(click to view full)
Former Soviet government "news" agency RIA-Novosti reports that Iran has signed a contract with China for the delivery of two squadrons (24) of its J-10 fighter planes, which are powered by Russian engines and avionics. Representatives of the Iran Aircraft Manufacturing Industrial Company said China would deliver the jets during the in 2008-2010 time frame. Novosti adds that "Experts, estimating one fighter at $40 million, put the contract's value at $1 billion." Iran's most advanced fighters are currently MiG-29s, many of which once belonged to Saddam Hussein and fled to Iran during the 1991 Desert Storm war, and a handful of F-14 Tomcats that have been ingeniously maintained over the years.
The Chinese J-10 is based on plans sold by the Israelis in the 1980s, after their Lavi fighter program had been canceled. The massacre at Tiananmen Square ended cooperation with western aerospace firms, however, forcing China to install Russian AL-31FN engines instead of American F100/F110s. This in turn forced a slew of alternations owing to changes to the aircraft's new inlet requirements, weight distribution, center of gravity, et. al. Russian avionics with their own set of space requirements also had to be installed and tested to replace American/Israeli equipment, which led to further design changes. Then there were the indigenous Chinese efforts, including the Type 1473 pulse-Doppler (PD) fire-control radar to replace Israel's Elta or the American APG-68. The end result entered service in 2003 after well over a decade in development, and is a rather different aircraft than the Lavi. Nonetheless, it retains the aircraft's canard-delta layout and some of its capabilities, and its aerodynamic layout and known/reported characteristics suggest an aircraft that is equal or slightly superior to American F-16 C/Ds.
J-10s based near key nuclear bomb development sites, along with new Russian air-defense systems, could complicate Israeli pre-emptive strikes - though many other variables would also come into play for such scenarios.
But first, the deal has to pan out. China is denying the story. Which doesn't necessarily make it untrue, but does make it interesting. See Defense Industry Daily's full report...
Joe,
Since the F-14 article mentions the extremely high maintenance-to-operation ratio of the F-14, I was wondering if it was too off-topic to ask someone like you to explain this to the laymen in the audience like me. What is it about fighter jets that causes such a high maintenance-time requirement?
Kirk:
The F-14 was the most sophisticated fighter plane of its day. The A variant used by the IRIAF uses two TF30-P-414A jet engines. They are troublesome maintenance hogs. Add to that complexities like the variable wing geometry, sophisticated (for the day) weapon and radar systems, a two seat crew arrangement, all of which makes for a lot of maintenance and potential troubleshooting.
The Shah of Iran funded the F-14A for Grumman, at a time when the US was experiencing an economic recession. The Shah was pretty much responsible for the F-14A project not being shelved, and proceeding forward to production with little to no compromise given in terms of cost.
Interesting to see the Iranians possibly ordering the J-10. The IRIAF has been sorely spoiled by its Tomcats. They initially turned their noses at the Folcrum. I've read somewhere on the blogosphere that they've also balked at Flankers. They paid incredible amounts to refurbish their remaining F-14A Tomcats in the 1990's. The last time I've been able to make out a public flyby of IRIAF Tomcats was at the 2005 Tehran Military Day. There were three. Maybe you know of a more recent display, Joe?
Iran is welcome to turn more of their growingly scarce treasure into flying targets as far as i'm concerned. Better than funding another terrorist cell or amping up their nuclear program. We should be encouraging this. They can have those alien saucers from Independence Day so long as they dont have any pilots worth speaking of.
I think it's a mistake to dismiss Iranian pilots. Take a look at the history of the Iran-Iraq war in the air (few of the sources are in English, unfortunately). Both the Iranians and Iraqis displayed considerable élan in the air.
The Syrians, on the other hand, are not to be taken seriously. Mark Buehner's comment is correct in the general sense that you are better off having superior pilots in inferior aircraft than the other way round. Fanboy type "analysts" dive into great depth on the superiority/inferiority of relative aircraft pairs, ignoring that air combat is practically never a Hollywood dogfight of two aircraft.
In the real world, money spent developing nonstealthy combat aircraft (particularly fighters and fighter-bombers) since 1990 or so is money that's being written off as some kind of intermediate R&D project, or money completely wasted.
There are some great strengths to Russian aircraft designs, especially in maintainability/durability. Yet anyone who has the opportunity to A/B compare a Russian aircraft and its Chinese clone will be shocked at how much better the workmanship is on the Chinese bird. (The Russian ships are overdesigned in the expectation that they would be built in Russian factories, on the vodka o'clock shift, and some rivets would miss the spars, etc.; and further, they would be maintained by quasi-literate conscripts. So the Chinese finicky workmanship is not necessary for most of their a/c, which bear a lot of Russian DNA).
It makes sense that the Axis of Evil guys would be looking to their defenses. Their last batch of superweapons (the latest Russian SAMs)doesn't seem to have done the henchmen of the chin-challenged optician much good. They may have missed the real message, though: it's not about the hardware.
"Both the Iranians and Iraqis displayed considerable élan in the air."
Perhaps, although we can debate whether elan in the air gets you any farther than infantry charged got the French in WWI. More importantly, fire power wins the day, and nothing the Iranians own with wings will last the first 15 minutes of a shooting war. They will probably have no idea what killed them, in the air or on the ground. US stand-off technology is simply way to far ahead of Iranian defenses.
Iranian pilots performed well with their Phantoms in the Iran-Iraq war. They bombed Baghdad almost at will.
But taking on the USAF and the Navy in an air superiority battle? Those Chinese jets better be some wonder-working magic carpets.
The Iranian pilots from the Iran-Iraq War benefited from US training. Tomcat pilots managed to rack up over 150 kills. Phantom pilots hit the Osirak reactor months before the IDF/AF. In the air, there really was no comparison between the IRIAF and IrAF.
Gotta expect those original Iranian aces are hitting 60 years of age and older. How well they trained their juniors is an unknown.
Twenty four fighter planes isn't much when you compare it to other fighter plane purchases from countries in the region. Furthermore, I wouldn't expect Chinese pilot and training technical training assistance to be on par with the US or EU, either.
Mark, elan in the air does get you something real, and the Iranian pilots had it. Kevin is right not to dismiss this - the IrAF frequently had to drag the good pilots out of prison during the Iran-Iraq war to get it, as they were the American-trained guys and often loyal to the Shah. But they had it, and it mattered. It has mattered a lot to many other air forces over the years.
The IrADF is now fragmented into a regular air force and a revolutionary guards air force. The competence of either group of pilots is somewhat doubtful these days. In a limited engagement over specific targets, however, when facing a numerically limited force operating near the limits of its range, better equipment can help a lot.
If the equipment is indeed forthcoming - see DID's article for those caveats, including official Chinese denials.
And my dubiousness re: Iran's current pilots doesn't extend to their maintenance folks - I'm impressed by what they've been able to do.
Joe, I'm sure we'll be discussing similar topics on future posts. Just so we're on the same page here, I'll provide a glossary of abbreviations:
IIAF: Imperial Iranian Air Force (The Shah's Air Force)
IRIAF: Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force
IrAF: Iraqi Air Force
IDF/AF: Israeli Air Force (IAF becomes confusing with India)
I'm not sure the IRIAF has been fragmented to the degree you suggest. Do you have a source that reports Pasdaran participation in Iranian air defense other than ground based missiles, UAV's or powered ultra-lights? I'm interested.
An interesting sideline, the indigenous Iranian fighter plane, the Lightning, appears remarkably similar to a civilian sport jet being developed here in the US, also based on the F-5 Freedom Fighter.
I'm somewhat surprised by all of the attention being focused on the possible sale of Chinese J-10 fighters to Iran - a weapon which has not been delivered as of yet, and which (to judge by the protests from the Chinese government) may not be delivered at all.
There are a number of reasons why this sale should not be raising quite so many eyebrows:
- First, Iran has been negotiating some time for the delivery of Russian-made Su-30 fighters - a far more mature warplane than the J-10 is today. Moreover, media reports suggest that the proposed Su-30 sale (for well over 100 jet fighters) would dwarf the sale of J-10 fighters from China.
- Second, while the J-10 might provide an able platform for future development, by all accounts the Chinese still lack the requisite sensor integration and weapons expertise to transform the J-10 from the shell of a jet fighter that it is today, into a truly formidable opponent. Without the sensors, navigation, targeting systems, and weapons to go with it, the J-10 will remain the threat that might have been.
- Finally, the Iranians continue to promote ideology at the expense of capability, when deciding on who will operate, and who will lead their air force. During the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s - as some of us still remember - the Iranians preferred to operate the larger and more maintenance intensive F-4, rather than the F-5 fighters at their disposal. Why? Because the F-4 was a two-seat fighter, allowing them to place an air force pilot in the front seat, and an Iranian Revolutionary Guard officer in the back. The Revolutionary Guard officer, of course, was there with instructions to shoot the pilot should he attempt to defect.
An empire built on such a repressive ideology will find it difficult to train skilled pilots - because it is too busy enforcing its political agenda upon its own populace.
As for the J-10, I recall seeing a more detailed expose on that airplane a year ago - in the British magazine Combat Aircraft. Yes, the airframe has potential, but without the proper avionics and pilots, it's still just a shell.