Talk:HESA Shafaq

Shafaq
Shafaq is an Arabic word not Persian —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeCaire (talk • contribs) 13:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

FACTS
This article sites no sources... Technajunky 23:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

is this a 4th or 4.5th generation fighter? To what aircraft is it comparable?...(Jschager 22:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

-Please Refer to the "Comparable Aircraft?" Section. IMO, it's most comparable to the Su-25 or the T-50. (123)

It's a drawing so it's most comparable to a piece of paper. Maybe when one exists you can compare it to an airplane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.42.251 (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Unit Cost
The "Unit Cost" is listed as "112.000,000US$". This is a strange formatting; in the US the $ sign is put before the numerical amount. It should be formatted as either "$112.000,000 US" or "112.000,000 USD". The other strangeness is the mix of "." and "," in the number. American English and other English dialects have different conventions on this. If we are using US dollars, then the American English conventions would make more sense. In either case, it is not clear what the value is supposed to be. If it should be "112000 + 000/1000" (fractions to avoid ambiguity) then it should be written with only two zeros after the decimal point. However, 112 thousand sounds pretty cheap for a fighter plane, I would guess that the mix of "," and "." is simply carelessness, and the thing really costs 112 million. In this case the number should be written "$112,000,000.00 US" or "112,000,000.00 USD". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.119.245.55 (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

This aircraft is a trainer converted to light strike duties. A 112 million price tag is the cost of a full scale 5th generation fighter. Perhaps it is the estimated full program cost? Or the aircraft is actually projected to cost 11.2 million? --Hrimpurstala (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Article name
I have noticed that in July 2006, somone moved the article from IAMI Shafaq to just plain Shafaq, with the comment "No reason to mention company name infront of every aircraft". Well, actually, there is a reason: WP:AIR naming conventions require either a manufacturer and name, or designation and name for every aircraft article.

I have moved the page back to the original name. If the company name or initials used for the company are wrong, then feel free to move it to the correct company name. - BillCJ 20:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Improvements
I renamed the Introduction section, Development. I tried to clean up some wording in there too. It seems like info is repeated in there. If you can help with this article, please do. -Fnlayson 03:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparable Aircraft?
Not to discredit Iranian engineering, but based on it's apparent size, wouldn't this aircraft be more comparable to recent trainer designs such as the Yak-130 and Mikoyan MiG-AT rather than the likes of Eurofighter or F-22? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gooberliberation (talk • contribs)
 * The Shafaq is described as being sub-sonic. Given that, I don't see how it can be comparable to fighters like the F-22. -Fnlayson 14:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

-It's said to be stealthy, but still, the point remains, I too don't think it's comparable to the f-22 or typhoon

-All in all, I believe that it's probably much more comparable to the Su-25 than anything else, given available statistics. Sub sonic? Definitely not an effective fighter since this isn't the Korean War, and I believe that this aircraft is more of an attacker/trainer rather than a fighter. However, who knows, they may cough up a twin-engined afterburning variant which can be a competent fighter. But as of now, I find it much more comparable to the Su-25, and the Su-25 is definitely no fighter. By the way, does anyone know which variant of the RD-33 the Shafaq is equipped with? given its specifications, I assume it's the non-afterburning RD-33B. Oh, it may also be comparable to the T-50 as well. The Shafaq can probably be summed up as a mix between early variants of the Su-25 and the T-50, but with more negatives of each aircraft than positives... (123)


 * It's probably more comparable to the AMX, A-4, and Harrier, or even the Hawk 200 single-seat "fighter" variant. The A-4 and Harrier were both designed as attack craft, but have fulfilled fighter roles. These are all in the high-subsonic range, rather than the mid-subsonic range of the Su-25. In addition, the F-117 is stealthy, but firmly sub-sonic.

Anyway, as of right now, the Shafaq certainly isn't supersonic, and it's a big stretch to call it a 5th-generation anything, especially a fighter. - BillCJ 19:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree... It's more likely a second or third generation fighter... if a fighter at all. Whatever generation the Su-25 is in terms of attack aircraft, the shafaq is one or two generations before it, or as a trainer, it's probably in the leagues of modern trainers. However, I doubt that it will be a warplane with current specifications. With current specifications, the Saeqeh (pretty much a souped up F-5... similar to the F-20, but with lower specs) is probably going to be Iran's most advanced fighter, and the Shafaq only used as a trainer or light attacker. (123)

I've REALLY found a comparable aircraft this time. The Yak-130 is extremely similar to the shafaq, down to the airframe. Italian and chinese derivatives, the M-346 and L-15, respectively, are classified as trainer/light attack aircraft. This is no fighter, but closer to a trainer with limited attack capability. I also assume that everybody knows that the design is based off of MiG's LFS entry called the I-2000. Additionally, it should be noted that the airframe of the shafaq is much more similar to that of the I-2000 than that of the Yak-130. (123)

Back to the AMX, A-4 and F-117 comparison of the Shafaq, well, the Harrier and A-4 does have fighter capability, but I wouldn't trust either one of them to take on a fourth generation, or maybe even some third generation aircraft. The same shall be applied to the Shafaq. If it was produced in the 1960s, the Shafaq would have been technologically competent, exceeding capabilities of many aircraft of that era. However, half a century later, it's dubious as if we should call it a fighter at all. You don't see people going around calling the Harrier a fighter do you? The Harrier is somewhat capable of taking on low-end fighters, but that's not very viable in the modern era, and you would have trouble justifying the Harrier as a fighter by modern standards. Sure, the Shafaq is also an (light) attack aircraft with very limited fighter capability, but this fighter capability, just like the Harrier, doesn't amount to much. The Harrier/Shafaq may be able to hold its own against... say, North Korean aircraft, but against anything above the third generation, it'll fall like flies. So in essence, the Harrier is a Light attack aircraft at heart, and it cannot be said that the fighter capability of a harrier is a significant feature, muchy like the Shafaq. Tell me yourself, would you calle the Harrier or the Su-25 a true fighter? I didn't think so. The Su-25 is also capable of defending itself with two AAMs, but that wouldn't qualify it as a fighter now, would it? Sure, the AV-8B+ can carry 4 AIM-120s, but to classify the entire Harrier line, ov even the Harrier II line of AV-8Bs, as a fighter, is really a stretch. More of an attack aircraft with limited fighter capability... very limited fighter capability, and as for earlier Harrier variants AV-8B and before, it can't even be classified as a fighter at all, since two IR guided missiles amount to... well, not much. As for the F-117, the fighter designation is a hoax, everyone knows it's a bomber. If you think the F-117 is a fighter... I recommend doing more research. Mind you, the harrier IS an advanced aircraft, it's just that its fighter capabilities does not reach fourth-generation expectations. However, when in the attack role, the Harrier is a very formidable aircraft. It's just not so as a fighter. (123)

question
First, there is no such a thing today : "an aircrafe that was developed by a women" not because she is "she" and not "he", but because of the fact that a development of any jet plane is so complicated and need experties from countless knowledge areas that this is just not possible that one person would be able to do such a thing on its own.
 * Changed to The development team was headed by a female Iranian engineer. Does that suffice? I placed a fact tag on that statement in Feb, and there is still not a souce. There is the screen cap pic of a woman in front of the plane that is supposed to be the engineer in question, so I haven't removed it. If you don't feel this is a sufficient reason to leave the statement, or if you sincerely doubt the statemnet is true at all, feel free to remove the statement. THe burden of proof in such cases in on the one adding the text to verify the claim. - BillCJ 17:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, I dont belive that this plane acctually could fly.
 * If you have a verifiable, credible source to that point, feel free to add and cite it. - BillCJ 17:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thirdly, Iran claimed many times before that it develop many different kinds of weapons on its ows while in fact there is not even one Iranian product that could be considerd as "original" , its allways heavily based on Russian , Chinese or other state knowledge.--Gilisa 16:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So?


 * Well on that account, I guess the Saturn V rocket wasn't an original idea, since it was based off WWII German rocket technology... or for that matter, the B-2 Stealth Bomber is just a US rip off of the Horton Ho IX. 209.60.240.18 15:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

- Yeah, but there's a difference between basing a design on a existing concept and reverse engineering an actual model. Iran likes to brag about their new designs, especially in aircraft, while actually just ripping off American, Chinese and Russian blueprints. --207.81.147.69 (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone, just an interesting note: According to a German article (*.jpgs on the net, there is a translation at the www.acig.com forums) the Eurasia (later Marmeladov OKB) Integral project was supposed to be able to sustain controlled flight at an angle of attack in the 50 degree range using only aerodynamic forces. This is the primary reason for the semi-circular/unswept compound wing configuration. If this is true, and possible, the product of Integral in the form of the Shafagh will certainly be an interesting plane. --Avimimus 02:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 10:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I say the air craft would not be comparable to the f-22. However it is more on the line of the the f-18 and f-16.Also it would be an advanced generation four fighter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.95.92 (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Observing the available specifications, I find it difficult to conclude that a sub-sonic aircraft such as the Shafaq is "comparable" to the F-16 or F-18. It is more akin to a trainer aircraft than a fighter. Its aggressive capabilities don't seem to surpass most modern trainers' anyways, since modern ttrainers are typically capable of launching AAMs (mid range AAMs, in many cases), ASMs, bombs, rockets etc., and also have glass cockpits with modern avionics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.176.98 (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The F-313 reference at the bottom
The article says 'The images of the Qaher-313 suggest that the fighter jet is the off-spring and or further development of the Shafaq project.[3]'.

First of all, the linked article does not say anything about the F-313. Secondly, there is no basis for saying that the F-313 is a 'derivative' of the Shafaq. The general configurations of the two aircraft are completely different so one cannot be a derivative of the other. Finally, the statement is clearly original research.

Since the two aircraft have different configurations, the linked article doesn't actually say what is claimed, and the statement is original research, I would like to remove the entire F-313 reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.206.174 (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Actual designer
It would appear that the original designer, design bureau, Mukhamedov, is still involved in this project, at least as far as to the full size mock-up(the one that was attributed to a female head designer and all iranian design-team, as the Mock-up carries the mukhamedov bureau's Logo). Perhaps this should be in the article, perhaps with a link to http://www.mukhamedov-aircraft.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.206.174 (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on HESA Shafaq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080226045858/http://www.ainonline.com:80/airshow-convention-news/dubai-air-show/single-publication-story/browse/0/article/iran-struggles-to-field-a-fighter/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Bmode%5D=1 to http://www.ainonline.com/airshow-convention-news/dubai-air-show/single-publication-story/browse/0/article/iran-struggles-to-field-a-fighter/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Bmode%5D=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Changed speed
There is no way the Shafaq is only subsonic when it has RD-33's — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdkIdc12345 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Speed is more a factor of aerodynamics than power, although it is actually under-powered for the weight. The refs say it is subsonic - to change this you will need to cite a new ref and preferably not a misinformation source. - Ahunt (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)