قاهر f-313 قاهر F-313

[100 2,715]

سلام
دوستان این صحنه های سیاه و سفید مقارن بود با پخش سخنان رهبری که می فرمودند نیروی هوایی روز سوم جنگ گفت حداکثر تا 15 روز تمامی جنگنده هامون از کار می افته و تا 32 روز هم تمامی هواپیماهای ترابریمون .....

تصویر نداشتند ، این کار رو کردندند ( یعنی روی یک صاعقه رو پوشوندند و ازش فیلم گرفتن و بعد سیاه و سفیدش کردند )

چیز خاصی نبوده ...

[aZ0zA9 229]

بچه ها یک سوال فنی پیش اومده اونم اینکه میراژهای که ما در اختیار داریم از کدوم مدل هستند

[k98 1,157]

[quote name='hossein9' timestamp='1361470477' post='301330']
[quote name='k98' timestamp='1361470072' post='301329']
توجه کردین؟
اولی با دومی ودومی با سومی از نظر دماغه و ورودی هوا تفاوت داره
[url="http://gallery.military.ir/albums/userpics/10099/thumb_bh_trtyb_drn_w_tdhrw1_w_tdhrw2.jpg"]http://gallery.milit...w1_w_tdhrw2.jpg[/url]
[/quote]

متاسفانه میکروسکوپ ندارم که ببینم. عکس خیلی کوچک است.
[/quote]
ببخشیدیه
http://gallery.military.ir/albums/userpics/10099/bh_trtyb_drn_w_tdhrw1_w_tdhrw2.jpg
البته بالها هم فرق داره

[reza2250 951]

[quote][size=4]We can come to an educated guess. Before that, however, we should clear ourselves from the widely standard assumption that "good fighter plane" is defined by "like F 22 or modern Sukhoi".[/size]

Iran is a very peaceful country (proven fact over 100's of years) and they need and want to *defend*. That is one *major* factor that inevitably co-defines weapon designs.
If Iran wanted to attack another country then that would be israel. To do that, Iran had several options; going there with fighter jets is almost certainly not an option they'd consider.
Furthermore, mil. airplanes are not designed to nominally surpass another countries airplanes sepcification (except the us, probably).

So, any new fighter jet must meet (or strive towards) certain criteria.

Other than the us and accordingly some nato countries no country develops weapons and military know-how and routine to engage in the "far abroad" that is, far away from home. This is even more true since very long range and even intercontinental missiles are available.

Any normal, i.e. non psychopathically aggressive country, cares only about 3 zones (in order of declining importance): home, very near abroad and near abroad ("very near abroad" meaning a zone of ca. +-100 miles beyond own ones borders).

And for a simple reason: Typically, conflicts are with neighbouring countries or, at most, within the near abroad (theoretical example: turkey and Egypt).
Therefore btw. most countries do not have certain mil. capabilities such as transporting major amounts of troops across long distances.

So, what does Iran need in terms of mil. airplanes, in particular fighter jets?
The answer is very much co-defined by a) (own) geography and most probable scenarios. there I see:
- defending their country against us/israel/nato aggression
- pro-active defense in the very near and the near abroad (e.g. saudi-arabia)
- israel - which is of no concern here in terms of fighter jets.

Another very important factor is "HOW will potential enemies attack?". The most likely attack would be by the us or israel. Both would work similarly (but with the us capable of more massive attacks). In both cases there would be a first wave by (cruise) missiles, followed by one ore mor more waves of air attacks. For the missiles one needed a good AD system which the Iran almost certainly has.
The air raid waves would be another story. However, it can be assumed that at any point in time there would be 10 to 100 enemy planes involved, and at most 200 (ca. 3 us carriers).

It is important to note that almost certainly the Iranian jets are *not* meant to engage us jets in massive scenarios. That would be taken care of by AD. The jets are quite probably meant to support counterstrikes and, in particular, to support ground forces in defending the *ground*, i.e. when an enemy tries to bring ground forces into the country.
Similarly the Iranian jets would be used if Iran in a defensive move would go for us bases in the near abroad. Considering the fact that western AD is comparatively weak the most realistic scenario is a saturation attack, i.e. sending masses of cheap (and short range, relatively unprecise) missiles to saturate the us AD systems followd up by air raides to do the precision work.

For all that Iran needs a rather simple jet. A reach of 15 - 2000 km is more than enough, speeds in the range of 1500 km/h are sufficient. Important would be to be as stealthy as possible which is why the Iranians actually put emphasis on that. The logic is simple: Iran has excellent strategic facilities provided by nature, the mountainous regions. As long as they stay at home or don't go farther away than 50 to 100 km (which is sufficient for everything in the gulf and the opposite enemy coast with us garrisons and harbours) those simple but half-stealthy jets will do fine.

Looking at the few available pictures one can notice another hint: The impression that those jets are primitive is also based on the absence of gadetry and unneccessary design. Partly they *seem* rude because the Iranians didn't waste money for looks, nice covers and perfection. Which has, next to simpler design jobs, another advantage price. And price translates in military to "massive" - which is a very valid strategy against a technologically superior enemy.

Also don't forget the 80:20 rule in engineering. 20% of the efforts and costs go into the last 20% of finesse and high-tech, which as we can currently experience again with us jets, brings also lots of traps and problems.
While the sukhoi jets nowadays are easily on par with american high-tech they have a "secret of success"; they stem from quite primitive but very reliable designs. Roughly, one could say that americans develop in leaps, often doing (too) large steps. The advantage is high-tech superiority, the disadvantage is lack of reliabilty. The east prefers continous development which is slower but leads to an increasing reliable base where components are steadily enhanced.

Can Iran win a war against the us? Can those new jets fight 1 on 1 against modern us jets? No. Surely not.
But they can inflict mortal damage to basically everyone around Iran and they can drive the costs of war up for the usa, financially, psychologically and in body count.

After all, beyond PR and hollywood, war and burglary have something in common: There is not absolute protection, no matter what you pay for your alert system. And, contrary to marketing brochures, that is not the job of alert systems, fences and security. In real life, experts know that, their job is to increase costs and risks for intruders. In the end, wars are just intrusions on a large scale. The same laws hold true.
And whatever those jets are really capable of ... one thing is sure. They drive up the costs and risks very considerably.

This is btw. a very well proven theory. It is basically the sowjet approach. They didn't have the money to keep up with the usa carrier by carrier, jet by jet. So they concentrated on very few areas, foremost air defense (because that is how the us attack) and missiles, because they are way cheaper, faster, simpler to design and risk-free (you don't risk an expensive pilots life and you have a certain deniability).
The idea is strikingly simple: Destroy an american jet costing 50 mio. dollars with some missiles costing 100 times less. Unless the us found a well of eternal money the *must* loose that game.

Looking at it from this very pragmatic angle (yes, I confess, this is not good enough for hollywood) the Iranian jet - whatever it's capabilities - is a clear sign of luxury and confidence. Because it means that Iran feels that it has enough missiles that are good enough and enough AD systems that are good enough. Designing an building a jet is an extension of basic neccessities, a step to the next level where you do not merely need to somehow defend your country but where you add options and choices - and the option to co-define the events rather than to merely react and defend.

The major asset in Irans cache, however, was, is and will be american hybris and the fact that the us are cheap cowards with a loud mouth.
[/quote]
دوستان کسی میتونه اینو معنی کنه؟

[SoheilEsy 8,828]

[size=6]فکر نکنم ماکت به این جزئیات احتیاجی داشته باشه !!![/size]

[img]http://upload.tehran98.com/img1/tcgluauz04cnltk87hia.jpg[/img]

.
.
.
.
.
.

[size=6]باز هم می گید ماکت هست !؟[/size]

[size=6]اگه میگید !!! به چیزهای دیگر هم اشاره کنم ... [/size]

[100 2,715]

[quote name='reza2250' timestamp='1361535455' post='301410'] [quote][size=4]We can come to an educated guess. Before that, however, we should clear ourselves from the widely standard assumption that "good fighter plane" is defined by "like F 22 or modern Sukhoi".[/size] Iran is a very peaceful country (proven fact over 100's of years) and they need and want to *defend*. That is one *major* factor that inevitably co-defines weapon designs. If Iran wanted to attack another country then that would be israel. To do that, Iran had several options; going there with fighter jets is almost certainly not an option they'd consider. Furthermore, mil. airplanes are not designed to nominally surpass another countries airplanes sepcification (except the us, probably). So, any new fighter jet must meet (or strive towards) certain criteria. Other than the us and accordingly some nato countries no country develops weapons and military know-how and routine to engage in the "far abroad" that is, far away from home. This is even more true since very long range and even intercontinental missiles are available. Any normal, i.e. non psychopathically aggressive country, cares only about 3 zones (in order of declining importance): home, very near abroad and near abroad ("very near abroad" meaning a zone of ca. +-100 miles beyond own ones borders). And for a simple reason: Typically, conflicts are with neighbouring countries or, at most, within the near abroad (theoretical example: turkey and Egypt). Therefore btw. most countries do not have certain mil. capabilities such as transporting major amounts of troops across long distances. So, what does Iran need in terms of mil. airplanes, in particular fighter jets? The answer is very much co-defined by a) (own) geography and most probable scenarios. there I see: - defending their country against us/israel/nato aggression - pro-active defense in the very near and the near abroad (e.g. saudi-arabia) - israel - which is of no concern here in terms of fighter jets. Another very important factor is "HOW will potential enemies attack?". The most likely attack would be by the us or israel. Both would work similarly (but with the us capable of more massive attacks). In both cases there would be a first wave by (cruise) missiles, followed by one ore mor more waves of air attacks. For the missiles one needed a good AD system which the Iran almost certainly has. The air raid waves would be another story. However, it can be assumed that at any point in time there would be 10 to 100 enemy planes involved, and at most 200 (ca. 3 us carriers). It is important to note that almost certainly the Iranian jets are *not* meant to engage us jets in massive scenarios. That would be taken care of by AD. The jets are quite probably meant to support counterstrikes and, in particular, to support ground forces in defending the *ground*, i.e. when an enemy tries to bring ground forces into the country. Similarly the Iranian jets would be used if Iran in a defensive move would go for us bases in the near abroad. Considering the fact that western AD is comparatively weak the most realistic scenario is a saturation attack, i.e. sending masses of cheap (and short range, relatively unprecise) missiles to saturate the us AD systems followd up by air raides to do the precision work. For all that Iran needs a rather simple jet. A reach of 15 - 2000 km is more than enough, speeds in the range of 1500 km/h are sufficient. Important would be to be as stealthy as possible which is why the Iranians actually put emphasis on that. The logic is simple: Iran has excellent strategic facilities provided by nature, the mountainous regions. As long as they stay at home or don't go farther away than 50 to 100 km (which is sufficient for everything in the gulf and the opposite enemy coast with us garrisons and harbours) those simple but half-stealthy jets will do fine. Looking at the few available pictures one can notice another hint: The impression that those jets are primitive is also based on the absence of gadetry and unneccessary design. Partly they *seem* rude because the Iranians didn't waste money for looks, nice covers and perfection. Which has, next to simpler design jobs, another advantage price. And price translates in military to "massive" - which is a very valid strategy against a technologically superior enemy. Also don't forget the 80:20 rule in engineering. 20% of the efforts and costs go into the last 20% of finesse and high-tech, which as we can currently experience again with us jets, brings also lots of traps and problems. While the sukhoi jets nowadays are easily on par with american high-tech they have a "secret of success"; they stem from quite primitive but very reliable designs. Roughly, one could say that americans develop in leaps, often doing (too) large steps. The advantage is high-tech superiority, the disadvantage is lack of reliabilty. The east prefers continous development which is slower but leads to an increasing reliable base where components are steadily enhanced. Can Iran win a war against the us? Can those new jets fight 1 on 1 against modern us jets? No. Surely not. But they can inflict mortal damage to basically everyone around Iran and they can drive the costs of war up for the usa, financially, psychologically and in body count. After all, beyond PR and hollywood, war and burglary have something in common: There is not absolute protection, no matter what you pay for your alert system. And, contrary to marketing brochures, that is not the job of alert systems, fences and security. In real life, experts know that, their job is to increase costs and risks for intruders. In the end, wars are just intrusions on a large scale. The same laws hold true. And whatever those jets are really capable of ... one thing is sure. They drive up the costs and risks very considerably. This is btw. a very well proven theory. It is basically the sowjet approach. They didn't have the money to keep up with the usa carrier by carrier, jet by jet. So they concentrated on very few areas, foremost air defense (because that is how the us attack) and missiles, because they are way cheaper, faster, simpler to design and risk-free (you don't risk an expensive pilots life and you have a certain deniability). The idea is strikingly simple: Destroy an american jet costing 50 mio. dollars with some missiles costing 100 times less. Unless the us found a well of eternal money the *must* loose that game. Looking at it from this very pragmatic angle (yes, I confess, this is not good enough for hollywood) the Iranian jet - whatever it's capabilities - is a clear sign of luxury and confidence. Because it means that Iran feels that it has enough missiles that are good enough and enough AD systems that are good enough. Designing an building a jet is an extension of basic neccessities, a step to the next level where you do not merely need to somehow defend your country but where you add options and choices - and the option to co-define the events rather than to merely react and defend. The major asset in Irans cache, however, was, is and will be american hybris and the fact that the us are cheap cowards with a loud mouth. [/quote] دوستان کسی میتونه اینو معنی کنه؟ [/quote]

سلام ....

در یک کلام می گه که ایران داره بر اساس نیاز های خودش جت طراحی می کنه ....
چون ایران یک کشور صلح طلب هست جنگنده ای که می سازه برای عملیات در سه منطقه هست :
1- آسمان خودش
2- مرزهاش
3- نزدیک مرزهاش ( 50-100 کیلومتری )

بعد کمی در مورد استراتژی حمله ی آمریکا بحث می کنه و ... .

[reza2250 951]

فکر کنم فقط دماغه و صندلی خلبان الکی باشه منظورم از ایر این تیک تا دماغه است باید توجه داشت که پس از رونمایی اعلام شد صندلی خلبان تولید داخل نیست و بعدا نمونه داخلی روش نصب میشه
کسی میدونه دقیقا این چی هست؟؟؟
[url="http://upload.tehran98.com/img1/kx2j8w97l8o2kp30xcr.jpg"]http://upload.tehran...l8o2kp30xcr.jpg[/url] ویرایش شده در اسفند 91 توسط reza2250

[mearaji 733]

[quote name='k98' timestamp='1361522282' post='301368']
[quote name='hossein9' timestamp='1361470477' post='301330']
[quote name='k98' timestamp='1361470072' post='301329']
توجه کردین؟
اولی با دومی ودومی با سومی از نظر دماغه و ورودی هوا تفاوت داره
[url="http://gallery.military.ir/albums/userpics/10099/thumb_bh_trtyb_drn_w_tdhrw1_w_tdhrw2.jpg"]http://gallery.milit...w1_w_tdhrw2.jpg[/url]
[/quote]

متاسفانه میکروسکوپ ندارم که ببینم. عکس خیلی کوچک است.
[/quote]
ببخشیدیه
[url="http://gallery.military.ir/albums/userpics/10099/bh_trtyb_drn_w_tdhrw1_w_tdhrw2.jpg"]http://gallery.milit...w1_w_tdhrw2.jpg[/url]
البته بالها هم فرق داره
[/quote]

برای اینکه اینها پرنده‌های متفاوتی هستن!
اولی درنا هست! دومی تذرو و سومی هم خیلی شبیه [url="http://www.8pic.ir/images/yludcc79nskpovaxcy4.png"]اینه[/url] که یه جت آموزشی هند‌ی‌ست...! ویرایش شده در اسفند 91 توسط mearaji

[m_h8807 484]

[quote name='reza2250' timestamp='1361539841' post='301420']
فکر کنم فقط دماغه و صندلی خلبان الکی باشه منظورم از ایر این تیک تا دماغه است باید توجه داشت که پس از رونمایی اعلام شد صندلی خلبان تولید داخل نیست و بعدا نمونه داخلی روش نصب میشه
کسی میدونه دقیقا این چی هست؟؟؟
[url="http://upload.tehran98.com/img1/kx2j8w97l8o2kp30xcr.jpg"]http://upload.tehran...l8o2kp30xcr.jpg[/url]
[/quote]

این تصویر ذهن آدمو یه جوری منحرف میکنه که انگار قراره اونجا ریل موشک نصب بشه

[reza2250 951]

[quote][color=#000000][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=4][right][background=rgb(248, 248, 255)]كه طي آن با ايجاد [/background][/right][/size][/font][/color][b]تغييرات اساسي در يك نوع هواپيماي ديگر غير از صاعقه، اين هواپيما به يك جنگنده پيشرفته [/b][color=#000000][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=4][right][background=rgb(248, 248, 255)]تبديل خواهد شد كه اين امر نيز در مرحله مطالعات و پژوهش قرار دارد.[/background][/right][/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]
فکر کنم همون قضیه بوده که میخواستن از روی یه جنگنده دیگه بسازن آقا گفته بهتره خودتون بسازید

[IRIAF 3,096]

دوستان فقط راجع به نازل خروجی قاهر توضیح بدید لطفا.منظورم اینه که این قرار نیست هیچ سیستم نازلی مثل اف 4 یا 14 یا میگ29 یا امثال نازل های اونا رو داشته باشه؟

[oldmagina 9,234]

[quote name='IRIAF' timestamp='1361557680' post='301487']
دوستان فقط راجع به نازل خروجی قاهر توضیح بدید لطفا.منظورم اینه که این قرار نیست هیچ سیستم نازلی مثل اف 4 یا 14 یا میگ29 یا امثال نازل های اونا رو داشته باشه؟
[/quote]
سلام
نازلی که شما می فرمائید قسمتی از موتور محسوب می شود و تا موجود نبودن تصویری از قاهر با موتور نمیشه هیچ نظری در مورد شکل اون داد .
چیز جالبی که بعد از رونمایی تا حالا فکر منو مشغول کرده امکان جا دادن دو موتور توی قاهر بود که البته راحت میشه خروجی اش رو با تغییرات کم جا داد ولی داستان کوچک بودن ورودی رو . . . . ویرایش شده در اسفند 91 توسط oldmagina

[maysam2007 863]

با سلام خدمت دوستان.


تشکر می کنم از همه بزرگواران برای اینکه ما رو از اطلاعات و دانش خودتون بهره مند کردین.

دو تا نکته درمورد این پرنده به ذهنم میرسه که امیدوارم اگه اشتباه می کنم دوستان راهنمایی کنن.

1) پرواز در ارتفاع پست که درمورد این پرنده به اون خیلی تاکید شده بیشتر در دریا صادقه تا خشکی. فکر می کنم بهتره در تحلیل ها این نکته رو هم درنظر داشته باشیم. ارتفاع کم در سطح دریا همون جاییه که معمولا به عنوان نقطه کور راداری ازش یاد میشه. بنابراین؛ درگیری با هلی کوپترها، جنگنده های دشمن در مرحله برخاستن از روی ناو، و احتمالا درگیری با خود ناو فکر می کنم می تون جزو ماموریت های اصلی این پرنده باشن.

2) فکر می کنم دور از انصافه که هم منتظر پرواز این پرنده در کمتر از چند سال باشیم و هم اون رو با f35 یا f22 مقایسه کنیم.
بنده این حالت رو متصورم: این جنگنده با همین کیفیت بدنه و احتمالا با امکاناتی کم و درحد یه پرنده نسل 4 (حداکثر) به زودی عملیاتی میشه و درکنار صاعقه، نیازهای کوتاه مدت نیروی هوایی رو برطرف می کنه. همزمان کارهای تحقیقاتی روی اون ادامه پیدا می کنه تا در میان مدت یا بلند مدت تبدیل به یه نسل 5 واقعی بشه. بدین ترتیب هم به قول وزیر محترم دفاع، به زودی عملیاتی میشه و هزینه تعمیر و نگهداری اون پایینه (که این مورد در یه نسل 5 غیرممکنه) و هم پایه بسیار خوبی برای نسل 5 خواهد بود (و خلبانان نیاز به آموزش زیاد نخواهند داشت. چرا که همین هواپیما با همین ظاهر یا تغییرات خیلی جزئی به مرور زمان و با نصب امکانات جدید و بهینه سازی ها تبدیل به نسل 5 میشه.)


یا حق

[MERCEDES 26]

چیزی که همون نکاه اول آزار دهنده بود ککپیت خلبان بود که خیلی ساده بود (تو پست قبلی هم بهش اشاره کردم)

تو ویکی هم بهش اشاره شده = «[url="http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A2%D8%A6%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%AF%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%DA%A9"]آئرودینامیک[/url] غیر قابل قبول و زیبایی [url="http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%84%DB%8C%D9%88%D9%88%D8%AF"]هالیوودی[/url]» برخوردار است و به طرز خنده آوری برای ایفای نقش یک جت جنگنده کوچک است. به گفته وی کابین خلبان بسیار ساده تر از کابین یک جنگنده پیشرفته است و به کابین هواپیماهای کوچک شخصی شباهت دارد. دماغه هواپیما هم کوچکتر از آن است که بتوان [url="http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1"]راداری[/url] در آن قرار داد. ورودی‌های هوا بیش از اندازه کوچک هستند و هیچ نوع اگزوز خروجی برای قسمت موتور وجود ندارد و اگر از [url="http://fa.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D9%BE%D8%B3_%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B2_%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B1&action=edit&redlink=1&preload=%D8%A7%D9%84%DA%AF%D9%88:%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%AF+%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87/%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86%E2%80%8C%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%AF%DB%8C&editintro=%D8%A7%D9%84%DA%AF%D9%88:%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%AF+%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87/%D8%A7%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%AA%E2%80%8C%D9%86%D9%88%D8%AA%DB%8C%D8%B3&summary=%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%AF+%DB%8C%DA%A9+%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87+%D9%86%D9%88+%D8%A7%D8%B2+%D8%B7%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%82+%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%AF%DA%AF%D8%B1&nosummary=&prefix=&minor=&create=%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%AA+%DA%A9%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%86+%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87+%D8%AC%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%AF"]پس سوز موتور[/url] استفاده شود کل جت ذوب خواهد شد. وی هم معتقد است که قاهر-۳۱۳ در مجموع شبیه یک مدل آزمایشی بزرگ است

حالا باز هم بیاید منفی بدید

[Skyhawk 16,544]

[quote]به طرز خنده آوری برای ایفای نقش یک جت جنگنده کوچک است. [/quote]
اونوقت باید به اف 5- گریپن و جنگنده های مشابه هم خندید چراکه همشون تقریبا هم اندازه هستن!

[quote] به گفته وی کابین خلبان بسیار ساده تر از کابین یک جنگنده پیشرفته است و به کابین هواپیماهای کوچک شخصی شباهت دارد. [/quote]
کاکپیت نشون داده شده برای آزمایش های اولیه هست و برای نمونه رزمی کاکپیت بهتری در دست ساخت هست!

[quote] دماغه هواپیما هم کوچکتر از آن است که بتوان راداری در آن قرار داد. [/quote]
چرا میشه!
حتی میشه راداری براش طراحی کرد که برد بالای 100 کیلومتر برای اهدافی با سطح مقطع 0.1 متر مربع داشته باشه! مثلا موشک aim 188 با راداری به قطر کمتر از 20 سانتی متر میتونه 0.1 متر مربع رو از 40 کیلومتری شناسایی کنه!
[img]http://gallery.military.ir/albums/userpics/10222/h~0.png[/img]

همانگونه که قبلا ذکر شد سیستم موج میلیمتری در موشک هارم مدل E توانسته است با ایجاد شکل هندسی نزدیک به شکل هدف و تحلیل آن – در جلوگیری از انحراف موشک نقش مهمی را ایفاء کند
این توانمندی در این موشک نیز استفاده شده و موشک در هردو هوابه هوا و هوا به زمین از این رادار استفاده می کند – برد این رادار درحالت هوا به هوابا سطح مقطع 0.1 متر مربع معادل 40 کیلومتر می باشد .
[url="http://www.military.ir/forums/topic/21478-طراحی-مفهومی-یک-موشک-هوا-به-هوای-جدید-قسمت-سوم-وآ/page__st__15"]http://www.military....وآ/page__st__15[/url]

[quote] ورودی‌های هوا بیش از اندازه کوچک هستند و هیچ نوع اگزوز خروجی برای قسمت موتور وجود ندارد و اگر از پس سوز موتور استفاده شود کل جت ذوب خواهد شد.[/quote]
ورودی هواش باید نسبت به موتورش سنجیده بشه و با توجه به نبودن مشخصات موتور نمیشه نظر کاملی داد ولی احتمالا همین ورودی های هوا براش کافی بوده که بزرگترش نکردن و یا شاید با زاویه حمله(بالای 26 درجه) ارتباط داشته باشه!
اما در مورد حرارت موتور و ذوب شدن بدنه شاید بشه گفت که هنوز موتوری رو قاهر نمایش داده شده نصب نبوده و در آیند شاید موتوری با نازل مشابه موتورF-119 قراره رو قاهر نصب بشه!
[img]http://gallery.military.ir/albums/userpics/10145/43125045674141471173.jpg[/img]