Talk:IAIO Qaher-313/Archive 1

Cheap copy of the F-22?
The article states that the BBC thinks it is a cheap copy of the F-22, however it looks more like the Bird of Prey from Boeing Bird_of_Prey_stealth The size of the air intakes relative to the frontal area of the plane seem surprisingly small and the ejection seat seems small compared to the pilot... Latest pictures of Iranian Qaher 313 fighter jet Hschantang (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The guy which has written that analysis for BBC is an Iranian journalist. He is not an aerospace specialist. He is a journalist which writes about politics and almost everything else. See this page http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12289080 : "Cyrus Amini, who worked in Iranian print media in 1998-2003, said the practice was "quite usual and understandable" because of the differences between Western and Iranian culture.". Sarmadys (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems more like one of the F-19 aircraft models. Hcobb (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Our feelings, as an individual, of what it looks like doesn't matter.--98.209.42.117 (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The F-19 Testor aircraft model is very thin and has curved wings, moreover the vertical stabilisers are canted inwards in the F-19. The Iranian version has angular rear wings. Iran reveals new Qaher 313 stealth fighter Hschantang (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You can note that there is now text comparing it to the Boeing Bird of Prey and Have Blue sourced to Flight Global. - Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * X-36 with tails? Mztourist (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Article name
Since we now have a ref indicating that this is built by Iran Aviation Industries Organization, I am thinking as per WikiProject Aircraft/Naming which specifies names for aircraft type articles should follow manufacturer-designation-name, we should move the article to Iran Aviation Industries Organization Qaher-313. - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I oppose. We know too little about this project. I'd stick with the common name in the press for now. gidonb (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Separating discussion of static and flying images
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said "...it's got similar features to the world's most sophisticated jets" here:

There are some indications that this may not be entirely true, but it is difficult to find any facts. To try to clarify whether it really exists and if so, what it is capable of, it might help first to separate discussion of the static images from that of the flying images.

Static images This photo shows the cockpit from the side:

The canopy seems to be of dimpled plastic with a rubber seal around. I don't think this dimpled plastic would provide good visibility for the pilot. There are no locking mechanisms anywhere except perhaps associated with the hinge. I can't see how this canopy would stay in place in flight.

This view of the cockpit looking down from on top, shows that the edge of the cockpit looks like poorly moulded glassfibre.

There are other views which all have a "glassfibrey" feel to them.

Putting these things together, my impression is that this is a mockup. I don't know whether these images were claimed to be a flying aircraft or not, if it is not possible to establish whether they were, would it be reasonable to state that "It appears to be a mockup"? Or is that "original research".--Chris.Bristol (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)--Chris.Bristol (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Chris, if you'd be expressing your own opinion in the article, it would be OR. If you'd be quoting published experts, it'd be fine as longs as you follow the relevant guidelines. gidonb (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Follow the links in the welcome message on your talk page for more information. Happy editing and welcome to Wikipedia! gidonb (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

RC, Sub-sized model or Prototype flight tests
Iranian have not claimed a flight test of a full scale airplane. I carefully checked resources and I could not find such a claim (specific to a full sized prototype).

However the presentations by the head of the design team, apparently mentions that they have built two sub-sized unmanned models. I am adding links to those slides. One of the photos is titled "Sub-sized propeller model" and the other is titled "Sub-sized jet model". Propeller (http://i1024.photobucket.com/albums/y307/sarmadys/250662_10151268717323603_1355114109_n_zpsbee1bdb9.png), Jet (http://i1024.photobucket.com/albums/y307/sarmadys/542333_10151268717468603_1294585182_n_zpsa70a5345.png). I have taken these slides from this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGd0EU-1uYc and the other video shows the model airplane's flight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hSIFPOaILXE Sarmadys (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

why you edit it?
can i ask why are the pics get removed?! they are free... and it don't look like F-22 or 35 or anything else! so i just removed that!! cause the reference say's based on a pic of saeghe the other iranian fighter! Senaps (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The images seem like Non-free content. The source page has a copyright notice at the bottom, and doesn't seem to allow free use of the images (although I don't personally speak Persian, and the machine translations are iffy). If these images are non-free, then we would have to use them under a fair use rationale (which we would have a good claim for here, considering there are no free images of the thing at this point). — daranz [ t ] 21:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the current Iran-United States copyright relations (or, rather, the lack of such) the work is public domain. It's fair; Wikipedia itself is public domain in Iran. 208.118.25.22 (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It might be better to upload them to English Wikipedia under WP:NFCC restrictions using Non-free use rationale to specify use. I assume access to the plane is restricted to military, development, dignitaries and the press at the moment? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The hoax section
I have removed the hoax section and moved the Haaretz references to the "Status of development" section. The status section already covers the doubts that have been raised about the authenticity or efficacy of the aircraft. I'd avoid using the word "hoax," as it may be seen as POVy and and imprecise. "People have pointed out this wouldn't fly" is better than "they lie."

Additionally, I have removed the ShortNews.de ref. ShortNews is a user-driver news aggregator, similar to Reddit or StumbleUpon. The ref was a posting which summarized and linked the already referenced Aviationist article. — daranz [ t ] 04:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Even the assumption that it would not fly is under question. There is photos and videos of smaller models (one with propeller and one with jet engine) that obviously fly. That means the aerodynamics of the design is air-worthy. Besides, in order to judge such a thing certain credentials are needed. News papers with anonymous speculations do not carry weight in that regard. Sarmadys (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that I have eliminated the need for the section by more cautious wording in the body of the article. gidonb (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on. Anyone with half a brain can look at the cockpit photos and realise that this is not an aeroplane, it's a fiberglass mock-up. The introduction should be rephrased to make this clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.255.115 (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We need refs that call it a hoax or mock-up, to look at photos and draw your own conclusions is WP:OR. - Ahunt (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * http://www.timesofisrael.com/irans-cutting-edge-fighter-a-hoax-critics-claim/


 * So yes, it is as fake as an Iranian space monkey. Hcobb (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding that, I have incorporated it into the article. - Ahunt (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Stop adding POV hoax claims. Such claims are not neutral and worthy. This is a wikipedia page, not a freak show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarmadys (talk • contribs) 01:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, some people won't be happy about including that. But, I think it belongs. If it's a quote from an aviation expert (it is), and from a reliable source (it is). Their opinion is noteworthy.--98.209.42.117 (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well we don't build articles based on people being happy, but upon verifiable reliable sources and the Times of Israel is a RS. - Ahunt (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, that's what my post says, I'm supporting it's inclusion.--98.209.42.117 (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

http://www.rferl.org/content/iran-stealth-fighter-questions/24892356.html

A good summary article, but surely not a source itself. Hcobb (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have gathered all of the hoax contributions which were scattered throughout the article (as of earlier today) and formed a new section Doubts of viability of aircraft (generally replacing a previous section headed "Hoax" etc.) and refocused the sections "Design" and "Development Status". That way they design parameters and development status (as far as we know) can be described.  This way there is now (again) a section to discuss the viability and verifiablity of the aircraft.  At least by putting under the heading Doubts... rather than making an outright statement "Hoax" we can hopefully have a more dispassionate discussion of the true status.
 * Enquire (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Text that falsely quotes Israeli experts
This text should be removed from the Wikipedia page about Qaher-313: "Israeli experts doubt the Iranian claims, saying the fighter presented was nothing more than a "very sleek plastic model." They note that the canopy appears to be constructed of "basic plastic," and its engine air intakes are unusually small. They say it gives the impression of plastic parts pasted to an old flying platform. The cockpit and ejection seat seem real, but the Qaher-313 displayed seemed too small to be a capable fighter." The text above claims to give the opinions of Israeli experts when in fact quotes two articles out of which only one has an evaluation from an Israeli aviation expert with an unknown name (see http://www.timesofisrael.com/irans-cutting-edge-fighter-a-hoax-critics-claim/ ). This is what the expert said: "an Israeli aerospace engineer who spoke with The Times of Israel on condition of anonymity said ... the plane displayed by the Iranian press on Saturday ... integrated advanced stealth design with extreme maneuverability. He said that while the Qaher’s design lacked bombing capability, it had the potential to be an effective interceptor capable of defending Iran’s skies from aerial threats. “They need a defensive interceptor that gives them the element of surprise, and it is big enough to carry real air-to-air missiles,” he said." Also the expert doubts the displayed Iranian prototype is a working plane he acknowledges that Qaher-313 has the potential to be an effective interceptor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Israeli Freak Show?
The whole article is converted into a list of claims by Israeli media and sources. This is Wikipedia, not a political freak show.

The excessive POV needs to be removed from the page. Sarmadys (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The article quotes reliable sources. In the case of a subject like this there will be controversies and these should be reflected in the text by showing that experts disagree, not by removing text you don't personally like. - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added a dissenting Israeli opinion that says this is potentially a viable design from a WP:RS. The key is to achieve a good balance of opinions on controversies. - Ahunt (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am removing Isareli POV on the page and will continue to do so. Do not convert the page into an Israeli publication. Sarmadys (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Your large scale deletion of cited criticism of the aircraft has been reverted. If you want to sanitize the article and remove all criticism then you need to gain consensus here first. Since I restored them the current criticisms offer some degree of balance, so I for one oppose removing these criticisms. - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Ahunt, you seem to be a good editor from your edit history, but can you really accept what you just said? Quoting people (even from WP:RS) is not a bullet-proof test as per WP:UNDUE. As Sarmadys just said, this article should not become a "freak show". Iran is destined to become the 4th country in science production by 2018 and is the 9th country to place a domestically built satellite into orbit by using a domestic rocket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.101.219 (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "Iran is destined to become the 4th country in science production by 2018 and is the 9th country to place a domestically built satellite into orbit by using a domestic rocket."
 * Yeah, okay, no NPOV issues with that comment.--98.209.42.117 (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The section about Iran's international ranking in Science and technology does not really matter for the article here but I gave it to provide a context. But for your info it is all sourced to WP:RS. Please read the Science and technology article for the citations. It comes from SCImago, Scopus and others. It is not disputed by anyone serious!

Cyrus Amini of BBC Persian
Cyrus Amini which has written the analysis for BBC Persian (also quoted on BBC English) is not an aerospace professional rather an Iranian journalist (possibly dissident) which writes about politics and almost everything else.

This is an example of the articles he writes, which has nothing to do with aerospace: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12289080 : "Cyrus Amini, who worked in Iranian print media in 1998-2003, said the practice was "quite usual and understandable" because of the differences between Western and Iranian culture."

This guy does not have the credibility of assessing a military aircraft, let alone calling it a cheap copy. This kind of rant from a politics writer does not have any place in a technical article. Sarmadys (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Despite the fact that you may not like his conclusions this is a WP:RS with extensive editorial oversight and meets WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We are not supposed to list the whole WP:RSs in the world just because you like to convert the page into a freak show.Sarmadys (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to read WP:CIVIL to learn how to contribute to articles constructively. Insulting other editors and throwing tantrums to get your own way is not how we build an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Max speed of Qaher-313 is 555 km/h
From one picture inside the cockpit, that shows an air speed indicator that goes up to 300 knots, it appears Qaher-313 flies with no more than 555 km/h. This Iranian plane can be used for ground attack operations or anti ship missions, also it can shoot down helicopters but can not fight against supersonic planes, can not even shoot down a cargo plane.

However, if Qaher-313 is stealth its low speed would not be an impediment for striking any target that moves slower than it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Lower speed in certain aircraft is not a problem when the weapons are advanced, in fact its a pro, like harriers are in some cases. But the speed will be higher than 555 km hr, closer to 1000. At least they are making aircraft not just buying other nations using US tax payers money like the zionists Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * To me, this plane looks no more sophisticated than some kind of a homebuilt jet. The control panel looks very crude, not better than that of some old warbird jets with newer civillian avionics. It will have bad visibility under direct sunlight. Location of air intake and its possible proximity of vortex does mean that it is definitely not a fighter plane.In any case, I would like to see the real flying plane. I would choose a Cessna 182 instead if I were a pilot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noob2013 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Why would you choose a 182? That's nothing but a poor FAC plane. The Long-EZ is more sporty, the DHC-3/3T is an excellent bush plane, a Super Tucano is an actual military plane -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Even someone who is not an aircraft expert can see that this is not a "real" aircraft. As others have pointed out, the intakes are too small (and not stealthy), there is no exhaust nozzle, there are no clamping mechanisms on the canopy, the canopy itself seems to be impossible to actually see through, the avionics do not appear to be on a par with typical modern fighter planes, in fact they don't appear to be real at all, there is no fly-by-wire sytsem, and the structure of the plane appears too small to contain modern avionics and radar assemblies. In short, it's a mockup of something they'd LIKE to build SOMEDAY, kind of like the missiles displayed in that North Korean parade, impressive at a distance, obviously not real to anyone who knows what to look for. Let's stop debating if it's "real"...it's no more real than the latest Loch Ness monster pictures.

Guyonearth (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are in denial. North Korea has just placed a satellite into orbit at the end of 2012, a fact acknowledged by US that detected the satellite circling the earth. How can you claim that their rockets are not real?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Most sources claiming Qaher-313 is not real come from Israel
The majority of cited sources claiming that Qaher-313 is just a propaganda mock-up, not a real plane, that Iran is not capable to build planes, that Qaher-313 has too many obvious design mistakes, comes from media in Israel. We want to see some independent experts outside Iran and Israel evaluating Qaher-313 in a professional way using the language of aerospace engineers not the one of journalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

An assessment of the "prototype"
...that was made by a poster on another forum I'm on.

"No cockpit locking, enlargement of instrument panel shows the ASI is set to a max speed of 270 knts - taken from a turboprop, the inside of the cockpit shows the inside of the external skin - too thin for any sort of flying, the "pilot" had his knees above the cockpit rim, and when standing must have had his feet in the lower skin, the air intakes shown are aerodynamically impossible, but some pics show where they really are disguised. And what size engine could they fit into it? The flying shots are grainy and dark - of an RC model. The aircraft shown has very poor external skin finish - its an underscale mockup of something - in someone's imagination."

...in addition, it's been pointed out that the "cockpit instruments" bear a striking resemblence to those of a Colonial Viper. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * So you're saying it's a Colonial BlackBird? (built from pieces) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is neither a discussion forum nor a place for personal opinions (let alone sci-fi fantasies). We gather facts and credible sources from media and references and put them together. Sarmadys (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I added a lineart of the mockup based on estimations of the pictures. It should be easier now to use aircraft design analysis software to evaluate it. Estimated size without nose pitot probe L 11.26 m W 6.26 m H 3.54 m. Wingspan still seems too short. Somewhat confirms that it was developed based on the Owj Tazarve fuselage and technology. Mightyname (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your good faith effort in producing the line-art drawing, but I have removed it as it falls afoul of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. - Ahunt (talk)

Geo Politics
Maybe we need a section to discuss the geo-politics of Iran, Israel, Syria etc... Comments? Enquire (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. What is the need for that? This should be like all other aviation articles. Is there a particular reason to make an exception? Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 05:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think discussing geopolitics here would skirt dangerously close to WP:SYNTH/OR. While people may draw conclusions about the motivations of the parties involved for making claims or disputing them, we're in no position to write about that unless we actually have reliable sources that describe the political implications of the event and responses to it. And "reliable" means reliable, impartial analysis rather than opinion pieces discussing possible motivations of involved actors. This is already tricky enough to keep NPOV. — daranz [ t ] 06:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a technical topic about an airplane and a flying object. A technical article has nothing to do with politics let alone Geo Politics! Sarmadys (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above comments. My point is there seems to be an edit war going on that reflects the war of words in the real world.  Since someone has posted a neutrality warning at the top of the page, we need to somehow acknowledge the dna of this story, even if only a Wiki-link to another article that discusses the background politics.  (No I don't suggest we discuss politics on this page.)
 * Enquire (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Qaher-313 and Bavar 2 stealth flying boat
It looks like Iran already has experience with stealth flying vehicles, an example being Bavar 2 flying boat that is mass produced (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTIoezhRS3g ). So Qaher-313 did not come out of nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that the Bavar-2 is an ekranoplan rather than a flying boat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavar_2-- I suspect that its only stealth feature is its small size and low cruising altitude. Chris.Bristol (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Just straight angles and flat surfaces make an object stealth
Any object made of flat surfaces, preferably as few as possible, joined together to form a convex polyhedron (like F-117, Bavar 2, Qaher-313) has stealth properties even if it is made of materials that do not absorb any incident radiation and reflect any incoming wave. This is explained by the basic law of reflection. If the object has too many facets then because of diffraction, that appear along edges (joints between two facets), the overall reflected signal increases in strength, which is not good. So, people that claim Qaher-313 can not be stealth just do not understand basic physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Stealth technology is far more complex than you purport it to be, a wide range of technology and methods can be used to give a varying degree of stealth against specific detection measures. This article is based around what is just a fiberglass box with rough visual resemblance of older existing stealth jets. Danrok (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * An ordinary fiber glass box the size of an F-16 and having the shape of a tetrahedron has good stealth properties and is much less visible on radar than an F-16. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

J85 Engine
"Possible" use of J85 for the airplane's engine is not a fact but a very far speculation. Iran has several other options.

- According to Wikipedia itself, Iran has access to new Russian jet engines (RD-33 and many other types), American engines (TF-30 turbofan, J79 and J85 turbojets etc.) and French Snecma 9R-50. Also according Jane's defense a Venezuelan F-16 was transferred to Iran for research. Iran had signed agreement with Russia for 100 RD-33 engines a few years ago (which might have been delivered).

- As documented in Wikipedia, Iran produces localized J-85 engines (for their F5 derived Saeghe fighters) and possibly limited number of TF-30 (for their 30 years old but still operational! fleet). Iran has 40-45 years experience with TF-30 and 20 years experience with RD-33.

This is a "partial" list of engines available to Iran (referenced in Wikipedia pages):

Turbojets: J85 14kN, Snecma Atar 42kN (Mirage F-1), Tumansky R-195 (su-25) 44kN, J79 50kN (F4), AL-21F (su-24) 75kN, Khatchaturov R-35,R-29 (Mig23,27) 83kN

Turbofans: RD33 50kN (Mig-29), TF30 65kN (F-14)

A 1.5 lines reference to J85 is not justifiable since it is only an speculation by a person who has no access to the design team. Sarmadys (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is a reasonable conclusion from a WP:RS and meets WP:V when presented as a quote and not as a fact. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There are several thousands of quotes which match you WP:XXs. Are we supposed to let you abuse them for your trolling? I will start removing your edits if you continue adding such nonsense.Sarmadys (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Remove it without consensus and watch yourself get blocked. It's a quote from a reliable source. You can't use other Wikipedia articles as a source to counter the quote. If you want to include info on other jet engines they could be using, then find a reliable source (that talks about the plane and the engine it could be using) and post it. How difficult is that to understand?--98.209.42.117 (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Although Iran has access to all type of different jet engines, there is one thing that is very peculiar about the Qaher 313...The size of the air intakes compared to the frontal cross section of the aircraft. Take the frontal cross section of any of the aircrafts previously mentionned (F-14, Mirage F-1, Su 24, Mig 29, Mig 23 etc) and you will notice that the size of the intake relative to the rest of the aircraft makes up a significant percentage. Why? Because jet engines need air (oxygen) to burn the impressive amounts of fuel. In the case of the Qaher, the intakes seem a bit too small to provide enough oxygen. I am not saying the Qaher should not be able to fly, just that something is fishy...Hschantang (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As a rule of thumb the intake(s) has(have) to be at least the same frontal area size of the engine's inlet size. The nuzzle size depends on the speed; it can be smaller if it's only subsonic; at least the same size if it's super sonic; and bigger if it's Mach 3 and above. As it is it would be a very weak single engine. Perhaps comparable to the Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet but with only one engine. Mightyname (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, there's the iranian Owj Tazarve that's very comparable in size, engine, and intake. http://network54.com/Realm/tazareve/tazareve2.jpg http://img479.imageshack.us/img479/5326/tazarv21cb.jpg Although, there's a lot of doubt regarding fly worthiness of the displayed mockup it's reasonable to believe a similar looking flying version is possible. Mightyname (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Tazarv is not a prototype and there are several flying version of it. If it flies then it is Airworthy by default. Sarmadys (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You do realize that I meant the 313, and that the similar specifics meant the internals are probably the same but expanded. The 313 is obviously going to be heavier, and slower in the 200-300 kts range. Its excessive glider thick wings and the speedometer are an indication of that assessment. Due to being slow the air flow may be fine for high AoA despite unusual intakes. I wouldn't be to confident, thought. It needs a lot of redesign. The main problem I see are wing area size and center of gravity. It also needs to be 11% bigger to fit people. It still won't be a great plane but I don't see why it can't fly. Mightyname (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

HESA Shafaq
Please take a look at HESA Shafaq and see if it can't be corrected. It seems to claim that the 313 is a derivative, but the source it uses for the claim doesn't say so. Is there a source to corroborate this, or should we just delete that entire section? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reference to Shafaq except in the "see also" list. Sarmadys (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read the article HESA Shafaq, as I stated in my first sentence. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The section at has been deleted. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

When you claim something bring strong evidence
Iranian Saeqeh has two vertical-horizontal stabilizers while Northrop F-5 just a single vertical stabilizer (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5 ) and (see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/HESA_Saeqeh.png ). This is a major modification that changes the entire stability of the plane, so the Iranian jet can not be made just putting together components cannibalized from F-5 planes as somebody claims on this talk page. Saeqeh proves that Iranians are capable to build jet fighters from scratch. There is no reason to maintain they can not make a jet fighter like Qaher-313. - Quote - "They don't manufacture those planes. Those planes are just conversions of the Northrup F-5 they already had in inventory. It's not a plane they designed. They did not manufacture all of the parts. They just slapped another verticle stabilizer on it and upgraded the avionics."


 * He claims they are converted, he needs to prove that. Sarmadys (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * His claim is correct. International industry law state that a product has to be more than 50% produced by a country in that country to be labeled 'made in'.Country of originCertificate of originBuy American Act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightyname (talk • contribs) 12:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * and where is the proof that it is not more than 50% Iranian built? Sarmadys (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:COMMONSENSE, and WP:DUCK. If it looks like a converted F-5, in every since except the twin tails, odds are, that's what it is. The extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence here is the claim it's not F-5 based. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Also note it's the producer's side who have to bring forth the proof not the customers. Mightyname (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If you accuse somebody of wrong doings (for example, accuse Iran of cannibalizing old F-5s, making a slightly different plane out of foreign ready made components and pretending the plane is entirely built in Iran), it is you the one that has to bring solid evidence in support of your accusations, it is not his job to struggle to prove he is innocent. This is the law. If your neighbor flooded your apartment and provoked considerable damage it is you the one who must demonstrate the water really came from him, it is not your neighbour's job to show the flood had nothing to do with him and it had a totally different cause.


 * Sarmadys, by right of order the claim has to give proof first. Besides it is not an accusation of wrong doing. It is an accusation of false claim or deception. Mightyname (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * (1)I am not Sarmadys.(2)Even if it is an accusation of false claims, you have to support with evidence the accusation, because you are accusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Beside the double tail, another evident difference between Saeqeh and F-5 is the shape of air inlets which are at straight angles for Saeqeh (see http://en.trend.az/article_photo/Iran_plane_100911_2.jpg ) and half round for F-5 ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maverick_armed_RSAF_F-5S.jpg ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * @Sarmadys - Practice what you preach comes to mind. Where is your strong evidence to prove that they do build it? You have been going on about this, but have yet to provide definitive proof. When did we start having to provide strong evidence for the talk page? That's just ridiculous. Your inability to prove your claim IS strong evidence of my assertion. This conversation should be closed. It is of no use to the article--98.209.42.117 (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not a discussion board. A country claims it has produced an aircraft and the aircraft is considerably different from existing ones. In order to claim it is not, you need to prove it. Sarmadys (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Bottom line is, if this Saeqeh is a new production, why would you reverse engineer a 50 year old F-5 airframe? They went from producing/coverting an F-5, to producing an all, newly designed, stealth aircraft? Now that's funny.--Dkspartan1 (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Excessively long quotes
Some of the citations now have what seem like excessively long quotes. I have never seen such long quotes before. However I am not aware of anything in WP:MOS; MOS:QUOTE or WP:CT that I found that puts limits on quote length. On the other hand, it seems rather redundant since there is a link to the subject article if the reader is at all curious. Is there consensus here to cull the length of these long quotes in citations? Enquire (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)?


 * Which quotes are you talking about? And why exactly do you think they're long? Are you talking about the length of a single quote? The number of quotes all together? The number of quotes from one reference? Be specific. Thanks.--98.209.42.117 (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If you look at the article, you will see that there are a couple of citations that include rather long quotes. These are the ones I refer to.  Enquire (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In the References list there is no place for quotation. This brakes the rules of Wikipedia.
 * All citations from the text below should disappear, you leave just the title of the article and its source:
 * References
 * "^ a b "Turkey: U.S. Embassy bomber was convicted of terrorism in 1997" (in English). Reuters, Associated Press. Haaretz. 2013-02-02. Retrieved 2013-02-02. "A closer look at the example presented to the regime’s leaders, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi, looks like little more than a glorified mock-up that seems to have been built with leftover props from a cheap science-fiction flick. [...] The blurry video published by the Iranians purporting to show the Qaher 313 in flight seems to show not a manned fighter jet but a small radio-operated drone."
 * ^ Anshel Pfeffer (2013-02-02). "המפציץ החמקן האיראני – כנראה מטוס דמה שלא מסוגל לטוס [Iranian stealth bomber - probably a dummy plane that cannot fly]" (in Hebrew). Haaretz. Retrieved 2013-02-02. "השאלה הרצינית היחידה שמעלה הצגת המטוס, שכמעט בוודאות מעולם לא הופיע על שולחן השרטוט של מהנדס אווירונאוטי, אבל ללא ספק דרש אלפי שעות הפקה של אנשי התעמולה של המשטר, הוא על מי האיראנים מנסים לעבוד? [The only serious question raised by the display of the plane, that almost certainly never appeared on the drawing board of an aeronautical engineer, but certainly demanded thousands of production hours of the regime's propaganda, is who are the Iranians trying to deceive?]"Google translation
 * ^ "Iranian technology: Domestic triumph or monkey business?" (in Hebrew). Israel HaYom. 2013-02-03. Retrieved 2013-02-03. "Officials in Israel's defense establishment cast doubt on the capabilities of the F-313. "Without knowing too much, it looks like the plane has many flaws. Developing a fighter jet is not a simple task. It's quite unlikely that this plane will be a cause of concern for the Israeli Air Force...""" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Quotations ARE a part of the citation template (most or all of them), per:
 * | quote     = quotation here
 * However, here it seems some of the citations include unusually long, possibly excessive, quotations. I am seeking comment on this.  So far, I have not found anything in WP:MOS; MOS:QUOTE; WP:CT; or, elsewhere that discusses this.  Anyone have any comments?
 * Enquire (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The Aviationist and The turkish blog
There are references from the Aviationist and a Turkish blog. None of them seem to be valid references. The Turkish blog has published it's guesses about the panel equipments, which is not necessarily correct, and the link is also a questionable reference.

In regard to the quote that "Iran published list of features" in response to critiques, it is not necessarily in response to critique. The Aviationist quoited the Mehrnews article but even that blog did not say anything about it matching or not matching the mock up. I am therefore removing the phrase "In response to critique" and also the sentence which says the article does not match the mock up. Please do not add or revive if you don't have firm reasons or quotes from valid sources.Sarmadys (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The Aviationist is a journal by David Cenciotti. Didn't you edit calling him and expert before? And now dismissing him when you don't like it? Mightyname (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not. This is a weblog that is being referenced, not a journal. And my objection was specific.Sarmadys (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Cenciotti is a well known published author in this field so his blog meets WP:SPS and is an acceptable ref for Wikipedia use. - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * My objective was specific. The person had added the phrase "In response to critique" and that the weblog says it does not match the mock up. While there was no such conclusions in the weblog.Sarmadys (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, Flightglobal.com is a blog as well and considered a reliable source.--Dkspartan1 (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Turkish website is not validated yet. I have never heard about the person or the website. It has listed a series of guesses about the panels. The Wikipedia editor has also added some personal interpretations in his phrases I guess. I'll invite the editor who added the reference to come here to clarify. Sarmadys (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You asked on my talk page but never replied so I'll copy it from there: It is a Turkish defence blog, the author being (quoting his LinkedIn profile) a "Subject Matter Expert (SME) in defence & aerospace industry, focused on procurement programs, defence and security technology and policies. Interested in Modeling, Simulation & Training (MS&T), C4ISR, naval and aerospace systems." The article hardly consists of a "series of guesses" - if you want, go look up the various products quoted and compare them to a high-resolution photo of the cockpit. The analysis is spot on. You having heard of the person or not is irrelevant. You don't need to personally know every source used in order for them to be acceptable.


 * As for personal interpretation, I simply read the speeds as indicated on the standby airspeed indicator and provided a wikilink to the V speeds article so readers not familiar with the various aircraft speeds can easily understand and verify the claim. I had a better (read: higher resolution) photo used as a reference that showed the numbers a bit more clearly but Anir1uph deleted that stating the photo was not allowed as a reference. Hence the Turkish defence blog instead.BabyNuke (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Clear examples of breaking the rules of Wikipedia
(1) References with quotations beneath, in some cases written in foreign languages, also the page is in English.

Quote "^ Anshel Pfeffer (2013-02-02). "המפציץ החמקן האיראני – כנראה מטוס דמה שלא מסוגל לטוס [Iranian stealth bomber - probably a dummy plane that cannot fly]" (in Hebrew). Haaretz. Retrieved 2013-02-02. "השאלה הרצינית היחידה שמעלה הצגת המטוס, שכמעט בוודאות מעולם לא הופיע על שולחן השרטוט של מהנדס אווירונאוטי, אבל ללא ספק דרש אלפי שעות הפקה של אנשי התעמולה של המשטר, הוא על מי האיראנים מנסים לעבוד? [The only serious question raised by the display of the plane, that almost certainly never appeared on the drawing board of an aeronautical engineer, but certainly demanded thousands of production hours of the regime's propaganda, is who are the Iranians trying to deceive?]"Google translation"

The entire text after "Retrieved 2013-02-02" should be deleted because does not belong to what is called a list of references. It is a citation, forbidden in the reference list.

(2) Offensive and unscientific text, quote "21. ^ "Iranian technology: Domestic triumph or monkey business?"". This should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk • contribs)
 * Can you link to the rule that you believe is being broken? Non-English sources are acceptable (though not preferred for convenience purposes if an English source is available), "offensive" is not a reason for removing a source, and this site does not seem particularly unreliable. VQuakr (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Possibly the use of a quote in a citation, explicitly condoned by the inclusion of a 'quote' paramater in cite templates.TheLongTone (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems this discussion parallels the one above: Excessively long quotes. It does seem redundant to have a long quote when there is a link to the full text.  Also, I have never seen a quote in a foreign language on w:en before.  If any rules are broken, what rules are broken here? Enquire (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal opinions of one Wikipedia editor masked behind so called reliable sources
Even if one quotes true reliable sources, not the case for Qaher-313 page, if that editor takes the paragraphs he likes from those sources he finally obtains a text which is a pure personal opinion despite the fact all phrases are from various articles. So, it is not enough to support your own views with citations to write an objective Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The only reliable and objective sources being Iranian official news agencies? All sources have a point of view: this article reflects the balance of opinion. Get real.TheLongTone (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The key on controversial subjects like this one is to present all points of view expressed by reliable sources, not just parrot the official Iranian government position. Right now there is a fair balance of opinions, even one from an Israeli engineer defending the design. There is always room for more expert opinions from reliable sources on a subject like this but at the present it is moderately well balanced. Also if you check the article history to see who added the text in the criticism section you will find it was added by a number of editors, not just one person and so represents a consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am neither Iranian nor Muslim and I do not defend the Iranian official position. I am an individual with technical background that want to see a real professional analysis of Qaher-313 without any political propaganda mixed up in Qaher-313's Wikipedia page. Qaher-313 looks interesting, not expensive, and suitable for many countries that can not afford to spend hundreds on millions for a single stealth fighter.

Phrases like "The only reliable and objective sources being Iranian official news agencies?" or "not just parrot the official Iranian government position." written by editors show me they hate Iran. In conclusion they can not be objective from the technical point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it possible for you to contribute to Wikipedia without carrying out personal attacks on other editors? You have already been warned three times for personal attacks and your post above puts you very close to a fourth warning and probably a block for it. I would suggest that you read WP:NPA, rewrite your above accusations and then see if you can contribute here without the personal attacks. - Ahunt (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Mentioning official Iranian news sources is nothing to do with whether I am anti-Iran. Its simply that they are a source that presumably is not classed as 'idle gossip'.  I don't believe everything any government source says: as stated all media sources have a point of view, however much they strive to be impartial. The article gives both points of view, making clear who says what, which is proper for WP.TheLongTone (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Iran has the capability to build planes
There is at least a fighter jet made in Iran (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Saeqeh ) which is operational. Someone who claims that Iran is not capable to build planes (Tal Inbar) is in total denial of the reality. This text should be removed: "The Times of Israel labelled the aircraft "a hoax". Israeli aeronautics expert Tal Inbar said, "It’s not a plane, because that’s not how a real plane looks. Iran doesn’t have the ability to build planes. Plain and simple."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an expert quoted in a WP:RS publication expressing his own opinion and the text is presented as such. If other experts disagree then that can also be presented with refs in the text to show that these remarks are controversial. We don't just remove reliably sourced expert opinion because you don't like what he says. - Ahunt (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The so called expert is not aware that Iran is actually building aircrafts? He either trolls or is not aware. In any case we are not supposed to put evidently wrong opinions on the page just because they are some beloved Israeli. Sarmadys (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Where is your proof that they are building jets? You can't use Wikipedia as a source. If you have info from a reliable source, then post it.--98.209.42.117 (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Iran builds the HESA-140 and military planes as well. It is a well known fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.101.219 (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, the claim that the IRAN-140 is built in Iran could be false. I recall a newsrelease at the time the licensing deal was made, stating that the AN-140 was to be built in Iran from CKD kits. I was unable to find it today on the Antonov website, so I won't add it to the article, but it would support that Iran did not have the capability. Perhaps you can find it mentioned in iranian sources. I believe the AN-140 deal was made around 1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.168.11 (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If you dig a little, you will find that the production of the Saeqeh is also suspect. It appears to be nothing more than a conversion of the Northrup F-5's they had in inventory.--98.209.42.117 (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Saeghe and Tazarv References
Production of Saeghe planes is not a claim and it is already established and confirmed by Janes defense and many others. The photos are all over the place. In addition, this photo is of the Omani dignitaries Saeghe production line: http://i1024.photobucket.com/albums/y307/sarmadys/SaeghehFuselegeoman13_zpsad4cc07c.jpg

Furthermore these two photos show 5 or 6 Saeghe (1st version): http://i1024.photobucket.com/albums/y307/sarmadys/SaeqehThunderboltFighterSaeqehSaeghehSaeqeh-80HESAAzarakhshIransfirstdomesticallymanufacturedcombatjetfighterAmericanNorthro_zps6c43ac6a.jpg and  http://i1024.photobucket.com/albums/y307/sarmadys/saeqeh-image5_zps708f93da.jpg, The photos were published before the May 2012 (the date that 3 new planes were delivered, referenced in the article). The new airplanes have slightly new air-intake. That possibly clarifies the "8 Confirmed" production number. Sarmadys (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Photographs have long been not acceptable as references on Wikipedia because interpreting them is WP:OR and also because they are subject to being edited. - Ahunt (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Photographs are not less credible than writings. Show a reference to Wikipedia rule. Besides nobody else in the world produces those airplanes with the unique shape and specifications. They are obviously built in Iran. The Saeghe page and jane's defense are valid and acceptable WP:RS sources.  Sarmadys (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source. Mostly because of unknown authorship. You can't use a Wikipedia article as a primary source.


 * They don't manufacture those planes. Those planes are just conversions of the Northrup F-5 they already had in inventory. It's not a plane they designed. They did not manufacture all of the parts. They just slapped another verticle stabilizer on it and upgraded the avionics. Why have they only made 8 of them?


 * I'm not sure trying to prove they do manufacture planes is relevant to this article. Shouldn't that be in an article about the Iran Defense Industry or something?--98.209.42.117 (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You should prove your claims that they are not productions of Iran. They are considered so by default unless someone proves that false.Sarmadys (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous. An aircraft that looks like an F-5 is considered to be an F-5 until someone proves it isn't, and Iran has built nothing except F-5 variants. This of course raises the probability that they didn't even build them, but just slapped them together from existing parts.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Intended for domestic consumption
Dan Goure of the Lexington Institute has suggested that the display was primarily for domestic consumption and that Iran clearly did not have the capability to actually field such an aircraft."Iran reveals new Qaher 313 stealth fighter."

Is that text agreeable? Hcobb (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Flightglobal.com is a very reliable source and that article contains some very useful quotes from notable people, in addition to your suggested text above. I would support using your suggested wording, but I think that Goure's entire quote is probably worth including, as is Gunzinger's as well. If nothing else both show the sort of analysis that the military technology think tanks have given the aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 March 2013
149.255.38.163 (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)تتاتاتاتاتاتاتاتاتاتا
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ahem
Who would have thought, huh! Moriori (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Great depthof field there. Here's another example of why a picture is not a reliable sourceTheLongTone (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No kidding! That seems like a WP:RS though, so the story and ref should probably be added into the article as part of the aircraft's rollout. - Ahunt (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Ahunt (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly is the site http://www.khouznews.ir/ claiming that this picture (see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9866347/Irans-flight-of-fancy-as-image-of-new-fighter-jet-is-faked.html ) is a real Qaher-313 in flight? If it happens someone find the citation please do not hesitate to inform everybody on this discussion page. If not this text "In mid-February an official Iranian state news agency released a photograph of the Qaher-313 flying over Mount Damavand. The photo was quickly identified as a fake, using a generic photo of the mountain from a popular wallpaper website.[29]" must be removed because it is misleading and in total contradiction with another paragraph that reads "On 10 February 2013, the Iranian Minister of Defense said the claims made by the foreign media about the project are inaccurate and that the engine used by the design had been successfully tested. He also confirmed that the aircraft had not yet been flown, but that taxi and flight tests will occur in the near future.[17]". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone could translate http://www.khouznews.ir/fa/news/28522/عکس-پرواز-جنگنده-قاهر-برفراز-دماوند  Moriori (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting both those links, I added them to the article as refs. We now have the original posting of the photo and two reliable refs on the subject of the photo. - Ahunt (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The picture with Qaher-313 flying not far from a mountain is just an artist impression taken by http://www.khouznews.ir from the site http://peyvandha.ir/. There is absolutely no claim the photo is real. Nobody discovered any fake flying Qaher-313. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I must say, this story seems rather thin. As the IP says, Khouznews.ir seems to attribute the image to Peyvandha.ir, which in turn has a byline that Google translates to "Designed by Graphic Design Links" (dunno what the accuracy of this is). Is there any Iranian government site that specifically tries to pass this off as real, rather than as a pretty picture? For that matter, are either of these sites government related, or private sites, news or otherwise? — Huntster (t @ c) 07:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We have to go with what is verifiable so let's look at the refs and see what they say. The original photo posted on Khouznews.ir has only a caption that indicates that it is a "fighter flying over the usual [scenary]". There is no indication that I can see there that states that this is just an artist's impression, in fact it seems to state that the aircraft is actually flying, although I may have missed some subtleties in the original Farsi caption. The first ref cited states "Iran has been caught out in another Photoshop blunder in an effort to prove its purported stealth fighter jet is the real deal. An Iranian state news agency released a new picture of the radar-dodging jet flying above snow-covered mountains." The second ref cited says "Iran's flight of fancy as image of new fighter jet is 'faked'. Iran has been accused of dissembling after a picture apparently showing its latest fighter jet patrolling the skies was dismissed as a fake." That indicates that at least those two news agencies think that the photo was not released as an artist's conception of what the aircraft would look like if it had flown, but as an attempt to portray that the aircraft had flown. - Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what Wikipedia is degraded to. The title of the photo is "Graphic design - Qaher fighter on damavand", so it is an imaginary graphics design by a fan. Sarmadys (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If that is the case then once the page is opened for editing we can change the text to indicate that the image was published as a "graphic design" and also that the western media interpreted, or misinterpreted, the release differently, as per the three refs already cited. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The real question, is this link is any indication of the original(and unaltered) source material that has been used to make the article or just some WP:OR on part of one of the users?--93.172.182.39 (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Because it is. The title obviously says that. It is an imaginary photo created by a fan. It has been confirmed by MOD and several others that the plane has not even performed Taxi tests, let alone fly.Sarmadys (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is neither an official news agency nor even a news agency. It is just a news website and who knows who is the owner. There are hundreds of these news websites (all run the same basic news software) in Iran. I had personally never heard about the website. Not even once. Of course for those who want to convert the page to a show, it is an opportunity. Sarmadys (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It may have also been posted on other official sites. The cited ref says "An Iranian state news agency released a new picture of the radar-dodging jet flying above snow-covered mountains." - Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see a name of news agency there. The photo was initially published on forums by a few fans. Like the other photoshoped image of the plane where they had modified the wings. There are tens of those photos available on Iranian and foreign forums. On the photo itself on http://peyvandha.ir it has been write "designed by Peyvandha graphics team". See this: http://i1024.photobucket.com/albums/y307/sarmadys/q313-damavand_zps01216134.jpg Sarmadys (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's a link suggesting the photo was created by the Khouz agency itself. Not sure how reliable the source is. But, by the time the article is unlocked, we should have more definitive information. The fact that it was released by a provincial news agency instead of Iran's Ministry of Defense (like the official pics) may lend credence to non-governmental involvement. http://observers.france24.com/content/20130211-iranian-fighter-jet-photoshop-fake-f-313 Dkspartan1 (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you even read the other discussions? The photo is titled "designed by graphics designers of Peyvandha website" and Khoznews which has used the photo is not a news agency. It's a mere news website which uses a popular news software (similar to wordpress and phpBB, but not free, called IranSamaneh). The owner of Khooznews is unknown (the contact page has no phone or address) and it is not even a famous news website.Sarmadys (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Do I even read the other post? Do you think before you post? I'm supporting the contention that the government of Iran didn't have anything to do with the photo. It was the news agency. Just because it says it was made by a graphic arts company, doesn't mean the government didn't order them to make it. Don't burn your bridges on this article, you don't have that many. --Dkspartan1 (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't that also be an assumption, that it was ordered by the government? So far, it seems there's just a lot of here-say, with news reports jumping on this saying one thing, but otherwise there is no actual evidence that this is a government photo. I'm very uncomfortable with this even being added to the article, given the vast amount of speculation regarding its origin. (You know, I feel so strange defending the Iranian government here, since the F-313-being-legit issue seems laughable, but I'd prefer some facts here, opposed to speculation.) — Huntster (t @ c) 11:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at what we know so far I am inclined to agree. It looks like someone, officially authorized or not, did a poor quality photoshop job combining two images and they got picked up and posted on some websites. As User:Sarmadys has pointed out the Iranian govt has admitted the aircraft has not yet flown, so it is unlikely that they had official sanction. Also I like to think if it was sanctioned, that they would have done a better job. Then at least two western media outlets jumped on the photo and denounced it as an obvious fake and more or less jumped to the conclusion that it was part of an official disinformation campaign. Given that, I think User:Huntster may have the best approach, which is to just remove the whole episode as "not notable" and not that relevant to the actual aircraft itself. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

FACTS:
 * 1) Young lad from one forum has published this photo at 6 February 2013 (18 Bahman 1391), with note "It's nice to see how coud look like in the air in the future.".
 * 2) Non-governmental website KhouzNews has copied and published his photo three days later, at 9 February 2013 (21 Bahman 1391), with clearly notion "طرح" ("design").
 * 3) Three days later (12 February 2013), DailyMail has published article claiming it's governmental propaganda that jet can fly.

That's why I removed garbage from encyclopedic article. If insisted, British propaganda by simple-minded journalists can be mentioned. --109.60.9.61 (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said above I think it should be removed. It seems you removed it, but your choice of edit summary wording caused your removal to be reverted. Let me give it a try since I believe we have a consensus here. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Audience
When all is said and done one has to rememberr the intended audience for this show-boating excercise, and it isn't us, but the Iranian public!! This makes all the hoohah about a plastic model make sense.--Petebutt (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV
as previously discussed, many of the articles cited are from countries that have identified Iran as an enemy. Turkey, Israel, USA and UK sources are used. the main points cited in references all seem to share the same argument. The argument is that because the design of the F-313 is not open source, it must be fake. its fairly obvious why this is a ridiculous argument. a state would not openly release design specifications. Furthermore some statements by "experts" are outright ridiculous such as being able to discern the material that the plane is made from. the term "cheap plastic parts" isnt verifiable. many planes are made with composite materials including high tech russian Sukhoi 5th gen and american f-35 jets. not that you can even determine this from a stationary prototype with a coat of paint. other claims such as a breakdown analysis of a mockup or early prototype somehow disproving the development process or externally similar off the shelf components making up the avionics and controls for an early prototype are equally baseless claims. the lack of full open schematics for a secret project under development seems to be the only criticism which is clearly bizzare propaganda from a very warped perspective of the facts available on the subject.

I suggest the article be reduced to a stub considering we just dont know very much about the aircraft because it's a top secret project still under development.

a little piece of history: The USA had trouble convincing their test pilots to get in captured russian aircraft at area 51 early in the cold war years because the US government had so heavily spread word that russian jets were no threat at all because they would fall out of the sky, made of inferior communism, soon after taking off. MIGs proved to be quite capable aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.67.211 (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you only take issue with the "Doubts of viability of aircraft" section then? We are not going to make changes to the article because the sourced content is at odds with your personal analysis. VQuakr (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in any of the cited sources does anyone say that the 313 is not viable because the design is not "open source". No military aircraft designs in any country are publicly available. What you are making here is a "straw man argument". Otherwise the sources quoted are all reliable sources, with reasonable assessments by experts based on the data available on the aircraft. Not all of them are entirely negative, like the last one, if you actually read them. If and when the 313 flies, is built in numbers beyond a prototype and enters service, then these early assessments will be changed to indicate that they are past tense and whatever new information that comes available will be added. In the meantime there is no NPOV issue here. Your use of a straw man argument shows that you just don't agree with the arguments that have been made. - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WRT 'open source' design specifications, with the exception of full black-programme developments, much of the cardinal points specifications of Western aircraft are known years in advance. They don't need to be secret, it's the detail of how they are achieved that is classified. Now Iran is a secretive society, so the lack of detail isn't damning, but suggesting that the gross capabilities of Western designs aren't known in advance either flies in the face of reality. WRT 'cheap plastic parts', the original criticism was apparently specifically directed at the canopy, c.f. "When it was first revealed on 2 February 2013, the original aircraft was immediately met with almost universal derision from the international press with design features that showed the aircraft to be fundamentally flawed. These included (but were not limited to) features that suggested no fly-by-wire control of the aircraft, poorly positioned air inlets, and an almost comically small cockpit (complete with a Perspex canopy)." from the latest Janes article of the taxi trials http://www.janes.com/article/69610/iran-shows-new-footage-of-f-313-stealth-fighter. The canopy and cockpit were symbolic of the problems with the mock-up. The build qulity was so low the canopy was very noticeably hazy and sitting someone in it who was a head taller than the ejection seat and had to squeeze his knees up around his shoulders simply invited derision.


 * The Janes article goes on to note: "many of the previously revealed design flaws remain. These include too small and poorly positioned air inlets that would likely cut air flow to the engines at even the slightest angle-of-attack; a wing-chord that is too thick for high speed performance; a retractable sensor turret that would limit the aircraft's speed when deployed; engines that appear to have no exhaust nozzles; and an overall design configuration that looks far from stealthy in just about every aspect. Aside from the apparent design flaws, a feature of the footage that casts doubt over the veracity of the aircraft is that the rudders do not seem to move in sync with the nosewheel, as should normally be the case."


 * I'm not quite as dismissive as Janes, but the build quality remains diabolically poor for a supposed stealth aircraft - study the pictures of the cockpit framing that are available - and there is no evidence of the flight controls being active in the taxi footage. The sensor turret argues for a planned role as a low-speed close-support aircraft, not the high-end fighter touted at the unveiling of the mock-up - but the lack of a HUD is noticeable. And Janes is definitely right that the inlets being masked at moderate AoA is potentially a very serious problem. These aren't criticisms that are being made because the aircraft is Iranian, they are issues of fact that would raise concerns for an aircraft of any nationality. - 82.11.64.250 (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on IAIO Qaher-313. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130128032540/http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/119463.html to http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/119463.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130206230559/http://mod.ir/content/%D9%87%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%BE%D9%8A%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%8A-%D8%AC%D9%86%DA%AF%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87-%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%B1-313-%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%AA-%D9%88%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AA-%D8%AF%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B9-%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D8%AD%D8%B6%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%B1%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%B3-%D8%AC%D9%85%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%8A-%D8%B4%D8%AF to http://mod.ir/content/%D9%87%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%BE%D9%8A%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%8A-%D8%AC%D9%86%DA%AF%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87-%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%B1-313-%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%AA-%D9%88%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AA-%D8%AF%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B9-%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D8%AD%D8%B6%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%B1%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%B3-%D8%AC%D9%85%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%8A-%D8%B4%D8%AF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

NOT a Forum
Remenmber this is not a Forum on the subject, but a discussion page on the ARTICLE, how it is written, sources, style etc.--Petebutt (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Criticism section is of poor quality, written by an amateur biased against Qaher-313
Quote(1) "some commentators have even claimed that the aircraft is a "hoax", or a “laughable fake”". No justification is given.
 * Were the comments referenced?

Quote(2) "Media sources outside of Iran have raised the possibility that the demonstrated aircraft would not be able to meet stated performance". What do they mean by standard performance? Is there a definition for standard performance of a stealth plane?
 * STATED performance - the performance claimed by the Iranian manufacturers / press.--Petebutt (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Quote(3)"Cyrus Amini ... claiming that the aircraft "looks like a cheap copy of the American F22".". This is F22 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor ). Unlike Qaher-313, F22 has no canard wings, has two engines, has much rounder shapes, it is bigger, the main wings do not have the tips bent down. Qaher-313 and F22 are two totally different planes.
 * poorly written and referenced comments, but accurate!!--Petebutt (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Quote(4) "unnamed Israeli experts say the "indigenous fighter jet" Iran presented on 2 February is nothing more than a "very sleek plastic model"." It is self evident from this photo (see http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5772&d=1359830371 you have to log in with a username you can make) that the cockpit of Qaher-313 is made of fiberglass (composite materials) not plastic. This is quite visible behind the sit.
 * poorly written and referenced comments, but accurate!!--Petebutt (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Quote(5) "Further, the canopy appears to be constructed of "basic plastic,"". Where is the proof that the canopy is ordinary transparent plastic? Even if it is made of plastic used by low speed planes there is nothing wrong with this because Qaher-313 does not fly faster than 260-300 knots.
 * poorly written and referenced comments, but accurate!!--Petebutt (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Quote(6) "The markings on backup airspeed indicator in this photo seem unrealistic, suggesting a stall speed in landing configuration of merely 70 knots and a never exceed speed of about 260 knots; values more likely to be found on a small turboprop aircraft." Qaher-313 is a small plane and the top speed of 260-300 knots (555 km/h) has nothing unusual for a stealth plane. F-117 reached a maximum speed of 993 km/h while aerodynamic, non stealth planes of its size, were supersonic. You always loose a few hundreds km/h if you transform a plane from non stealth to stealth using the technology of straight angles and flat surfaces.
 * The F-117 may not be supersonic due to its aerodynamics, but its top speed of 993km/h is still over two times what is indicated on the airspeed indicator on the Qahar-313 (260 x 1.852 = 482km/h). Such a low top speed and such a low stalling speed simply does not make any sense for a jet aircraft. A dirty stall speed of 70 knots on a military jet? That would be most remarkable! Why do you think many military jet aircraft come with drag chutes? Because they don't fly slow very well! If you can find me an example of a similar sized jet powered aircraft with similar performance figures, please do share.BabyNuke (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The similar jet is this one(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owj_Tazarve ). There is already a discussion about it. Owj_Tazarve jet plane, made in Iran, has a maximum speed of 350 knots and stall speed 85 knots. Qaher-313 is a kind of stealth version of Owj_Tazarve, also a fiberglass plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The top speed is still a good 90 knots higher and the stall speed is also 15 knots higher; and this for a training aircraft. It's not going well if your training aircraft is outperforming your combat aircraft. Also, the Tazarv appears to be smaller (though I will admit to not having exact dimensions of the Qahar-313) and 85 knots does seem reasonable for a small jet trainer like that. But the Qahar-313 is supposed to be a fighter aircraft. To give you an example of some aircraft faster than the Qahar-313 if we're assuming the standby airspeed indicator is correct: Supermarine Spitfire Mk XIV (391 knots), North American P-51 Mustang P-51D (380 knots), Vought F4U Corsair (362 knots), Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-6 (345 knots), Mitsubishi A6M Zero 21 (287 knots). Notice a trend here? These are all Second World War propellor aircraft outperforming this brand new jet fighter.BabyNuke (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The airspeed indicator doesn't mean it has to be that fast just that its speed range is within the meter's range. It cannot be faster but it can be slower. Mightyname (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (1)It is normal that Owj_Tazarve has a top speed 50 to 90 knots higher than Qaher-313 because Qaher-313 is less aerodynamic. This was already discussed.(2) The stall speeds of Qaher-313 (70 knots) and Owj_Tazarve (85 knots) are comparable so there is nothing wrong about Qaher-313. It should be also remarked that the air speed indicator of Qaher-313 shows stall speeds in the range 70-110 knots, so anywhere between the two values it could be a stall speed, depending of altitude and other factors. What is guaranteed, according to the gauge, is that above 110 knots there will not be a stall speed.      — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * poorly written and referenced comments, but accurate!! Your rebuttal is in the realms of fantasy and see above - NOT a forum--Petebutt (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Quote(7) "Its stealth factors are also claimed to be into question, having no visible weapons carrying capability, either internally or externally.". F-117 has also no visible weapons carrying capabilities!
 * poorly written and referenced comments, but accurate!! NOT a forum--Petebutt (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Quote(8) "The Times of Israel labelled the aircraft "a hoax". Israeli aeronautics expert Tal Inbar claimed, "It’s not a plane, because that’s not how a real plane looks.Iran doesn’t have the ability to build planes. Plain and simple."" Just a baseless claim. There is a mountain of evidence that Iran has built planes (already discussed on this talk page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your entire arguement seems to be your disagreement with quoated experts in regards to personal opinion. There is nothing wrong with the article in terms of Wikipedia policy and procedure standards. If you have reliable sources to cite, then include them in the article.--Dkspartan1 (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The laughable fake quote comes from the NY Post, a reliable source. I can assure you compared with what real aircraft designers are saying that that is a fairly gentle if accurate summary. An example is that there is no room in the nose for a worthwhile search or targetting radar. That makes sense for a true stealth a/c but is not much good for a fighter. You can't put the radar behind the pilot as it will microwave him to death.Greglocock (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I know who the experts are. They are you, a man that does not realize that a low speed stealth plane, like Qaher-313, can not have a radar which would made it quite visible and an easy target for high speed fighters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but your personal opinion doesn't matter and for that part, neither does mine. The fact that you don't like what the experts are saying in reliable publications doesn't matter, as you personally don't get to refute their quoted opinions in the article. If other experts disagree in reliable publications than we put both into to show disagreement, which, in fact, we have done - see the the current final paragraph of the "section". Wikipedia is based on verifiable reliable sources, which is what the criticism section quotes from. - Ahunt (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A quick perusal of reliable news sources around the Internet will show you that the doubts about the authenticity of the aircraft are fairly common. If we were to exclude notes about this from the article, we wouldn't be maintaining a very neutral point of view. Removing such statements on the basis of perceived motivations or shortcomings in expertise of the individual sources, if it amounts to removing them entirely and systematically, is the same in the end. Really, if we keep doing this, we won't get anywhere.  — daranz [ t ] 01:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I will agree though that the article - once it can be edited again - could probably do with some improvements. It does strike me as rather messy. Some examples are the discussion on the J85 engine (there's really not a shred of evidence one of those is used and the discussion adds nothing to the article) and the statement that "Iran doesn’t have the ability to build planes." (like it or not, Iran has built various aircraft over the years - this statement coming from an Israeli source has a political undertone to me). Indeed, much of the article I feel has a political undertone to it. There's certainly people out there who'd like to make it seem as ridiculous as possible, while others would rather see it be as impressive as possible.BabyNuke (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * BabyNuke, don't take the following personal. I'm picking you as a representative of people with similar opinion for the sake of discussion. You are biased with your view of modern fighter jets, hence, your view on design is either clouded or lacking. See my other commons on the Owj_Tazarve on this talk page. Whether the design makes sense in terms of its military role or ability doesn't matter for an aviation engineer. It matters for the decision maker. Whether their decision is sensible is another matter, too. Therefore, the primary objective of discussion is if it's flyable. Sure, the mockup isn't exactly convincing but as I commented earlier it does make sense in a different light. Judging by the intakes the J85 is the only suitable engine. Here's someone who summarized it up well and extensively, and specifically narrowed it down. http://aviationintel.com/2013/02/06/my-message-to-the-west-concerning-irans-f-313-fighter-arrogance-can-get-you-killed/ Mightyname (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't even know if the thing has an engine at all (and if it is indeed a mock-up, I'd imagine it doesn't have an engine at this point). Why add in speculation - and it is speculation - on the type of engine? While you state that the intakes suggest the J85 is the only suitable engine, the article also says that "Iran has General Electric J85s as well as a dozen other jet engines as a result of old Northrop F-5s and other American aircraft in its inventory from pre-1979 as well as newer engines from Russia and China." - so the article says there's all sorts of engines available to them but judging by the air inlets you've come to the conclusion that it's the J85? It's speculation and I'd like to think that should be kept to a minimum on wikipedia. My only actual contribution to the article so far has been regarding the avionics and the link you just supplied me with agrees with the suggestion that they are an unlikely choice for this type of aircraft ("Then you have the avionics, they look like some commercially available off the shelf basic EFIS components and some other standard cockpit interfaces and their final configuration still appears to be in flux."). I won't put this in the article because this is pure speculation - but I'm almost willing to put money on it that the standby airspeed indicator has such unusual values simply because they took it from some random aircraft and then crammed it in there to make the cockpit look more believable, not thinking anyone would actually bother to look at the numbers. I think using those speeds in an attempt to try and analyse the potential performance of the aircraft is again pure speculation, because I doubt airspeed indicator was intended to be accurate. That is also speculation, but I think all thinks considered, it is quite likely.


 * I have made no claims about the future viability of this aircraft. Who knows what they'll turn this into over the years to come. If North Korea can successfully do nuclear weapon tests then I'm not going to say Iran can't build an airplane (if anything I noted that as part of my criticism, the quote stating that Iran is incapable of it feels like a statement with a political background to me). All I'm remarking on is the current state of the airplane (which Iran claims is a flying example but most people agree that it's not) and that there is no evidence to support the use of the J85 engine.BabyNuke (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is more than just speculation. We know Iran reversed engineered and is producing the J85. We cannot say for sure for any of the other engines. That part was inserted by certain people. As far as engineering goes there are things like physical limits and laws that result in certain engineering designs and sizes. You can't lie, hide or cheat in these cases. Engine nuzzle, intake, wing angle/area, aircraft size/weight these things give out a lot and they are all significant to performance. Input these into an (professional) aircraft design analysis program and you get a very accurate estimate. Just note that putting any of the other bigger engines, the engines themselves would nearly take the majority of the main body's length. And they will most likely starve on takeoff. Mightyname (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wording issues aside, criticism regarding the model that was unveiled on 2 February 2013 is prevalent in RS(including professional analysis), but this fact for some reason is missing in the lead, violation WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.182.39 (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * -IAIO Qaher-313 16.jpg
 * IAIO Qaher-313 22.jpg
 * IAIO Qaher-313 5.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * IAIO Qaher-313 first prototype taxing test.jpg