording (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785313)

Then your (mild error-correcting) reading comprehension is worse than a child's.

Re:Note the intense weasel wording (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785437)

They probably mean the same thing.

Re:Note the intense weasel wording (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785587)

In fairness, most people completely fail to understand stealth. Stealth is not a product, but a system. Part of any stealth deployment includes evading radar.

Re:Note the intense weasel wording (2)

vlm (69642) | about a year ago | (#42785441)

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

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

Re:Note the intense weasel wording (1)

Cederic (9623) | about a year ago | (#42785801)

More interesting was that he was prosecuted for Malicious Hooliganism.

Sounds a bit of a giggle until you remember the specifics of the Russian justice system.

Re:Note the intense weasel wording (1)

PhxBlue (562201) | about a year ago | (#42785855)

The unclassified range of the F-22's detection systems is "more than 250 nautical miles." So actually, there's a good chance it could see you from 300.

Re:Note the intense weasel wording (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785807)

A modern military fighter (e.g. F16 or better) would not waste a missile or even any 20mm shells on a Cessna 172. All he'd have to do is smack the vertical stabilizer and rudder off the back of the 172 in a deliberate minor (for the fighter) mid-air collision. The fighter jet will maybe suffer some scratched paint and the Cessna will go down.

Re:Note the intense weasel wording (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785227)

Don't get too concerned about parsing weasel words. Why bother to stretch the truth with weasel words when you could just as easily tell complete lies?

Re:Note the intense weasel wording (3, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#42785235)

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

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

Fantastic Press Release For A New Model Airplane! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42784973)

The aircraft is very small. There is no footage that includes sound. There is no footage of a pilot in the aircraft. Look at how far aft the CG markings are - it's never going to take a pilot or weapons and still be stable using the canards. My opinion - the Iranians have created a very nice looking ducted fan remote control airplane.

Oh... and why are the markings in Latin characters?

Looks like this thing should don the leopard dots of the 303 or take its place next to the flying bomb, err, flying boat that they announced a while back.

Looks like a model (3, Informative)

AdamInParadise (257888) | about a year ago | (#42784975)

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

Re:Looks like a model (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785077)

"Thrustmaster Mark II joystick stuck to a pole"

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

Re:Looks like a model (5, Funny)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year ago | (#42785415)

"Thrustmaster Mark II joystick stuck to a pole"

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

That is duck tape used to assemble canards.

8 track on the dashboard (1)

approachingZero (1365381) | about a year ago | (#42785103)

Great picture. I use duct tape on almost everything and there is a lot of duct tape involved in the construction of the cabin seal. But we should celebrate the incorporation of the 8 track from a 1978 Mercury Grand Marquis in the fabrication of this cutting edge 4th generation fighter. We laugh at the persistent use of 8 track players in Iranian fighter aircraft but they have been shown to withstand EMP whereas the fancy shmancy infotainment consoles found in such American warbirds as the F22 Raptor fail. Rock on Iran.

Re:Looks like a model (1)

cdrudge (68377) | about a year ago | (#42785335)

Why is the "Danger" sign on the side of the cockpit written in English? Shouldn't that be in Persian/Farsi or something?

Re:Looks like a model (1)

PseudoCoder (1642383) | about a year ago | (#42785689)

The footage I've seen shows a subtle roll wobble that is characteristic of RC aircraft with short wings. That plus the low speeds => low roll damping. A capable fighter aircraft would need at least a Stability Augmentation System that would cancel this out, and this footage leads me to think RC model as well.

bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42784991)

Whoever posted this didn't look into it much. The 'flying' plane is a scale model... yes, a remote control plane. It's all smoke and mirrors.

What about the second flight... (1)

hargrand (1301911) | about a year ago | (#42785007)

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

Just because they can get it into the air once, doesn't mean they can do so a second time ... assuming it's not part of some Photoshop Air Force.

More info on GlobalSecurity.org (5, Interesting)

funky49 (182835) | about a year ago | (#42785019)

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

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

Re:More info on GlobalSecurity.org (4, Interesting)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#42785321)

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

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

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

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

Re:More info on GlobalSecurity.org (1)

dj245 (732906) | about a year ago | (#42785565)

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

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

I'm not saying the jet is real, but releasing takeoff and landing footage would give away some secret technical information about the aircraft. If you wanted to keep that information secret, not releasing the footage would be a good idea. For example- a video of a takeoff could be used to calculate minimum takeoff speed, thrust to weight ratio, etc. Probably more. A landing video might contain useful information also. For a country which is basically hostile to every other country in the world, keeping such a video secret is a good idea. Regardless of whether the plane is real or not.

In-Flight Footage Definitely Shows an RC Plane (1)

thepainguy (1436453) | about a year ago | (#42785051)

Engine sounds like a ducted fan.

Look at how thick the rear wing is (look at where the wing and body meet). Definitely not supersonic. Also, major directional stability issues.

Amazing Plane (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785107)

They Persian specs say:
1) it can transform into a giant shooty robot & a fiery phoenix
2) stocks an anti-gravity drive & cloaking device
3) is armed with a wave-motion gun
4) can make the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs

Production is held up by lack of sonic screw-drivers, and the Mossad have identified a serious design flaw - a small thermal exhaust port. :)

It's for _internal_ propaganda. (2)

Moskit (32486) | about a year ago | (#42785165)

This is obviously targeted at Iranian audience.

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

Re:It's for _internal_ propaganda. (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#42785343)

Pretty much this. Iran had multiple similar vaporware "homegrown" fighter jet projects that are supposed to be operational, and yet they have to use Frogfoots for anti air combat over Persian Gulf.

Re:It's for _internal_ propaganda. (2)

guttentag (313541) | about a year ago | (#42785639)

This is obviously targeted at Iranian audience.

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

Re:It's for _internal_ propaganda. (1)

unkiereamus (1061340) | about a year ago | (#42785759)

This is obviously targeted at Iranian audience.

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

See, that actually sounds much more like something North Korea would do, except for the whole "cable boxes won't work without power" thing....ahh hell, that wouldn't stop them.

Quiz question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785169)

A plane made out of cardboard:

a) will be detected by the radar
b) will not be detected by the radar
c) only the tow line pulling the plane will be detected and the this will render the radar inoperative for the next 12 hours due to the operator rolling on the floor laughing out of bewilderment

aircraft model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785175)

This is completely true " Iranian experts now have the power to design and produce models which best match the country’s needs."
That "model" is truly great and if they ever make it 1:32 I will buy one :-)

Takeoff and landing (1)

jadv (1437949) | about a year ago | (#42785191)

From TFS: "Footage from state TV showed the jet in flight, but not its take-off or landing." It was pushed off a cliff and fell into the sea!

Aww it's so cute! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#42785247)

It's like a little baby F-35!

Reminds me of a "personal sport jet" Burt Rutan designed, can't remember the name of it. It was available in kit form and cost about $150k in mid-'90s dollars to build IIRC. It wasn't a canard design but was about the same size and had the same bubbly cute look.

Looks like a lot of fun, but good luck carrying any meaningful number of missiles on that thing, or fuel for that matter - another big limitation Rutan's personal sport jet shared IIRC.

Re:Aww it's so cute! (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#42785515)

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

Re:Aww it's so cute! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#42785577)

Not that one...it looked like a mini F-14. I might be misremembering it being a Rutan design.

Re:Aww it's so cute! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785753)

I believe you're referring to the BD-10, also by Jim Bede

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96Q8O3B1aWM

Re:Aww it's so cute! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785937)

The bd-10 is probably what you are thinking of. Rutans first homebuilt for market was the VeriViggen, but it doesn't look anything like an f14.

"313" I think it is not a coincidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785399)

Seen that on a licence plate somewhere...
http://img.izismile.com/img/img2/20091110/donald_duck_car_02.jpg

Attn: Iranian Air Force (1)

GigG (887839) | about a year ago | (#42785435)

If you would like to test your new jet please feel free to fly it out to one of carriers. We will be more than happy to have the best radars made test its' stealthiness. We will also test its' combat effectiveness. Signed Commander, US 5th Fleet Manama, Bahrain

Hey, count yourself lucky that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785451)

Count yourself lucky that it isn't an X-303 [youtube.com] instead.
We'd all be screwed then.

Lool (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785571)

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

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

confusing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785661)

is it fake, just model or unflyable mock-up without engine? yeah look like RC, or maybe development of their UAV design. At least they succeed confusing their enemies. So for their enemies, if they have fake fighter, fake rocket, fake nuclear bomb, what to worry about???

The intakes, the intakes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42785667)

Jets gulp air like whale sharks gulp water. Almost every fighter jet you can think of has intakes that you could crawl into. Yet that one has intakes for a cat. I am going to throw out a slightly different guess than most: the jet does fly but by remote control only. That basically the whole thing is a model airplane; no bomb load, no living passenger, no radar, not much fuel, and sub 300mph speeds. If you started cutting into it you would find balsa wood and glue. I am surprised that they didn't put in a better glass cockpit just to make it look better.

But those videos do look a whole lot like a small model airplane flitting about.

And it just hit me the plane looks cool but I thought I had seen it before. It is an updated version of the FireFox airplane from the 1982 Clint Eastwood movie.

NOOOOOOO (2)

Malenx (1453851) | about a year ago | (#42785709)

Oh crap...

This is 300 iterations more advanced than our F13s!

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

I'm not your ordinary, everyday fool... (1)

ScooterComputer (10306) | about a year ago | (#42785961)

I did not RTFA, nor do I want to.

But I have an awesome mental picture of this "damn fine" fighter jet...something akin to the Wagon Queen Family Truckster...with wings.

And I don't want to sully that with another 'fake' reality. Really hope it is painted in metallic paint, though.

I know, I know..."wait until ya FLY it!"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...