Iranian Air Defense Systems

[mohsen]

Defense minister:
Due to some considerations, new radar achievements weren't unveiled to public.

امیر حاتمی: ۷۷۰ محصول دفاعی را در کشور تولید می‌کنیم - مشرق نیوز

 

[AmirPatriot]

Now that high res photos of them are available, I actually firmly believe that a very unconventional method is used to improve illumination power levels.

You mean the "3D Radar" array, right?

 

[PeeD]

You mean the "3D Radar" array, right?

Key method is "constructive wave interference" achieved by that 3D-space wave forming concept described in the earlier post.

I need to say that the rumored switch from PESA engagement radar to a AESA one in the S-500, could mean that PESA is for some reason a technological dead-end. The S-500 is the counter-hypersonics system hence I believe it needs to add potential extra agility of an AESA to work well at those speeds.
If that's the case, and the reason for the Bavar AESAs is not the easier overall radar system design, then it is ahead of the S-400 in this field.
Another possible explanation for AESA engagement radar on the S-500 could be that Russians anticipate that the lack of waveform agility will make the Gravestone prone to ECM techniques that try to exploit that limitation.

In total it must be doubted that export S400 variants are able to work in a dual-band SAGG mode to detect stealth objects. Here again the Bavar-373 is superior to at least export S-400s. The apparent lack of the 96L6E to do electronic azimuth scan is the heavy handicap with the S-400 that does not allow real-time dual-band operation.
Export S-400 are forced to simply try to establish a track with their X-band Gravestone engagement radar, against X-band optimized stealth targets. Even the brute force of the Gravestone can cause unacceptable range reductions there.
Blind dual-band illumination as pioneered by the Aegis system and used in the Bavar-373 that could solve the problem and exploit bi-static seeker effect does also not work with export S-400.

So we see that again the Bavar-373 has potentially a huge benefit over export S-400 if the threat are stealth assets (which is a main concern for Iran).
In theory Russian standard S-400 may be able to work in dual-band blind illumination mode if a battalion level Big Bird is used for that task.

I must also add that the 380km range, expensive, high-value missile of the S-400 can use its ARH seeker to attack a stealth target detected by the Big Bird or 96L6 from top aspect and achieve a terminal track. But this may not prove very robust.
So compared to the Bavar-373 with it's native counter-stealth capability, the high value SAM component of the S-400 can give it a counter-stealth capability via a trick Russians normally avoid for economic and robustness reasons (ARH).

PS: Bavar-373 is well suitet for Patriot, S-300, S-400 like endo-atmospheric ABM operations but its possible that higher capability ABM roles have been given to the IRGC-ASF and their systems.

 

[arashkamangir]

Key method is "constructive wave interference" achieved by that 3D-space wave forming concept described in the earlier post.

I need to say that the rumored switch from PESA engagement radar to a AESA one in the S-500, could mean that PESA is for some reason a technological dead-end. The S-500 is the counter-hypersonics system hence I believe it needs to add potential extra agility of an AESA to work well at those speeds.
If that's the case, and the reason for the Bavar AESAs is not the easier overall radar system design, then it is ahead of the S-400 in this field.
Another possible explanation for AESA engagement radar on the S-500 could be that Russians anticipate that the lack of waveform agility will make the Gravestone prone to ECM techniques that try to exploit that limitation.

In total it must be doubted that export S400 variants are able to work in a dual-band SAGG mode to detect stealth objects. Here again the Bavar-373 is superior to at least export S-400s. The apparent lack of the 96L6E to do electronic azimuth scan is the heavy handicap with the S-400 that does not allow real-time dual-band operation.
Export S-400 are forced to simply try to establish a track with their X-band Gravestone engagement radar, against X-band optimized stealth targets. Even the brute force of the Gravestone can cause unacceptable range reductions there.
Blind dual-band illumination as pioneered by the Aegis system and used in the Bavar-373 that could solve the problem and exploit bi-static seeker effect does also not work with export S-400.

So we see that again the Bavar-373 has potentially a huge benefit over export S-400 if the threat are stealth assets (which is a main concern for Iran).
In theory Russian standard S-400 may be able to work in dual-band blind illumination mode if a battalion level Big Bird is used for that task.

I must also add that the 380km range, expensive, high-value missile of the S-400 can use its ARH seeker to attack a stealth target detected by the Big Bird or 96L6 from top aspect and achieve a terminal track. But this may not prove very robust.
So compared to the Bavar-373 with it's native counter-stealth capability, the high value SAM component of the S-400 can give it a counter-stealth capability via a trick Russians normally avoid for economic and robustness reasons (ARH).

PS: Bavar-373 is well suitet for Patriot, S-300, S-400 like endo-atmospheric ABM operations but its possible that higher capability ABM roles have been given to the IRGC-ASF and their systems.

@PeeD based in available info, what which radars are suitable for exo atmospheric ABM? We know we have satellite tracking ground stations.

 

[PeeD]

Another critical point:
I'm confident that Bavar-373 uses a SAGG system.
A SAGG system together with a realtime dual-band SAM system greatly improves the capability of a SAGG system.

So how I know that Bavar-373 has SAGG? Because the Sayyad-4 lacks lateral stripe, proximity fuse, antennas at its warhead section while both Sayyad-2/3 have them. The only reason why to omit them is SAGG, especially SAGG in combination with a dual-band SAM.
ECM resistance reaches such a high level with dual-band SAGG, that there is no need for that sensor anymore nd fusing is done at the best and most confident point via the SAGG system.

Patriot and TK-3 for example lack this capability.

This detail is of great importance.

@PeeD based in available info, what which radars are suitable for exo atmospheric ABM? We know we have satellite tracking ground stations.

Primary Ghadir for now and Iranian Nebo at mobile tactical level. Enough to que a IIR seeker.
Iran certainly works on a UHF, L- or even S-band large aperture radar, likely similar to those large Israeli Green pine based AESAs for Arrow-2/3.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Key method is "constructive wave interference" achieved by that 3D-space wave forming concept described in the earlier post.

I understand the basic principle of this and have read a little bit about it in simple terms.

I also understand that if you have AESA TRMs then the 4 additional side arrays can be electronically steered to align the waves as required.

What I don't quite understand is what is the utility of this concept? Sure, the angle creates some more compactness, but the constructive interference effect is (surely?) not more than the sum of its parts. If that assumption is true, then why utilise this effect at all?

 

[Ich]

Key method is "constructive wave interference" achieved by that 3D-space wave forming concept described in the earlier post.

I need to say that the rumored switch from PESA engagement radar to a AESA one in the S-500, could mean that PESA is for some reason a technological dead-end. The S-500 is the counter-hypersonics system hence I believe it needs to add potential extra agility of an AESA to work well at those speeds.
If that's the case, and the reason for the Bavar AESAs is not the easier overall radar system design, then it is ahead of the S-400 in this field.
Another possible explanation for AESA engagement radar on the S-500 could be that Russians anticipate that the lack of waveform agility will make the Gravestone prone to ECM techniques that try to exploit that limitation.

In total it must be doubted that export S400 variants are able to work in a dual-band SAGG mode to detect stealth objects. Here again the Bavar-373 is superior to at least export S-400s. The apparent lack of the 96L6E to do electronic azimuth scan is the heavy handicap with the S-400 that does not allow real-time dual-band operation.
Export S-400 are forced to simply try to establish a track with their X-band Gravestone engagement radar, against X-band optimized stealth targets. Even the brute force of the Gravestone can cause unacceptable range reductions there.
Blind dual-band illumination as pioneered by the Aegis system and used in the Bavar-373 that could solve the problem and exploit bi-static seeker effect does also not work with export S-400.

So we see that again the Bavar-373 has potentially a huge benefit over export S-400 if the threat are stealth assets (which is a main concern for Iran).
In theory Russian standard S-400 may be able to work in dual-band blind illumination mode if a battalion level Big Bird is used for that task.

I must also add that the 380km range, expensive, high-value missile of the S-400 can use its ARH seeker to attack a stealth target detected by the Big Bird or 96L6 from top aspect and achieve a terminal track. But this may not prove very robust.
So compared to the Bavar-373 with it's native counter-stealth capability, the high value SAM component of the S-400 can give it a counter-stealth capability via a trick Russians normally avoid for economic and robustness reasons (ARH).

PS: Bavar-373 is well suitet for Patriot, S-300, S-400 like endo-atmospheric ABM operations but its possible that higher capability ABM roles have been given to the IRGC-ASF and their systems.

If that all is the fact, me feel sorry for every country which cant build this kind of dualband stealth detect itself and all they can do is to buy S-400 export version if Israel/US is near their borders - but it wont help them.

The iranian way seems to be the only way for a country to counter that, whereas me think this kind of AD will be obsolet in 20 years. But these are 20 years with a chance to survive. Good job, Iran.

 

[arashkamangir]

I understand the basic principle of this and have read a little bit about it in simple terms.

I also understand that if you have AESA TRMs then the 4 additional side arrays can be electronically steered to align the waves as required.

What I don't quite understand is what is the utility of this concept? Sure, the angle creates some more compactness, but the constructive interference effect is (surely?) not more than the sum of its parts. If that assumption is true, then why utilise this effect at all?

This way you can create antenna pattern lobes that are like pencil style beams and steer the beam to follow or track an object without the need to move the entire antenna. Effectively, you are creating instances of super high gain and through phases of the waves you can translate the constructively interfered beam and change the angles. Generally, phase array antennas can do this by design. AESA's have an additional benefit of frequency hopping within a band for each individual TRMs. While PESAs have fewer signal generators prior to the patch antennas and can also frequency hope, the AESA's individual patch antennas are a whole signal generator, signal amplifier and antenna as a package. This means you have so much more control over the duty cycle of each patch antenna in AESA design as well as the operating frequency and their firing rate. The challenge with AESA setup is that you need to not only control individual patch antenna TRMs but you also have interpret them making the signal processing computationally expensive. However since it can give so much control, you can consistently hop in frequency, change polarization and emit super well defined (super high gain) beam that cannot be picked up another antenna that easily. Think of how a laser beam propagates.

Frequency hopping and polarization shifting are another methods of making radar signal interception hard. In all, i have heard that good AESAs have flat signal response curves so their signal can blend in with background noise in the band that its operating and only the transmitting radar knows what signal it is expecting due to transmission time and time flight.

 

[skyshadow]

in this U.S. MILITARY LAYS OUT it say Iran has PANTSIR (SA-22) Surface-to-Air Missile System


WHAT KIND OF WEAPONS DOES IRAN HAVE? U.S. MILITARY LAYS OUT ARSENAL IN PLAYING CARDS

https://www.newsweek.com/weapons-iran-us-playing-cards-1455728

 

[arashkamangir]

in this U.S. MILITARY LAYS OUT it say Iran has PANTSIR (SA-22) Surface-to-Air Missile System


WHAT KIND OF WEAPONS DOES IRAN HAVE? U.S. MILITARY LAYS OUT ARSENAL IN PLAYING CARDS

https://www.newsweek.com/weapons-iran-us-playing-cards-1455728

Yeah I wouldn't be surprised, wouldn't they be shipped as package with S-300 PMU2 for battery protection?

 

[Mithridates]

Shouldn't those numbers be the other way round (i.e. 65km ceiling for AA and 27km altitude ceiling for ABM)?

planes do not fly that high i assume they refer to it's ABM max altitude engagement ceiling. i think this way because a pilot once was saying that one of maneuvers to counter SAMs is to increase the ceiling. as you have wings and lift you can do it easily while the missile should use considerable amount of it's rocket engine energy to overcome the gravity. that's why in ABM mode ADs have considerable smaller combat range. i assume it's the source of misunderstandings about the Bavar range alongside with different radars it uses.

Also, why is the max detection range 320km when Meraj-4 was shown to have 400km+ range?

it seems like they didn't include meraj-4 for each battery.

 

[Battle of Waterloo]

planes do not fly that high i assume they refer to it's ABM max altitude engagement ceiling. i think this way because a pilot once was saying that one of maneuvers to counter SAMs is to increase the ceiling. as you have wings and lift you can do it easily while the missile should use considerable amount of it's rocket engine energy to overcome the gravity. that's why in ABM mode ADs have considerable smaller combat range. i assume it's the source of misunderstandings about the Bavar range alongside with different radars it uses.

it seems like they didn't include meraj-4 for each battery.

Good points, thank you for the clarification.

 

[PeeD]

I understand the basic principle of this and have read a little bit about it in simple terms.

I also understand that if you have AESA TRMs then the 4 additional side arrays can be electronically steered to align the waves as required.

What I don't quite understand is what is the utility of this concept? Sure, the angle creates some more compactness, but the constructive interference effect is (surely?) not more than the sum of its parts. If that assumption is true, then why utilise this effect at all?

Its all about the gain of the illumination lobe. With this idea I'm widely speculating, well beyond the other things I said (I'm a mechanics guy not electronics).
The logic is this: Iranians sit down, look at the S-300/-400 and figure out that trying to achieve the same brute force illumination power levels requires a similarly large (=expensive) system and while Russians have 50 years of experience and are masters at this PESA technology, Iran has none. A race that can hardly be won.
Conclusion would be to try to develop a higher gain radar that achieves the same but at much lower power levels.
How this was managed is the big unknown, apparently not by some silly approach like expensive high power GaNs.
The auxiliary antennas could be just maintenance hatches, or SLC antennas that just improves ECCM capability and makes locating more difficult. But they could be responsible how higher gain levels were achieved.

Other details: The radar aperture of both, engagement and acquisition radar are use to create two separate, redundant missile up link channels to receive missile seeker data. So not only two different data-links are available, they also operate at a different frequency as the radar functions. A complete nightmare if you want to jam the system, or just apply self defense jamming to survive. The PESA of the S-400 does not offer this capability.
Its these details that makes these systems: S-300PM, S-400, HQ-9, Bavar-373 so feared; their kill-chain is so redundant and powerful that only kinematic evasion becomes a option for survival. All single sensor systems, from Arrow-2/3 to Aster lack this legality. An ARH seeker equipped SAM can be defended against via a self defense towed barrage jammer, namely the closer the seeker get to the target, the higher jamming intensity becomes... SAGG guidance completely negates this effect and dual-band SAGG... multiplies it... That's why all the fuzz about S-400, it's close to mythical. Once you enter its no-escape zone, next to nothing will keep you alive.
That's also why exo-atmospheric ABM systems or even Arrow-2 are more advanced(expensive) missile wise but overall system-wise the systems S-300PM, S-400, HQ-9, Bavar-373 and to some extend Aegis (less cost-efficient, high-tech solutions) but are the real masterpieces.
System cost is of greatest importance: Aegis with SM-6 is a expensive solution but it seems Bavar-373 costs less than half that of a export S-300PMU-2 battery and 1/4 that of export S-400. Internal Russian prices should be closer to each other, while the Bavar-373 applies usually more expensive AESA technology for its radars.

Irans requirement to establish full border coverage are at least 20 Bavar-373 batteries.

PS: I still remember 10 years ago when S-300 were not delivered... I was hoping for a LRSAM system that would be made of a AIM-54 Phoenix copy with a large booster attached to it. A TPS-43, JY-14 or Nebo-SVU (foreign radars), would detect the target, and the Phoenix SAM shot towards it, receiving updates via a ground data-link antenna.
With the technology Iran had at hand back then, this appeared as the most promising solution to create a LRSAM...
Bavar-373 of 2019 is magnitudes more potent and cost effective than that desperate solution would have been and compared to Chinese and North Korean copies of the S-300PM and P series, it is a indigenous system with Iranian signature.

 

[Myself]

 

[PeeD]

The layout-wise closet system to the Bavar-373 is the Japanese vertical hot-launch Tyoe-03 Chu SAM:

Note the 3 row canister layout.

Here in 2 canister layout:

But thats where similarities end. The Japanese SAM has only 1/4 of he range of the Bavar-373, has a TWS-only AESA radar without illumination capability and uses a expensive, less robust ARH seeker for its SAM.
Pair it with the heavy Taiwanese TK-3 and you get closer, add to that S-300 guidance technology and you have a system close to the Bavar-373 basically.