IRIAF Phantom Firing R-73 Video

[Shahriar0]

 

Obviously it would be great if HB supported that for IRIAF. 

[Kalasnkova74]

1 hour ago, Shahriar0 said:

 

Obviously it would be great if HB supported that for IRIAF. 

It may well be an experimental one-off test: the IRIAF also fired R-27s from the F-14 but found they had limited effectiveness (thus the HAWK adaptations). 

[Silver_Dragon]

On 7/3/2024 at 12:50, Shahriar0 said:

 
Obviously it would be great if HB supported that for IRIAF. 

Without propper docs "open source" has very poor to implement them, similar to the F-14 IRIAF versions.

Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk
 

Edited March 9 by Silver_Dragon

[WarbossPetross]

В 07.03.2024 в 14:50, Shahriar0 сказал:

Obviously it would be great if HB supported that for IRIAF. 

They obviously won't do that, but now that you've shown it I'm sure someone will mod it in. We do have a mod for Hawk missiles on the Tomcat after all.

[qacarxan]

While we are on the wishlist, IRIAF have successfully fired the C-802 antiship missile from the platform as well. More upgrades are discussed here:

https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1398/12/18/2217609/گزارش-تسنیم-از-رادارهای-هواپایه-بومی-جهش-بلند-در-توان-رزمی-اشباح-ایرانی-چشم-و-پنجه-عقاب-ها-تیزتر-می-شود

There are youtubes of the successful test firing. 

I doubt we'll get these since many developers seem reluctant to model any Iranian adaptations, which is frankly a huge loss for the underrepresented REDFOR modules that everyone is always complaining about. If they did, we'd have F-5 with modernized radars and Russian missiles and dual vertical stabilizers, these F-4s, and F-14s with not just the Hawk mod but also the Fakour Aim-54 copy/mod. I appreciate that a lot of this is undocumented, but not all of it is. I know Heatblur has the IRIAF F-14 on the to-do list, so hopefully that will address some of our wishes!

[Dragon1-1]

The problem with IRIAF kit is that it tends to be poorly documented. Even if the documentation does exist on the internet (much of it probably only ever existed in paper form), it'll tend to be in Farsi, which most devs don't speak. Experimental setups might have never had proper documentation at all, especially if they weren't developed further. As such, simulating those systems would be impossible. Fakour in particular is something of an enigma, we don't know if it's more of an AIM-54 or Hawk derivative.

[qacarxan]

I'd be happy to translate if it meant more options. I'm sure many other Farsi-proficient or fluent players would feel the same. 

Some of it really doesn't need much, though, like the C-802 example here, or the R-73. We already have those missiles in-game, we already have documentation of use on Iranian F-4Es, including video evidence; just need to connect the dots at that point. Claims that it's probably just an experiment lack proof of that assertion, whereas the news articles from Iranian government agencies say some of the upgrades are a military-wide upgrade. So I'm not sure why that would be an issue of documentation at all, really, unless video proof and state news agencies are not considered documentation. It's also worth noting that many Iranian press outlets are officially affiliated with the IRGC or other government and military branches, so a press release from them is a direct statement from the respective branch of government/military.

Hope that offers some avenues of exploration or clarity. I love that DCS strives for true simulation rather than guesswork. A big part of my IRL job is scientific research, so sources and empirical evidence matter to me a great deal. Unless we need a signed affidavit from a Western intelligence agency for proof, I think we can meet a rigorous standard while still expanding some modules to have interesting real-world adaptations born of necessity, like Iran's interesting collision of Western and Eastern technologies. Many modules have made some compromises for playability or combined different blocks into one module; this wouldn't even be stretching that far imo. Of course, the final say is Heatblur's, and I'd personally rather have any F-4 at this point than delay them with more work, but maybe once they have a moment some months from now, it could be considered.

[Dragon1-1]

6 hours ago, qacarxan said:

just need to connect the dots at that point.

Herein lies the rub: do we know how the C-802 is actually operated from inside the Phantom? To simulate a weapon system, you need to replicate its switchology, the way it displays its information to the crew, and so on. Is that information actually available? If it's not, don't bother asking HB to make it up.

6 hours ago, qacarxan said:

So I'm not sure why that would be an issue of documentation at all, really, unless video proof and state news agencies are not considered documentation.

They're not. News (even reliable ones) and documentation are different things. A press release or an exterior video are pretty much worthless, what is needed to simulate a weapon system is a proper manual for it. To simulate the C-802 properly, you need a manual explaining how it works, not just proof that it works. We do have the missile itself in DCS, but the hardest part, that is integration with the specific aircraft, is what we don't have. Switchology, launch restrictions, display modes, even things like how the pylons affect the overall drag. You can't get that from some regime stooge blathering on about its latest technical achievement to a largely ignorant journalist. If you do scientific research, then you probably know the difference between a scientific journal and scientific journalism (see certain press outlets going nuts about a new miracle cancer cure every time someone manages to kill a bunch of cells in a petri dish). We need the former, you are offering the latter.

If you can produce actual, detailed, unclassified documentation on how Iranian weapon systems work, then you may be able to have variants that use them.

[Shahriar0]

Good points on both sides. Now, R-73 would be an exception as its adaptation most likely does not require any change in the cockpit in terms of switchology. The techinical aspects such as weight and drag are also known, so adjusting module for its adaptation would be accurate and realistic. What remains is more proof that this missile is actually deployed in service as a standard weapon as opposed to a one-off experiment. Even if such evidence comes to light, I don't see HB jumping to support it. The problem with modding it, of course, is that it will breaks integrity checks and that limits its usage in DCS greatly. 

[LorenLuke]

27 minutes ago, Shahriar0 said:

Good points on both sides. Now, R-73 would be an exception as its adaptation most likely does not require any change in the cockpit in terms of switchology.

While not a bad assumption to make, 'most likely' is doing far too much heavy lifting in this sentence for it to be something up to ED's standards.

[Kalasnkova74]

22 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The problem with IRIAF kit is that it tends to be poorly documented. Even if the documentation does exist on the internet (much of it probably only ever existed in paper form), it'll tend to be in Farsi, which most devs don't speak. Experimental setups might have never had proper documentation at all, especially if they weren't developed further. As such, simulating those systems would be impossible. Fakour in particular is something of an enigma, we don't know if it's more of an AIM-54 or Hawk derivative.

Based on OSINT, the Fakour 90 is probably a HAWK missile adapted to fit an AIM-54 case. Replicating the AIM-54’s guidance logic, radar set, programming, cooling system & other systems to talk to the F-14 “mothership” is probably beyond even the U.S. Navy’s capability to reproduce at this juncture,to say nothing of Iran who don’t have access to that backend support. 
 

The situation is different for the HAWK, as Iran has local production facilities for that missile and is thus very familiar with its technical capabilities. Putting its guts into an AIM-54 case solves the problem of being able to carry just 2 HAWK missiles. 

While that circumstantial background on the Fakour 90 makes sense - at least to me- that narrative is a very long way from having the solid information to program it (or any other Iranian weapon) into DCS with confidence. Anyone who definitively knows how custom Iranian weapons work will not be in a position to legally tell ED, and that’s that. 

[Dragon1-1]

12 hours ago, Shahriar0 said:

Now, R-73 would be an exception as its adaptation most likely does not require any change in the cockpit in terms of switchology. The techinical aspects such as weight and drag are also known, so adjusting module for its adaptation would be accurate and realistic. 

There's still too much we don't know, in particular just how much did they get to work. For instance, does it have all of Sidewinder's functionality, or is something degraded? Like, for instance, SEAM mode, or even things like the HUD cross following the target once the missile is tracking. Even if it does track and lock, we don't know what compromises were made to get it to work. There's probably an ugly hack in the real jet somewhere, which we have no idea how to replicate.

Fakour 90 is most likely an at least partially indigenous missile descended from Hawk and mounted in an AIM-54 case in order to allow the Tomcat to carry it on AIM-54 pylons. It does manage to talk to the Tomcat somehow, so it presumably replicates some of AIM-54's functionality. After all, while very sophisticated for its time, the Phoenix is a rather old missile.

[LanceCriminal86]

It's been stated more than once that they are not going down the road of attempting to add all the random weapons and systems foreign users grafted onto their Phantoms, just the same as the random weapons that have been hung on Tomcats over the decades.

Edited March 10 by LanceCriminal86

[Dragon1-1]

Actually, not many random weapons had been hung on Tomcats over decades, save for a few Iranian ones. Except for US, only Iran used it, and they modified them significantly in order to keep them flying after all these decades. The only things they actually managed to hang on it was the Fakour-90, the Hawk and perhaps the R-73. In all of those cases, we have no idea how far the modifications went or how the pilot interfaced with them. Even Hawk, which is quite well documented, had unknown modifications to make it work with the F-14's radar, not to mention we don't know about their effect on the Tomcat's aerodynamics.

The Phantom, by contrast, was very prolific and had a lot more weapon systems integrated into it by foreign air forces. Tomcat was first of all a fighter, while Phantom spent most of its life as a "mostly bomber" with a wide variety of air to ground loadouts.

Either way, documentation for the modifications is probably hard to get, so I expect HB to stick to the original US variant.

[Naquaii]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Actually, not many random weapons had been hung on Tomcats over decades, save for a few Iranian ones. Except for US, only Iran used it, and they modified them significantly in order to keep them flying after all these decades. The only things they actually managed to hang on it was the Fakour-90, the Hawk and perhaps the R-73. In all of those cases, we have no idea how far the modifications went or how the pilot interfaced with them. Even Hawk, which is quite well documented, had unknown modifications to make it work with the F-14's radar, not to mention we don't know about their effect on the Tomcat's aerodynamics.

The real problem is that in addition to that we don't even know if they actually worked. As in being able to be launched and having it actually track and hit something.

[Dragon1-1]

15 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

The real problem is that in addition to that we don't even know if they actually worked. As in being able to be launched and having it actually track and hit something.

That, at least, we do know, at least about their Hawk version - it tracked, was launched and hit an Iraqi Super Etendard at one point (although of two missiles launched, the first one went dumb). Of all those weird weapon installations, that single one is actually combat-proven. If we had the necessary data, the Hawk would actually be a cool addition to the IRIAF Cat.

[Naquaii]

39 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That, at least, we do know, at least about their Hawk version - it tracked, was launched and hit an Iraqi Super Etendard at one point (although of two missiles launched, the first one went dumb). Of all those weird weapon installations, that single one is actually combat-proven. If we had the necessary data, the Hawk would actually be a cool addition to the IRIAF Cat.

I disagree, I've yet to see any source of that that's not an internet source without any references or second hand knowledge from some interview somewhere. That's just not good enough in my book to be proof of this.

Edited March 11 by Naquaii

[Kalasnkova74]

43 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That, at least, we do know, at least about their Hawk version - it tracked, was launched and hit an Iraqi Super Etendard at one point (although of two missiles launched, the first one went dumb). Of all those weird weapon installations, that single one is actually combat-proven. If we had the necessary data, the Hawk would actually be a cool addition to the IRIAF Cat.

Perhaps. My two cents is it’s not worth the effort to integrate. The Iranians adapted the HAWK because they’d used up their AIM-7 stockpile. With no consistent resupply on the horizon & Iraq modernizing their air force , the IRIAF needed a BVR replacement. The HAWK happened to be available , locally produced, and technically compatible with the F-14s guidance radar. Fortunately for the Iranians, the same company developed the HAWK and the F-14s radar. 

Based on Tom Cooper’s research , the HAWK adaptation had a maximum range of 12 miles, with an effective range slightly less than this (as is true of most radar guided missiles). 

Edited March 11 by Kalasnkova74

[Dragon1-1]

42 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

I disagree, I've yet to see any source of that that's not an internet source without any references or second hand knowledge from some interview somewhere. That's just not good enough in my book to be proof of this.

It was indeed an interview with Col. Mazandarani bragging about his kills, but at least it did come from a guy who flew Tomcats for Iran (and a fairly well known one at that). Also, he did name the Super Etendard's pilot as Captain A. Kamal Hussein, identified the ship as number 4667, and the date as 16.09.1984. I don't have any books on Iran-Iraq war, but I did find a forum post on C-130.net from the man's son stating his father's Super Etendard vanished near Kharj Island on that day (Grim Reapers even ran a reenectment, albeit using the AIM-54). It doesn't mention a Hawk, but it doesn't seem the Iraqi side had any idea what happened. I have no idea how to check whether Iranians were carrying Hawks that day.

@Shahriar0, perhaps you have some sources in Farsi on the matter? Since this incident is so specific, it could perhaps be tracked down. It might not be enough to include the Hawk (mechanization and drag data is still absent), but it's an interesting enough subject that seems to have little English information available.

1 hour ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Based on Tom Cooper’s research , the HAWK adaptation had a maximum range of 12 miles, with an effective range slightly less than this (as is true of most radar guided missiles). 

Col. Mazandarani claims he launched at 20nm, presumably in a high speed, high aspect situation, although he says nothing about the geometry there. That said, I don't know what conditions Tom Cooper assumed, versus what they were in that engagement. TBH, 12nm seems a bit short for something that can go 30nm when launched from the ground. A supersonic launch can really extend your reach with some missiles.

I find this particular adaptation interesting because unlike all others, this was developed and possibly used in actual combat during Iran-Iraq war. It's a much underappreciated conflict, at least as far as Western media go.

[TLTeo]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

TBH, 12nm seems a bit short for something that can go 30nm when launched from the ground

That's only assuming your limit is kinematics, which need not be the case. Maybe the Tomcat's radar just needs a huge return to persuade the Hawk to look in the right direction. This stuff is why proper documentation is needed.

Edited March 11 by TLTeo

[Dragon1-1]

Possible, but the AWG-9 is a ridiculously powerful beast of a radar, so I don't think it's that. Ultimately, the parameters of Hawk's seeker are documented, and so is the power of AWG-9 (which HB is already simulating). Unless Iran modified the seeker significantly (this is where documentation comes in handy, although mind you, that was pretty much a dirty wartime hack), its performance can be determined from existing docs.

We'd need to know what Cooper used to estimate that range in order to say more, however I think that the reason is different: guidance. Hawk doesn't loft, not the version Iran has, anyway. This would cut into the range quite a bit, maybe not get it down to 12nm (unless we're talking sea level performance), but a 20nm effective range, I can easily see. The Super Etendard in the incident mentioned likely didn't maneuver much, the kind of RWR they had supposedly has trouble detecting the AWG-9 properly.

I wonder if Colonel Mazandarani has shared any information beyond that one interview. He was quite involved with making the Hawk work with the F-14, and this information is pretty much only of historical interest at that point, both systems in question are obsolete by now. I don't think Iran has forgotten this war like the West had.

[Shahriar0]

14 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

@Shahriar0, perhaps you have some sources in Farsi on the matter? Since this incident is so specific, it could perhaps be tracked down. It might not be enough to include the Hawk (mechanization and drag data is still absent), but it's an interesting enough subject that seems to have little English information available.

 

I searched the Internet and there is nothing beyond what is known publicly about Fakour-90 (latest variant designated as AIMF-90B). Articles are somewhat high on propaganda (such as missile having higher performance than original AIM-54) and low on useful technical data that can be relied on to model it's performance accurately.

Here is a link to a public article (https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1399/08/18/2385086/گزارش-تسنیم-از-تغییرات-در-مهمترین-موشک-هوابه-هوای-ایرانی-گام-های-بلند-برای-پرکردن-جای-فینیکس). Please use Google translator.

[Dragon1-1]

I wasn't asking about Fakour, I was asking about the Hawk and the engagement on 16.09.1984 when they were supposedly used to kill a Super Etendard. 

Edited March 12 by Dragon1-1

[Shahriar0]

No, I did not find a source corroborating that. Tom Cooper & Farzard Bishop's two books (Iran-Iraq War in the Air, and Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat) only state the number of claimed downed Super Etandards by IRIAF, but do not mention anything about the said engagement on that day.

Col. Mazandarani, however, is a decorated war veteran and an extremely reliable source for that matter (he even responded and corrected one of Showtime112 video's about the first Tomcat kill), so if there is a "video" interview of him claiming the kill, I'll take it with confidence. Having watched several of his interviewes (on YouTube) in the past, I don't immediately recall that recalled engagement. It takes time to search and rewatch his interviews so I can hear first hand about how the engagement and subsequent kill went down. 

[Dragon1-1]

51 minutes ago, Shahriar0 said:

Having watched several of his interviewes (on YouTube) in the past, I don't immediately recall that recalled engagement.

Might be because that one wasn't on video. It was for Hush Kit magazine, and I only saw it in written form:
https://hushkit.net/2020/04/07/interview-with-the-greatest-living-fighter-ace-f-14-tomcat-pilot-col-rtd-fereydoun-a-mazandarani/

He talks at length about flying the F-14 and briefly describes the Hawk adaptation program, in addition to detail on each of his 11 kills. From what you say, if it wasn't for sanctions, he'd probably love to work with HB to keep the IRIAF Tomcat alive in some form.

Edited March 12 by Dragon1-1