Talk:IAIO Qaher-313

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Qaher-313)
Jump to: navigation, search
High traffic

On 4 February 2013, IAIO Qaher-313 was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)

NOT a Forum[edit]

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[edit]

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 ( ). 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 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 ). 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 (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 (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 (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 (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.  — daranzt ] 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. 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 (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


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 source[1]TheLongTone (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)
 Done - Ahunt (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly is the site claiming that this picture (see: ) 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 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could translateعکس-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 from the site There is absolutely no claim the photo is real. Nobody discovered any fake flying Qaher-313. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I must say, this story seems rather thin. As the IP says, seems to attribute the image to, 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 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?-- (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 it has been write "designed by Peyvandha graphics team". See this: 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. 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)


  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. -- (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)

Intended for domestic consumption[edit]

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) 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[edit] (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)تتاتاتاتاتاتاتاتاتاتا

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Developed from MiG-17?[edit] “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)


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)


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 (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 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. - (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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