Iranian Qaher-313 "indigenous fighter jet" and drone versions

Ainen said:
I wonder if it is that hard for Iranian shipyards to move the damn bridge to the right and open proper ship axis to aviation use.
Click to expand...

Problem is they're using a converted commercial ship. That's the commercial ship's superstructure, so I'm not sure how much effort they'd require to delete it and relocate part of it. Interior of the hull is mostly "hollow", so maybe moving a superstructure/island to the starboard side would create balance issues making it simpler to just leave it this way.
 
Not this piece of rubbish again? When will they learn? If they are serious about getting a stealth fighter they should buy the Su-75 at least that has better stealth qualities than the Qaher-313.
 
Arjen said:
The yellow thingy seems like the most practical vehicle of the lot.
Click to expand...
I wonder.
Furthest one seem to be prototype(or maybe demonstrator?)
Closer pair is made with more... attention to details, and carries bort numbers.

My personal theory ATM that original qaher was(skipping all pr) an attempt at light attack aircraft. It failed, probably partially due to engines. Development of Iranian UCAVs gave it a second lease of life though.

Now they reuse established aerodynamics in two drone types - suicide and strike ones(more or less reusable CTOL cruise missile). Jet engine service life and reliability matters much less without man onboard.
 
Last edited:
SOC said:
Problem is they're using a converted commercial ship. That's the commercial ship's superstructure, so I'm not sure how much effort they'd require to delete it and relocate part of it. Interior of the hull is mostly "hollow", so maybe moving a superstructure/island to the starboard side would create balance issues making it simpler to just leave it this way.
Click to expand...
The UK converted 20-ish merchants, both grain carriers and tankers, to axial flightdecks during WWII - the MAC ships. Cut down the deckhouse, slap a flight deck on as the next deck up. If it's doable in numbers in a strained wartime economy, then it's doable by Iran.

You can reduce an island to a very small nav position (CVEs, MAC ships), hang it under the front of the flightdeck (Furious), or even have it retractable (also Furious, Bearn). Weight doesn't have to be an issue. I suspect volume may actually be more relevant, shunting the superstructure, and crew quarters, below decks would eat into the hangar volume.

Using an off-axis flight-deck does have the advantage of creating a deck-park area and doing it without the complications of needing a barrier and shuffling everything from bow to stern and back depending on whether you're currently having aircraft landing-on or taking-off.
 
Ainen said:
View attachment 758559
As if not enough, bigger ones themselves are different.
Click to expand...
It's like a spot the difference puzzle, the longer you look the more differences you spot!

60-01 (closest): 'Stay Clear*' on nose aligned fore-and-aft, numeric(?) white marking angled across nose and front of canopy fairing, red hazard stripe flush with lip of intake, Bort number ?0-01 on lower nose, nosewheel secured with tensionable(?) blue strap from tie-down in front of aircraft, wrapped a couple of times around gear leg and then fastened to portside tie-down, scissor link on nose gear to rear, yellow marking with yellow text just aft of nosewheel, short airbrake(?) with black external lock(?) to front port crossing to a red circle, very small circular flush intake** just under the 'AS' of 'JAS', similar intake level with front of tail with large text string above, white circle on spine flush, small antenna just aft of white circle, two small orange dots just aft of the antenna, no roundel on wing, 'stay clear' on wingtip, two small protusions above external(!) rudder actuator (or lock?***) on starboard fin, small white marking next to them on rudder, vertically aligned text string across hexagonal mounting plate for rudder actuator/lock on starboard vertical fin, four dots on outside of port rudder matching position of actuator/lock on inside of starboard (really hope those aren't bolt heads!), Bort number 60-01 on upper port fin, two protusions on tops of fins (lights?)

60-02 (middle): 'Stay Clear' on nose aligned with edge of chine, white marking angled across fuselage and aft of canopy fairing, red hazard stripe flush with lip of intake, Bort Number 60-02 on lower nose, nose-gear secured with orange strap from tie-down under aircraft, wrapped multiple times around any part of the gear in reach, scissor link on nose gear to rear, yellow marking with yellow text just aft of nosewheel, short airbrake(?) with bronze-y external lock(?) to front port crossing to a red circle, somewhat larger oval flush intake just below 'AS' of 'JAS', similar intake level with front of tail with large text string above, white circle on spine raised and with protuding fairing to rear, no antenna behind it, no orange dots, no roundel on wing, 'stay clear' on wingtip, no protusions above rudder actuator/lock, no text across hexagonal plate, white square on outside of port rudder matching position of actuator/lock on inside of starboard, Bort number 60-02 on upper port fin, no lights on top of fins.

Long nose (furthest): Longer nose, larger canopy/fairing. Very small marking, presumably 'Stay Clear', on nose aligned with edge of chine, red warning triangle under front of canopy/fairing, red hazard stripe with white text set back from lip of intake, no Bort number, nosewheel secured with neat orange strap from tie-down under aircraft to front of scissor-link, scissor-link to front of undercarriage leg, yellow marking with no text forward of nose-wheel, different main undercarriage leg, very small round flush intake level with front of airbrake with the long text string seen on the aft intakes on 60-01 and 60-02, similar intake forward of front of tail with large text string above, extra NACA flush intake level with front of tail, long airbrake, white text aligned across airbrake/fuselage join, white text on airbrake, lighter patch with text above at front port corner of airbrake, kink in tie-down strap at that point may suggest something underneath, truncated red circle on airbrake centreline, no white circle on spine, no small antenna, no orange dots, roundel on wing, possibly very weathered 'stay clear' in small text on wingtip, no protusions above rudder actuator/lock, no text across hexagonal plate, no marking on outside of port rudder, no Bort number on fin, no protusions on tops of fins.

Despite the long nose showing some possible signs of weathering and being the older aircraft, it seems to have the best tie down arrangement.

ETA: Changed ?0-01/2 to 60-01/2 based on pics in BullpupRafale's post.

* Because 'Stay clear' is also on the wingtips, I don't think it's anything to do with whether there's a radar in the nose.

** Could be an intake, could be a sensor port, could be a lifting shackle point, could be a tie-down point (but if the last, why aren't they using it).

*** Could be a lock, but 'no remove before' flight tag, and it's somewhere you could forget.
 
Last edited:
Eureka ! All of sudden it all makes sense in my head. It's the famous flying rabbit of Qaherbannog ! Iran weapon of mass destruction. They have already tested it in the past, notably in Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_rabbit#As_an_introduced_species

Rabbit of Caerbannog - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The name "Caerbannog", though fictitious, does reference real-world Welsh naming traditions: the element caer means 'castle', as in Caerdydd (Cardiff) and Caerphilly, and bannog can have a variety of meanings, the most apposite here being "turreted".
Click to expand...

Makes sense, it is a turreted drone fighter with the aerodynamics of a castle, hence its name. Dropping ferocious rabbits - death awaits us all with nasty, big, pointy teeth!

That Qaher is dynamite !
 
Last edited:
BullpupRafale said:
Very ironic is commentary of you two, neither of you learned anything as evident by your commentary.

Speak volumes about both of you when comes to capacity to actually learn something.
Click to expand...
The video shows some mockups of a 60% scale Qaher-313 drone, then switches to footage of a small RC model version taking off. Seems like a bait and switch to me.

The 60% scale drone looks much more sensible than the original "manned" version however.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
The video shows some mockups of a 60% scale Qaher-313 drone, then switches to footage of a small RC model version taking off. Seems like a bait and switch to me.
Click to expand...
Because it seems to you that jumps to desired conclusion instead of recognizing that small "RC" model is sub-scale UAV of what could be an UCAV hence former is for training such as take off's and landing's from the carrier, far less fuel is consumed and if a loss occurs it is far less costly as too in end there is a reason militaries around world have trainer aircraft, propeller, jet and advanced jet trainers.
overscan (PaulMM) said:
The 60% scale drone looks much more sensible than the original "manned" version however.
Click to expand...
More sensible with industrial capability that Iran has, would be different story if Iran could have imported AL-222-25K that would have been bare minimum for Qaher F-313 to be viable. Something like newest SM-100 if it had afterburner section would be ideal for it.
 
BullpupRafale said:
Because it seems to you that jumps to desired conclusion instead of recognizing that small "RC" model is sub-scale UAV of what could be an UCAV hence former is for training such as take off's and landing's from the carrier, far less fuel is consumed and if a loss occurs it is far less costly as too in end there is a reason militaries around world have trainer aircraft, propeller, jet and advanced jet trainers.
Click to expand...
We have no idea if the larger UCAV exists in flyable form.
 
Something can be possible, without actually existing.

I don't doubt Iran could make a flying drone based on 60% scaled Qaher layout. Does that mean it has? Nope.

I'm not going to assume it exists until there is evidence it does. It it exists, why not show it flying?
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Something can be possible, without actually existing.

I don't doubt Iran could make a flying drone based on 60% scaled Qaher layout. Does that mean it has? Nope.

I'm not going to assume it exists until there is evidence it does. It it exists, why not show it flying?
Click to expand...
If it exists? It is on carrier deck and you can see it unless you choose to deny its presence thus go contrary to evidence you call upon.

For them not showing it flying is irrelevant as Iran has industrial base and experience with relevant technologies for use in Qaher UAV.
Let alone unmanned Qaher has been reported nearly two years ago when it was announced manned aircraft reworked as unmanned.
Whole Qaher project started over a decade ago and we see downscaled airframe of 60% and 20% for UAV(UCAV?) and trainer UAV.
Between 2013 and 2025, Iran has newly manufactured F-5 Tiger II's, indigenous Yasin trainer jets, cloned J85-GE-21 and FJ33 for example.
MALE UCAV such as Shahed 129, 149 Gaza and 191 in active operational service. Any doubt at very core requires denial of any or all these.

They will show flying when they want to, for all I care they do it bit by bit to tease and later show more to humiliate those that doubt them.

If someone has experience making standard firearm and made an improvised one, anyone would not assume such improvised firearm does not work just because it was something they have not seen before or not seen it in action yet. Same thing is applicable to countries when some weapon system is shown, others know next to nothing about it yet just in case they develop analogue or some counter to it.

Anyway if anyone has experience and or knowledge with securing aircraft on carrier deck, if possible to have rough estimate of weight of 60% scale Qaher UAV(UCAV?) would be appreciated, at very least of possible empty weight of such unmanned aircraft if guess plausible.

EDIT:
1738876479155.png

Anyway if we ignore rudders and landing gear then fuselage of 60% scale Qaher might be from 70 to 80 centimeters tall.
Assuming reporter is 175cm as average an in Iran thought by proportions of their body seems taller than that.
 
Last edited:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
We have no idea if the larger UCAV exists in flyable form.
Click to expand...
The elementary military logic strongly suggest, that even if it did not exist (which is doubtful) USA & Israel & Saudi Arabia should assume that it did exist. Because, you know, it's always safer to OVERestimate your opponents than to UNDERestimate them. Self-reassuring denial was a cause of many military disasters.
 
When China stuck a mockup of the J-35 on a carrier some years back did we all assume the J-35 was completed and flyable? Nope. It was evidence a development program probably existed, for sure, but not more than that.

Qaher program (separate from other Iranian programs) has a track record of misleading claims, lies and mistakes, so this new development should be viewed with scepticism. Even if built, it could be no more than a fancy-looking Shahed.

There's a large gulf between an RC model and a working UCAV.
 
BullpupRafale said:
Because it seems to you that jumps to desired conclusion instead of recognizing that small "RC" model is sub-scale UAV of what could be an UCAV hence former is for training such as take off's and landing's from the carrier, far less fuel is consumed and if a loss occurs it is far less costly as too in end there is a reason militaries around world have trainer aircraft, propeller, jet and advanced jet trainers.
Click to expand...

I’ll recognize that the “sub scale UAV” of a “UCAV” is really just a FOD hazard.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Qaher program (separate from other Iranian programs) has a track record of misleading claims, lies and mistakes, so this new development should be viewed with scepticism. Even if built, it could be no more than a fancy-looking Shahed.
Click to expand...
I have followed Qaher 313 from very beginning as I started developing interest in open source intelligence and being a military watcher.
What you assert could not be further from truth as it is western media that made many bold assertions about Qaher 313 project.
Not their designers nor their politicians, not that you have in memory the timeline of the project as it went to begin with.

Qaher 313 was unveiled in 2013 and first examples of reverse engineered J85-GE-21 engine were made in 2016 with second showcase of Qaher 313 being 2017 with runway taxing test being shown and as for those mistakes. You use such as argument against Qaher 313 being viable project yet either you do not know or intentionally omit those mistakes pointed out were on initial mockup from 2013 unlike prototype from 2017 that had rectified all of those. Are you going to assert that Iran claimed Qaher F-313 is going to be mass produced when in reality what was stated is final production design being completed before more testing of the design is being done?

Very clear to me some individuals here believe Qaher F-313 was suppose to be 5th generation fighter jet on level of F-35 when goal of project was to create more survivable fighter jet that could be produced domestically instead of clones of F-5 Tiger II. At very least against those of 4th generation and what industry could produce with expertise and knowledge it has as evident by some F-5 Tiger II parts used.

Source
Elsewhere, General Dehqan underlined that the final stage of the production of the home-made Qaher 313 fighter jet has ended, adding that the plane is ready for different tests.

Qaher is a logistic aircraft for short distances and is a light fighter jet used for military and training operations. Some military analysts have stated that Qaher is a fifith generation aircraft.
Click to expand...
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Something can be possible, without actually existing.

I don't doubt Iran could make a flying drone based on 60% scaled Qaher layout. Does that mean it has? Nope.

I'm not going to assume it exists until there is evidence it does. It it exists, why not show it flying?
Click to expand...
But would you even accept that tho?
I cant help but remember the case of the new DPRK drones where despite an initial video showing video clips of these drones flying being posted,a certain member of this forum still said they thought:
"my feeling tells me it looks most fishy like a CG only"
 
Sineva said:
But would you even accept that tho?
I cant help but remember the case of the new DPRK drones where despite an initial video showing video clips of these drones flying being posted,a certain member of this forum still said they thought:
"my feeling tells me it looks most fishy like a CG only"
Click to expand...
That was not me, so what relevance does it have here?
 
Sineva said:
"my feeling tells me it looks most fishy like a CG only"
Click to expand...
For anyone curious the Post being referenced.

Anyone that focuses on Iran without prejudice can empathize with those on DPRK(North Korea) and vice versa about certain kind of people proclaiming this or that is fake or faked, CG used and what not. Inevitably those get proven wrong because they consumed propaganda that relies on blatant lying and half truth to make it seem credible while spreading disinformation/misinformation.

What RT/Russia Today is to western world, the media of western world is to Iran, DPRK and other countries of 3rd world/global south.

For now we are aware of 20% and 60% scale Qaher while question should be if 100% scale Qaher as UAV/UCAV is considered or not.
Especially if Iran could purchase engines or even get transfer of technology for turbofans from Russia. SM-100 would be rather ideal.
440kg engine with 3300kg dry thrust and if there was afterburner section, 560kg weight and perhaps 5500kg wet thrust.

Anyway 20% Qaher trainer UAV and 60% UAV(UCAV) are on drone carrier, for now at least, curious if 60% ever gets deployed on land.

overscan (PaulMM) said:
That was not me, so what relevance does it have here?
Click to expand...
It is not you yet relevance for you could be said to be is to learn from mistakes others have made, but that is up to you if you do or not.
 
TEHRAN, Feb. 2 (MNA) – In the anniversary of Iran's 1979 Revolution, Iranian president unveils indigenous Qaher 313 (Conquer) fighter jet, developed by Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics.
Brig. Gen. Ahmad Vahidi, congratulated the great achievement of Iran, saying that “this is the major breakthrough towards the fulfillment of the Supreme Leader’s insights,” and added “all design and production process of Qaher (Conquer) 313 indigenous fighter jet has been done by Iranian Aerial Defense Industries Organization and their professional scientists.”

In describing the physical characteristics of the Qaher 313, Vahidi said; “this is an advance fighter jet, with enhanced profile and a very small Radar cross section (RCS) and fly-by in low altitude is the most important feature of this fighter.” He also pointed to the need for short runway for taking off and landing of Qaher 313 fighter as another feature.

Brig. Gen. Vahidi outlined the use of advanced materials in aircraft construction and using advance avionics in the Qaher 313 fighter jet cockpit.

Defense Minister also stressed on the payload capabilities and ability to carry the latest indigenous advanced armaments and said “Qaher 313 fighter jet is outstanding symbol of ingenuity, creativity and courage of professional Iranians in Defense Ministry.”
Click to expand...
What was shown was a crude fibreglass mockup with commercial light aircraft instruments of a design which made little structural or aerodynamic sense.

Given this starting point, it seems wise to have at least some reservations about the program.
 
Last edited:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
That was not me, so what relevance does it have here?
Click to expand...
That sadly some people here apparently seem far more biased than skeptical,or perhaps they merely just dont know the difference.
None the less,if a video was released of the 60% scale ucav flying would that satisfy your skepticism,or would you be just like the quoted nameless forum poster saying it looks "most fishy like a CG only"?
I am asking this as a genuine question by the way.
 
If the video appeared genuine, of course. There's nothing really outside of Iran's demonstrated capabilities required to build such a thing.

It's still right to be sceptical of videos and photos of uncertain provenance though. @Deino has regular fanmade fake CGI stuff to sift through with respect to China.
 


Write your reply...

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom