Talk:IAIO Qaher-313

Coherence concerning the sub-sized models
In the "Design and development" section it is reported that the engineers say they used sub-sized models for testing and demonstration. Then, in "Doubts of viability of aircraft" section it is argued multiple times with different formulations that the radio-controlled model aircraft cannot be a real plane, because it is just a model. This is pointless. The "Doubts of viability of aircraft" section is in need of revision. 2A04:4540:470E:9800:98B8:6961:C1F9:F38C (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it needs nothing more severe than a simple rearrangement. We can split the last 2 paragraphs of "Design and development" off and move them to after the "Doubts of viability of aircraft" section.
 * The problem results from the time gap between the 2013 models and the 2017 mock-up resulting in a non-chronological flow of text, and this is easiest solved by splitting the post-2016 developments into a new section and moving this to the end. Ultimately, whatever news of the project will occur in the future, they will pertain to the 2017 mock-up and its further developments, not to the 2013 models. The 2013 events are basically a closed chapter now, and the texshould be reformatted chronologically to reflect this. 213.182.115.191 (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Developed from MiG-17?
https://medium.com/editors-picks/337fd4ac7a98 “When I was examining the photos of the prototype/mock-up I guessed that they actually cut up an old MiG-17’s wings for it—the wings have a very distinctive plan shape,” Wong added.

Notable enough? Hcobb (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The quote is from someone designing a model for it, not really an expert opinion. - Ahunt (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The size and basic shape are more reminiscent of the Folland Gnat/HAL Ajeet - which indeed WAS a perfectly well designed fighter with a proven war record, albeit from the time before missiles were standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.135.194.50 (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Resemblance to Chinese Shenyang FC-31
I find it interesting how all these "experts" can't seem to find the massive link this plane has to the Shenyang FC-31. The bodies of the plane are literally identical. First of all, how can you talk about and even judge something that you have only seen a photo of? How can you investigate to prove it, it's not possible. Most of the quotes provided by these "commentators" are from anti-Iranian sources, mainly Israeli and anti-Iranian media such as BBC Persian. I'm not for or against this plane, I just find it silly how you can talk about something to the extent where one pretends they plane is their own personal property and they know it back to front. This issue should be talked about, the criticism section of the article doesn't state that there have been no foreigners which have even seen the thing with their own eyes, let alone investigate it. How can they be so certain of the materials of this aircraft? It's nothing but speculation and this should be said. Also, I wanted to include the stark resemblance this plane prototype has with the Shenyang FC-31, please see it if you haven't and we'll discuss it. Migboy123 (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What refs do you have for that? - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Poor quality image
An editor has been edit-warring (and has been warned as such) to include the image at right in the article. I contend that this image is of such poor quality that it is much worse than no image at all. I propose it be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - ZLEA T\C 13:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the user who added this how now been indef blocked and thus won't be participating in this discussion, I think we can close this as a consensus to remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Qaher-313-stealth-fighter-jet-IAIO.jpg

Cancelled?
The article cites Tasnim, the official Iranian news agency for the following "The managing director of the Iran Aviation Industries Organization (IAIO), a subsidiary of the Defense Ministry, announced in a televised interview on 18 February 2023 that the fighter had reached technical maturity but would be reworked and fielded as an unmanned drone " - it seems like the jet fighter was cancelled. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Kentucky Rain24, The director of the Iran Aviation Industries Organization (IAIO) said "the 'unmanned fighter jet' will be ready by 2023." but this didn't happen. Amir Rastegari a high-rank Iranian officer said "there will be 5-th gen fighter jet" (see here in Persian in Tasnim). So I revert your edit and I myself don't know if there will be a Qaher manned fighter or not. -- Iri1388 (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a huge deal, but if the article concludes with a section that says it was cancelled, the lede should probably use 'was", not "is". Alternatively, the article's "Cancellation" section should reflect the uncertainty expressed in what you wrote above, and quote Rastegari. I don;t speak Persian so I don't want to do this myself, Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. So I will revert my own edit and wait to find an English citation. -- Iri1388 (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is the Google translated version of the Tasnim article. The tense we use here should reflect how reliable sources treat this new information; if the unmanned fighter a variant of the Qaher-313 or a distinct yet related type?  If it is the latter, then we likely should create a new article as soon as there are sufficient sources and use past tense to refer to the manned aircraft in this article.  If sources treat it as a variant of the same type, then we should as well and refer to it in the present tense.  Interestingly, the Tasnim article article seems to contradict itself in this regard.  The article is titled "Unseen photo of unmanned drone Qahir 313" and begins with "Qahir 313, which was initially introduced as a fighter, is now going to be used as a stealth drone", implying that the UAV is a variant of the Qaher-313.  On the other hand, it says later in the article, "'Qahir 313' was the name of a manned fighter", implying that the UAV is a separate type with the same name.  As of right now, I think we should treat it as a variant of the manned Qaher-313 unless and until reliable sources report otherwise. -  ZLEA  T \ C 02:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am less concerned with what we do with the new drone (mention it here or create a new article, describe it as a development if the Qaher-313 or as a totally new project), and more with the internal consistency of this article. This article says (at the bottom_ that the Qaher-313 was cancelled - is that not true? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The existing source does not support the claim that the Qaher-313 was canceled, only that it was announced that it would be reworked as a UAV. While it's clear that the manned variant of the Qaher-313 was canceled, the unmanned variant is still in development, so to say that the type as a whole was canceled would be inaccurate unless reliable sources treat the UAV as a distinct type rather than a variant of the original 313. -  ZLEA  T \ C 16:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think turning a planned manned fighter into a UAV is a pretty big distinction. "Variants" of aircraft type are usually things like a different avionics etc...
 * Anyway, as I wrote, the article currently says it was cancelled, so that needs to be fixed if it is not true Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is edited now. -- Iri1388 (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling we will be seeing more cases like this in the not to distant future. We already have cases such as the American QF-4 and QF-16 wher manned fighter aircraft are converted to target drones, but these are technically optionally-piloted aircraft as the cockpit is still intact.  Many sixth-generation fighters such as the Mikoyan PAK DP are already planned to be built in both annex and unmanned variants.  The way we determine if two related aircraft are distinct types is to look at whether reliable sources treat them as such.  For example, the early North American P-51 Mustang and the North American A-36 were virtually identical save for a few adaptions to the attack role, but most reliable sources treat them as distinct types.  The early and late models of the Curtiss P-40 Warhawk, on the other hand differed far more greatly than the P-51/A-36, but reliable sources still treat them as the same type.  Perhaps a more relevant case is the Northrop Grumman MQ-8C Fire Scout, which is a UAV conversion of the Bell 407, but otherwise structurally identical to the latter.  Despite this, sources treat the MQ-8C as a separate type, so we do as well.  As of right now, reliable sources are not giving the unmanned Qaher-313 the same treatment, so we must treat it as a variant unless and until they do.  As for "'Variants' of aircraft type are usually things like a different avionics etc.", that's pretty much what most UAV conversions of manned aircraft are.  Based on the image from Tasnim, the only visible structural change was the removal of the canopy. -  ZLEA  T \ C 18:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)