'Bavar-373 superior to Russian S-300s

[gambit]

Only people without any IQ would try and say we are not capable of doing that.

So how is it more 'advanced'?

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

So how is it more 'advanced'?

The s-300 is old technology, it not that heard for iran to get its hand on the technology, but the same thing can be said about the usa, so iran must had somehow made it better and changed it so usa would not be able to counter it that easily.

 

[gambit]

The s-300 is old technology, it not that heard for iran to get its hand on the technology, but the same thing can be said about the usa, so iran must had somehow made it better and changed it so usa would not be able to counter it that easily.

Somehow...Hmmm...Too bad for you most of us are not that gullible here.

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

Somehow...Hmmm...Too bad for you most of us are not that gullible here.

I said somehow because i dont work for the Iranians bavar-373 projects and dont know about it.

 

[gambit]

I said somehow because i dont work for the Iranians bavar-373 projects and dont know about it.

You do not have to work for the Iranian government to exercise some critical thinking. Nothing is perfect. Everything is an exercise in engineering compromises. That mean the S-300 has shortcomings. All the Iranians has to do is explain a few of those shortcomings and how they were compensated, or avoided, or even unconsidered because of something else superior without revealing anything 'classified'.

I am going to give you an example of how I speculated about the Chinese DF-21 supposedly 'carrier killer' on how it works...

===
1- The latest variant of the DF-21 has reaction thrust steering mechanisms. The radar system is high PRF X-band with a scan limit of 60deg. due to nosecone dimension. Since the target is moving, proportional navigation is employed to provide continuous target track. Despite the fact that the target is moving at only 33 knots, the PN guidance output is then converted to bang-bang guidance commands to provide the vehicle with near instant lateral acceleration to reduce interception probability by air defense missiles. Due to vehicle structural constraints, bang-bang guidance commands are limited to 10g. Standard fighter aircraft air to air missiles, because of their smaller warhead, can have bang-bang guidance forces up to 40g with no catastrophic structural failure.

2- Given the developmental maturity of ballistic defense missile system like the latest US SM-3, it is determined that the best execution altitude for vehicle deceleration for evasive maneuvers to be at 25 km above ground level (AGL). The longer the vehicle remains static, it will provide air defense radars with consistent vehicle profile and descent rate, also with the lower altitude, the higher air density would not allow the 10g evasive maneuvers, therefore the greater the odds of a successful interception. Further, this 10g bang-bang guidance limit is necessary to prevent the vehicle's radar system from losing target line-of-sight (LoS).

3- If this vehicle is used against fixed land targets that has air defense deployments, the vehicle can afford to lose target LoS with higher g-rating evasive maneuvers as target geo-coordinates are also fixed in memory. The vehicle will remember heading offset and deviation rate and can make appropriate return bang-bang guidance commands for the radar to reacquire target information. Against a moving target, even though one moving at only 33 knots, the current technology level does not afford the vehicle to lose a moving target LoS.

4- The latest US SM-3 missile is capable of reaching speed of 9600km/h with a climb rate of 5km/h in altitude, making early descent phase evasive maneuvers important to reduce interception probability. Missile against aircraft engagements typically occurs at or below 10km altitude, making feasible aerodynamic forces exploitation. But because this vehicle will begin to execute evasive maneuvers at very thin air altitude that reduces aerodynamic forces exploitation effectiveness, reaction thrust mechanisms are necessary and this will cost vehicle warhead payload.

5- During development, in post evasive maneuvers analysis, an interface was thought to be required between bang-bang to proportional navigation guidance. Velocity compensated proportional navigation guidance (VCPN) was briefly tested as that interface and but was found to offer statistically negligible improvement in target tracking and guidance. Target lead angle and its rate change are nowhere as extreme as in a missile versus aircraft engagement and any vehicle descent rate change is already reflected in closing speed calculations. Therefore, it was decided to use only proportional and bang-bang navigation guidance methods.

6- Another developmental exploration was the order of guidance laws. The program decided to conduct dual testings. One strategy was bang-bang guidance for initial vehicle-target orientation, evasive maneuvers, then switches to PN guidance at 2km AGL. A parallel strategy has the reverse, PN for initial vehicle-target orientation and bang-bang guidance for evasive maneuvers. It was found that because bang-bang guidance is already sensitive to LoS change and rate of change, hardware related LoS noise can induce evasive maneuvers thrust command oscillations as the guidance laws attempt to null the LoS rate after every execution. This condition is similar to constantly oversteering an automobile, either due to driver ability or steering mechanism 'slop'. When PN guidance takes over at 2km AGL, the program recorded a higher miss rate than the pn_bang-bang strategy. In some instances, the vehicle's radar could not reacquire the target after several violent maneuvers to evade air defense missiles.
===

I do not need to be 100% correct. You can take keywords and phrases like 'proportional navigation' or 'target line of sight' or 'system noise' to any avionics engineer, specifically the gent that works on the navigation system, and he will know exactly what I am talking about. So even if I am completely wrong about how the DF-21 works, I will not be wrong about the components, hardware and software, and how they could integrate to make it work. The engineer will know that my speculation is based upon known devices, physical and virtual, and known principles of navigation and guidance.

Absent anything even halfway of what I speculated, whatever the Iranians claimed should be taken as suspect. This is why no engineering professionals take press.tv seriously.

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

You do not have to work for the Iranian government to exercise some critical thinking. Nothing is perfect. Everything is an exercise in engineering compromises. That mean the S-300 has shortcomings. All the Iranians has to do is explain a few of those shortcomings and how they were compensated, or avoided, or even unconsidered because of something else superior without revealing anything 'classified'.

I am going to give you an example of how I speculated about the Chinese DF-21 supposedly 'carrier killer' on how it works...

===
1- The latest variant of the DF-21 has reaction thrust steering mechanisms. The radar system is high PRF X-band with a scan limit of 60deg. due to nosecone dimension. Since the target is moving, proportional navigation is employed to provide continuous target track. Despite the fact that the target is moving at only 33 knots, the PN guidance output is then converted to bang-bang guidance commands to provide the vehicle with near instant lateral acceleration to reduce interception probability by air defense missiles. Due to vehicle structural constraints, bang-bang guidance commands are limited to 10g. Standard fighter aircraft air to air missiles, because of their smaller warhead, can have bang-bang guidance forces up to 40g with no catastrophic structural failure.

2- Given the developmental maturity of ballistic defense missile system like the latest US SM-3, it is determined that the best execution altitude for vehicle deceleration for evasive maneuvers to be at 25 km above ground level (AGL). The longer the vehicle remains static, it will provide air defense radars with consistent vehicle profile and descent rate, also with the lower altitude, the higher air density would not allow the 10g evasive maneuvers, therefore the greater the odds of a successful interception. Further, this 10g bang-bang guidance limit is necessary to prevent the vehicle's radar system from losing target line-of-sight (LoS).

3- If this vehicle is used against fixed land targets that has air defense deployments, the vehicle can afford to lose target LoS with higher g-rating evasive maneuvers as target geo-coordinates are also fixed in memory. The vehicle will remember heading offset and deviation rate and can make appropriate return bang-bang guidance commands for the radar to reacquire target information. Against a moving target, even though one moving at only 33 knots, the current technology level does not afford the vehicle to lose a moving target LoS.

4- The latest US SM-3 missile is capable of reaching speed of 9600km/h with a climb rate of 5km/h in altitude, making early descent phase evasive maneuvers important to reduce interception probability. Missile against aircraft engagements typically occurs at or below 10km altitude, making feasible aerodynamic forces exploitation. But because this vehicle will begin to execute evasive maneuvers at very thin air altitude that reduces aerodynamic forces exploitation effectiveness, reaction thrust mechanisms are necessary and this will cost vehicle warhead payload.

5- During development, in post evasive maneuvers analysis, an interface was thought to be required between bang-bang to proportional navigation guidance. Velocity compensated proportional navigation guidance (VCPN) was briefly tested as that interface and but was found to offer statistically negligible improvement in target tracking and guidance. Target lead angle and its rate change are nowhere as extreme as in a missile versus aircraft engagement and any vehicle descent rate change is already reflected in closing speed calculations. Therefore, it was decided to use only proportional and bang-bang navigation guidance methods.

6- Another developmental exploration was the order of guidance laws. The program decided to conduct dual testings. One strategy was bang-bang guidance for initial vehicle-target orientation, evasive maneuvers, then switches to PN guidance at 2km AGL. A parallel strategy has the reverse, PN for initial vehicle-target orientation and bang-bang guidance for evasive maneuvers. It was found that because bang-bang guidance is already sensitive to LoS change and rate of change, hardware related LoS noise can induce evasive maneuvers thrust command oscillations as the guidance laws attempt to null the LoS rate after every execution. This condition is similar to constantly oversteering an automobile, either due to driver ability or steering mechanism 'slop'. When PN guidance takes over at 2km AGL, the program recorded a higher miss rate than the pn_bang-bang strategy. In some instances, the vehicle's radar could not reacquire the target after several violent maneuvers to evade air defense missiles.
===

I do not need to be 100% correct. You can take keywords and phrases like 'proportional navigation' or 'target line of sight' or 'system noise' to any avionics engineer, specifically the gent that works on the navigation system, and he will know exactly what I am talking about. So even if I am completely wrong about how the DF-21 works, I will not be wrong about the components, hardware and software, and how they could integrate to make it work. The engineer will know that my speculation is based upon known devices, physical and virtual, and known principles of navigation and guidance.

Absent anything even halfway of what I speculated, whatever the Iranians claimed should be taken as suspect. This is why no engineering professionals take press.tv seriously.

Iran does not reveal alot of Info about their military, i agree press tv is not the best, but they can only report what they can get their hands on. Iranian bavar-373 should be completed by 2012, i read on some other forum that they said they are working day and night to finish the project before years end (iranian year).

 

[Tshering22]

The s-300 is old technology, it not that heard for iran to get its hand on the technology, but the same thing can be said about the usa, so iran must had somehow made it better and changed it so usa would not be able to counter it that easily.

My friend, that "somehow" has to be mentioned when claiming something is advanced than an industry standard in any weapon. Until that, (even if briefly) no one would buy it. I am not underestimating your military potential but your generals have an uncanny ability to talk a little more than demonstrated. Why Iran's self- go at everything is impressive, a little insight into how this new system is advanced than S-300 would be appreciable.

 

[Major Sam]

Israel will attack, if it wants to - no matter what.

same like... india will attack pakistan.. when ever want to - no matter what............... be practical man

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

My friend, that "somehow" has to be mentioned when claiming something is advanced than an industry standard in any weapon. Until that, (even if briefly) no one would buy it. I am not underestimating your military potential but your generals have an uncanny ability to talk a little more than demonstrated. Why Iran's self- go at everything is impressive, a little insight into how this new system is advanced than S-300 would be appreciable.

Iran cannot say alot about what they make, because usa will use that and learn a bit on how to counter it, just because Iran does not reveal alot about their stuff does not mean they are crap. this is something americans and isrealis say to make iran look crap.

 

[Quasar]

Iranians are very capable people, they should find a way to save themselves from those mullahs because all they have done is to make Iran look like a joke.

 

[500]

Iran cannot say alot about what they make, because usa will use that and learn a bit on how to counter it, just because Iran does not reveal alot about their stuff does not mean they are crap. this is something americans and isrealis say to make iran look crap.

Iran says 10 times more than its actually makes. Its still not bad compare to Arab countries though.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

I dnt believe it...no offence to my iranian brother... but not possible.

 

[Mosamania]

Iran cannot say alot about what they make, because usa will use that and learn a bit on how to counter it, just because Iran does not reveal alot about their stuff does not mean they are crap. this is something americans and isrealis say to make iran look crap.

Actually what is classified is some extreme details on each weapon system. just "Saying" we made something does not mean it's true. The soviet union used to do the same thing. It would say it made some spanking new crazy superior kick *** system just to scare the west when in fact it did not make anything as they say or it was vastly inferior than its western counterpart. The US did the same thing with few of its systems too.

Iranian media have completely lost all credibility when it comes to Iranian military industry. If we take everything Iranian Media have said over the years Iran by now should have a 5th generation aircraft superior to everything in the world (Remember the 5th gen aircraft the paraded a few years ago suppose to be finished last year) So no I don't buy this.

 

[ashokdeiva]

same like... india will attack pakistan.. when ever want to - no matter what............... be practical man

is this your best troll post for the day or you have more

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

Iranians are very capable people, they should find a way to save themselves from those mullahs because all they have done is to make Iran look like a joke.

My friend that is more difficult than you think. Also that truck is not the s-300, on the truck it says "we can do it" as in we will make it because we are capable of it.