Iranian Air Defense Systems

[TheImmortal]

Russia has 850 old fighter jets with poorly trained pilots. China has 650 4th generation fighter aircraft. USA has 2700 fighter aircraft---that is more than China and Russia combined. Add to this the fact that US military deploys 5th generation fighters and you see the superiority. US NAVY is superior to the the next 10 Navies combined

The only peer to US military and in minds of some its superior was USSR that had standing army of 5 mln troops and 65000 tanks

Go see how many of those 2700 aircraft are flight worthy. I love how people claim RUSSIA and China planes are old and broken down, but suddenly every US plane is fresh off the assembly line or gets renovated every year.

Newsflash: Most of the F-22 fleet is GROUNDED due to maintenance, hell tens of them got damaged in a hurricane because they couldn’t be flown out. The wear and tear of US airforce planes is real and just like it’s peers. So no US doesn’t have 2700 combat ready planes.

And getting those planes into the region of war (China sea or Russia border) takes months if not over a year to do so. I guess China and Russia will just sit there in the meantime?

A single aircraft carrier being sunk/severely damaged takes 100-200 high combat ready planes off the table. Military air bases in the region will be struck with cluster BMs.

You forget if US goes to war with China or Russia those countries are on the defensive and have homefield advantage. While US is on the offensive having to bring its toys from far away to the battlefield. Against 3rd rate militaries that’s fine, but against Russia or China that transportation will be exposed.

 

[VEVAK]

I tried to make the argument based on the airfield issue, here a different approach:

Your enemy has LO/stealth cruise missiles and you need to have persistent and assured low level protection of your capital city.

Your choice is a AEW aircraft that does the detection and tracking part of the task. Your fleet is large enough to enable 24/7/365 coverage.

What is your reaction of a mission kill scenario in which adversary airpower creates a concentrated force towards the capital city, threatening your AEW assets. They force it to a sufficiently long distance, so that arriving LO cruise missile are able to reach their targets in the capital city. Detection and tracking failed by the asset that was meant to do it, it wasn't killed, used its mobility/flexibility to move to a safe area but it was effectively mission-killed. A large number of LO CM's took out high value objects throughout the capital city while your AEW asset was trying to avoid long range BVR missiles of the adversary.

Hence they situation is rather like, either you stand your ground and keep your defense intact, or you may loose it all. So the added flexibility and mobility of a AEW asset is irrelevant for this case. It is relevant for offensive operations and that's why it is of central importance to the U.S while much less important to Russia.
As gambit said, the U.S due to its geography, traditionally, emphasis on offense not defense. Russia on the other hand wants to neutralize U.S offensive capability by heavy defense.
Moscow was heavily defended in order to have the U.S wear off its offensive tooth against it. Back in those, still often analog, days where defense against LO terrain masking assets was still incredibly difficult.

Is a bulletproof defense possible? If your goal is areal defense, then you adversary can always concentrate its offensive assets on one pressure point and make your life difficult. But if your goal is point defense e.g of your capital city then your systems over each other and the adversary has no other mean than to go frontally against it.

On the defensive side things are already ugly against BMs for everyone and after INF termination will get even uglier and hypersonics will further reduce envelopes. But the terrain masking LO and atmospheric VLO threat spectrum can soon be reasonably well defended against in the case of Iran.

Your right that most current Defense Systems will be defenseless against any modern high speed projectile with guidance and maneuvering capability be it hypersonic missiles or BM that's why defense systems alone will never be enough and you need to develop the offensive capability to strike as you main deterrence power however at the same time you simply can't afford to leave yourselves open to comparatively lower cost attacks and currently the vast majority of deployed American Missiles are ship launched land attack Cruise Missiles and that's the main threat in terms of Missiles Iranian SHORAD systems would need to defend against & after that it's projectiles deployed off Aircrafts & UCAV's

I believe Iran should be developing 2 types SHORAD systems one mobile and the other fixed and the fixed version need to be designed specifically for each area based on the needs and terrain of each area and for a fixed version for our purposes since we are capable of building MALE UAV's at an affordable price and we have a rather large country with a lot of mountains and at the same time lack an Air Force as large as and as technologically advanced as our current enemies and until we can upgrade our own Air Force with highly capable domestically produced fighters I would much preferer a fleet of UAV's over a single AEW as my Air Asset backing up a large number lower cost optical sensors on the ground spread across an area + a handful of higher end radars sensors placed on towers with high speed and secure com's gear networking and sensor fusing all the data plus other data coming in from other near by air defense equipment into one SHORAD command center that will be acting as not only the last line of Defense but likely the MAIN line of defense against Cruise Missiles and other aircraft deployed projectiles.

In terms of cost a single mid to small size AEW like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRDO_AEW&CS will cost Iran well over $120 Million USD with operational cost of over $2,000 per hour and at that price how many SH-129 do you think we can build and operate over an area? And yes in terms of sensors it's no comparison however if you compare the sheer number of UAV's you can build and operate at that cost and their survivability simply due to the sheer number of airborne assets and your calculations will surly shift.
Some can be equipped with SAR radars, other can act as communications and a data link hub, some with thermal, some with 100's of small HD digital cams for day time,..... at $100 Million USD we can easily build a fleet of well over 100 specially designed SH-129's and due to our terrain they can probably do a better job covering the blind spots against lower flying objects......

 

[Sineva]

Go see how many of those 2700 aircraft are flight worthy. I love how people claim RUSSIA and China planes are old and broken down, but suddenly every US plane is fresh off the assembly line or gets renovated every year.

Newsflash: Most of the F-22 fleet is GROUNDED due to maintenance, hell tens of them got damaged in a hurricane because they couldn’t be flown out. The wear and tear of US airforce planes is real and just like it’s peers. So no US doesn’t have 2700 combat ready planes.

And getting those planes into the region of war (China sea or Russia border) takes months if not over a year to do so. I guess China and Russia will just sit there in the meantime?

A single aircraft carrier being sunk/severely damaged takes 100-200 high combat ready planes off the table. Military air bases in the region will be struck with cluster BMs.

You forget if US goes to war with China or Russia those countries are on the defensive and have homefield advantage. While US is on the offensive having to bring its toys from far away to the battlefield. Against 3rd rate militaries that’s fine, but against Russia or China that transportation will be exposed.

Exactly,theres a lot more to it than just numbers on paper,after all saddam hussein had the worlds fourth largest army back in 1990,however it was certainly not the worlds fourth most powerful army as we saw during desert storm and that was with a theoretical home front advantage.

 

[gambit]

Truth be told, I'm not the best at this sort of stuff so I will admit my ignorance. That being said let me pose this question to you then.

If we take the Russians who have a very robust defense orientated military infrastructure set up in Russia that is meant to counter U.S. military in Eastern Europe and beyond. Can one say or try to say that an equally defended nations can stack up to an equally offensive nation? I guess at that point we can't use the term "peer" military since, from what I gather you're trying to say, is that a peer military must be similar enough in order for there to be an comparison in the first place.

I.E:
-Object A is an hyper offensive military with all the characteristics of one that come therein.
-Object B is an hyper defensive military with all the characteristics of one that come therein.

Can we then compare the power level of these two militaries more directly even though they are effectively polar opposites.

What overall terms and classifications, in your view, do we need to use when comparing such nations and militaries?

Actually, your scenario -- A v B -- was one variation from many that was discussed. It is like asking the proverbial question: What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?

When you think about it, your scenario begged the question: What prompted A to be 'hyper offensive' and B to be 'hyper defensive' in the first place? So the answer to your question -- the highlighted -- is actually very easy: They are peers.

They are peers. They just directed their respective knowledge, skills, and resources towards different goals.

Let us assume that there are other countries and observers in the region. To some, the 'hyper offensive' capabilities of A would be an effective deterrence in that you do not want to anger A lest you incur the irresistible destruction. To others, the 'hyper defensive' capabilities of B would be an effective deterrence in that you understand that you would be wasting your resources in trying to conquer B. So to everyone, A and B are peers to each other and incomparable to everyone else.

In the real world, realpolitik expects this kind of estimation for self and everyone. It is not only what you are but also important are why you chose to be what you are and how -- the paths -- you took to become what you are. This is why the US State Dept and the many ministries of foreign affairs employs historians and the various 'soft science' specialists. We want to understand a people's collective psychology. For example, when China's was the world's premier naval power, why did China stopped after Zheng He's journey from China all the way to Europe? In this case, it was the emperor's Confucian beliefs and nothing technology related that effectively ruined China's naval prowess. China's navy at that time was very much an irresistible force.

So just to make sure. What I think you're saying is that for a military to be considered a peer military to another, it must be comparable in all or nearly all facets?

Should be, not must be.

Russia have access to the seas, but Russia's access to the seas are not as good as the US. That made it more difficult for the Soviet Union to compete against the US regarding on HOW to become a comparable naval power. So in this case, geography factored in for the Soviet Union, then when it became evident that the Soviet Navy is less than the US Navy, the Soviet Navy was estimated not a peer to the US Navy. Which is scarier to see, an aircraft carrier or a destroyer? For any country's leader, the knowledge that a US aircraft carrier is heading his way produced either hope or fear with no gradations in between. This feeling -- hope or fear -- maybe physically intangible but produces real world effects in the sense that it affects how the country's leader weighs Russia and the US, and produces matching foreign affairs policies.

You can argue that the Russian Navy have more destroyers than the US Navy, but it would have little effect, if any, in those estimations of who is peer to whom. This is why people naturally gravitates to harder metrics like manpower, number of tanks and ships, and so on. It is easy but devoid of important contexts that foreign policies demands.

National policies matters. A one million man army is no good if there is an aggressive foreign affairs policies but the navy cannot transport that one million man army anywhere. So in observers' estimations, a country that have a smaller army but a better naval transport capability to support the country's foreign affairs will be perceived as superior. In this case, one set of hard metrics outweighs another.

Estimation of who is peer to whom is actually not art but more like craft. A craft requires patience, skills, resources, and long term access to all those things. People simply do not like to use craft. It is too time consuming to do basic research and think. Some tried to be objective and when they came to the conclusion that A is not a peer to B, their disappointment compelled them to abandon objectivity and get emotional. The results are hypernationalistic language and meaningless bluster.

Newsflash: Most of the F-22 fleet is GROUNDED due to maintenance,...

Newsflash: You are treading into an area you know nothing about.

If I remove one fastener on a panel that have minimal exposure to aerodynamic forces, I have just grounded the aircraft based upon CURRENT PEACETIME standards.

Let us say that the base's logistics system ran out of that fastener. Now the aircraft is grounded for as long as it takes for the manufacturer to make that fastener and ship to the USAF. For the aircraft, no mission critical systems are affected.

Now check this out...

Make no mistake about the image above. If there is a national emergency, that one fastener would not prevent the base from launching that aircraft.

When I was active duty, I briefly taught Aircraft Battle Damage Repairs (ABDR)...

https://www.hill.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1856622/ingenuity-under-pressure/

On the F-111 with its mechanical flight controls system, I can use a broomstick and aluminum from a six pack of soda to replace a push-pull rod and authorized the jet for another mission.

You think I made up the flight control push-pull rod?

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aircraft-bu...-systems/push-pull-tube-control-installations

I would empty the liquid from the cans, use a snip to shape the aluminum, cut the broomstick to length, then wrap the aluminum around the broomstick for strength. Voila, this battle damaged F-111 can fly the next mission.

Peacetime safety standards are not the same as wartime needs.

 

[GWXP]

Go see how many of those 2700 aircraft are flight worthy. I love how people claim RUSSIA and China planes are old and broken down, but suddenly every US plane is fresh off the assembly line or gets renovated every year.

Newsflash: Most of the F-22 fleet is GROUNDED due to maintenance, hell tens of them got damaged in a hurricane because they couldn’t be flown out. The wear and tear of US airforce planes is real and just like it’s peers. So no US doesn’t have 2700 combat ready planes.

And getting those planes into the region of war (China sea or Russia border) takes months if not over a year to do so. I guess China and Russia will just sit there in the meantime?

A single aircraft carrier being sunk/severely damaged takes 100-200 high combat ready planes off the table. Military air bases in the region will be struck with cluster BMs.

You forget if US goes to war with China or Russia those countries are on the defensive and have homefield advantage. While US is on the offensive having to bring its toys from far away to the battlefield. Against 3rd rate militaries that’s fine, but against Russia or China that transportation will be exposed.

And most Russian aircraft are old Soviet jets-more than 35 years old. Poorly maintained with poorly trained pilots (compared to USA).

The truth is that 175 US F-22s can destroy Russian air force of 850 old Soviet 4th generation jets.

Taking planes to the region of war takes weeks (unlike bringing in ground force). And US has most powerful military logistics in the world.

Of course war with Russian will result in losses to US air force. But the truth is that if not nuclear weapons, Russia will be smashed in the event of military collision with USA.

 

[Hack-Hook]

On the F-111 with its mechanical flight controls system, I can use a broomstick and aluminum from a six pack of soda to replace a push-pull rod and authorized the jet for another mission.

You think I made up the flight control push-pull rod?

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aircraft-bu...-systems/push-pull-tube-control-installations

I would empty the liquid from the cans, use a snip to shape the aluminum, cut the broomstick to length, then wrap the aluminum around the broomstick for strength. Voila, this battle damaged F-111 can fly the next mission.

Peacetime safety standards are not the same as wartime needs.

Only if you knew how many times we did such things.

 

[PeeD]

I believe Iran should be developing 2 types SHORAD systems one mobile and the other fixed and the fixed version need to be designed specifically for each area based on the needs and terrain of each area and for a fixed version for our purposes since we are capable of building MALE UAV's at an affordable price and we have a rather large country with a lot of mountains and at the same time lack an Air Force as large as and as technologically advanced as our current enemies and until we can upgrade our own Air Force with highly capable domestically produced fighters I would much preferer a fleet of UAV's over a single AEW as my Air Asset backing up a large number lower cost optical sensors on the ground spread across an area + a handful of higher end radars sensors placed on towers with high speed and secure com's gear networking and sensor fusing all the data plus other data coming in from other near by air defense equipment into one SHORAD command center that will be acting as not only the last line of Defense but likely the MAIN line of defense against Cruise Missiles and other aircraft deployed projectiles.

Many small UAV based AEW asset can also be replaced by one aerostat AEW asset. Pro for the UAVs is that they can be used for offensive air campaigns, pro for aerostat is low operation cost and persistent coverage.

There is one approach the IRGC seems to follow on SHORADs, with the Tor based Oghab Iran will get the most cost effective electronically scanned SHORAD system in the world.

If the IRGC also uses the Oghab, it can make use of its advanced radar system to not only simplify the missile interceptor but also: develop guided AAA projectiles.
Connect one of the new truck mountet Sarir 100mm guns to each Oghab system in the battery as AAA slaved component and feed the projectile with command radio data from the Oghab PESA radar. That would mean that this guided projectile just needs a antenna at its rear to receive data, no seeker, no IMU, just a actuator steering system.
The 100mm caliber is both large enough to pack it in (Russians are doing it with 57mm) and has enough fragmentation performance to kill a large target with a single shot.
Range a coverage performance can be improved to 6-8km, increasing engagement cycle.
The elegance of this system would be: No booster propulsion system, no guidance system inside the projectile.
Cost drivers would only be high-g rated mechanical and electrical components.

Imagine a Tor/Oghab system connected to two Sarir 100mm trucks with 2 x 8 ready to fire guided rounds. 9th Day missile with 15km instead of Tor-M1 10km and 16 instead of 8 rounds. 4 guidance channels and multiply all by four for a whole Oghab battery.
This would be a highly cost effective SHORAD system that could reliably protect against the whole spectrum of atmospheric, non-hypersonic threats. Protect Ghadir radars, BMEW radars, OTH radars, aerostat radars and whole cities.

Btw. each TOR-M1 system costed Iran $ 20-25m, let see how much the Oghab will.

 

[TheImmortal]

Newsflash: You are treading into an area you know nothing about.

If I remove one fastener on a panel that have minimal exposure to aerodynamic forces, I have just grounded the aircraft based upon CURRENT PEACETIME standards.

Let us say that the base's logistics system ran out of that fastener. Now the aircraft is grounded for as long as it takes for the manufacturer to make that fastener and ship to the USAF. For the aircraft, no mission critical systems are affected.

Now check this out...

Make no mistake about the image above. If there is a national emergency, that one fastener would not prevent the base from launching that aircraft.

When I was active duty, I briefly taught Aircraft Battle Damage Repairs (ABDR)...

https://www.hill.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1856622/ingenuity-under-pressure/

On the F-111 with its mechanical flight controls system, I can use a broomstick and aluminum from a six pack of soda to replace a push-pull rod and authorized the jet for another mission.

You think I made up the flight control push-pull rod?

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aircraft-bu...-systems/push-pull-tube-control-installations

I would empty the liquid from the cans, use a snip to shape the aluminum, cut the broomstick to length, then wrap the aluminum around the broomstick for strength. Voila, this battle damaged F-111 can fly the next mission.

Peacetime safety standards are not the same as wartime needs.

Newsflash: Your post really had nothing to do with what I just said, but was another walk down memory lane of your career. Thank you for that, as I needed another daily reminder you flew an F-111 or worked on one or saw one on tv.

My point was F-22 fleet was grounded, hurricane was coming. Your baloney fastener story doesn’t hold water here, as I am sure the military would care more about getting a $200 million dollar aircraft to safety than stupid “peace time rules”. Most of that fleet stationed did not/could escape and was damaged some weren’t even secured down properly.

So yes peacetime and wartime is different. If US throws it’s not flight worthy aircraft into the air then the same point holds more true your enemy will as well. So you can’t have it both ways. Either both fleets have planes that aren’t flight worthy or both fleets will throw them in the air come hell or high water.

Sure if your flying a MIG designed to take a beating you could attempt to fly it in non ideal condition. But an f-22 that requires extensive maintenance per sortie or an F-35 with all their technological prowess flying at a disadvantage into the most guarded air defenses of the world (Russia or China) is a reciepe for disaster. But then again if it’s WW3 you gotta do what you gotta do.

Nonetheless this point is mute, even 1000 planes would require months/year of work to move and secure necessary support equipment and personnel along with proper air defenses to protect them against enemy counter strike.

So whatever numbers are on paper are just that. And I have explained why these dumb WW3 scenarios mean nothing and are a waste of internet space many times before.

For now US military won’t even pick a fight with Iran, let alone China or Russia. But please do continue spending on these amazing money pit projects like the littoral combat ship, the Zumwalts, and Who could forget the RAH-66. 8 billion and not a single thing to show for it.

I doubt the US military will collapse before the empire itself collapses under the weight of its own hubris and nonsensical spending.

 

[gambit]

Newsflash: Your post really had nothing to do with what I just said,...

It does. I proved you do not know what you are talking about.

My point was F-22 fleet was grounded,...

Anyone can say 'My point', even those who do not know what they are talking about. The hurricane was a one-off event. The 'point' that you were trying to make was that the F-22 seems to be 'grounded' for broad maintenance reasons. We do not know why those F-22s could not be evacuated. You would rather jump to conclusions. But that would be the norm for you. The ignorant needs to put on a facade.

So yes peacetime and wartime is different. If US throws it’s not flight worthy aircraft into the air then the same point holds more true your enemy will as well. So you can’t have it both ways. Either both fleets have planes that aren’t flight worthy or both fleets will throw them in the air come hell or high water.

There you go. What do you know of what is 'flight worthy'? Nothing. The F-22 flew with peeling coating. Does that mean the jet was not flight worthy? I know I am repeating myself but -- you do not know what you are talking about.

And I have explained...

You have 'explained' nothing because you know nothing.

 

[TheImmortal]

We do not know why those F-22s could not be evacuated. You would rather jump to conclusions.

There you go. What do you know of what is 'flight worthy'? Nothing. The F-22 flew with peeling coating. Does that mean the jet was not flight worthy? I know I am repeating myself but -- you do not know what you are talking about.

Uh we do know why they weren’t evacuated. So please stop talking grunt.

“As Tyler Rogoway has explained at The Drive, the considerable maintenance and support required for each F-22 airframe meant that a complete evacuation was implausible. Apart from the 33 fighters that were sent to Ohio, the remainder may have been in various states of hardware and software maintenance, making it impossible for them to fly away prior to the hurricane’s landfall.

The F-22 Raptor has a reputation for needing considerable maintenance and repair per flight hour. The U.S. Air Force found earlier this year that “less than half [of all F-22s] are mission-capable” at any given time.”

https://thediplomat.com/2018/10/nea...as-damaged-or-destroyed-in-hurricane-michael/

"As you finalize damage assessments of the aircraft that endured Hurricane Michael, I urge you to begin implementation of the framework laid out by Secretary Mattis starting with all Tyndall AFB fighter aircraft... Additionally, I ask you waste no time or effort in providing a supplemental funding request to Congress to repair and restore these aircraft to mission capable status as soon as possible... As Hurricane Michael approached the Florida panhandle, 31 percent of F-22 aircraft at Tyndall Air Force Base were designated non-mission capable (NMC) and were sheltered in place."

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ehind-at-tyndall-afb-during-hurricane-michael


Obviously “NMC” means that even with a major hurricane bearing straight down with ability to cause hundreds of millions in damages, they weren’t worthy to be flown to safety.

Plus you completely missed the argument m about the “flight worthy” aspect of my post and started obsessing over the definition of the word flight worthy.

So I will dumb it down for you:

If you say all 2700 combat aircraft of the USAF will be used in an all out war IRREGARDLESS of ‘condition or state’ then the SAME applies to your enemy. You cant sit there and say oh Russia has xxxx amount of fighters but only xxxx are “flight worthy”. Can’t have it both ways.

But nice job not arguing that point and instead going off on a tangent about the definition of “flight worthy”. How about “irregardless of condition” is that broad enough for you so you don’t start crying?

 

[gambit]

So I will dumb it down for you:

No, I will dumb it down for you...

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-u...ndalls-raptors-ride-out-hurricane-michae.html
While most of Tyndall’s F-22s departed to other bases before the hurricane hit, 17 Raptors were left to ride out the storm. The remaining Raptors were either undergoing planned maintenance or could not be safely launched on very short-notice.

See the highlighted? There are two types of 'planned maintenance': Phase and Depot.

https://www.army.mil/article/27690/phase_maintenance_ensures_aircrafts_remain_battle_ready

https://www.dau.edu/acquipedia/pages/articledetails.aspx#!504

Phase maintenance is done at the unit level. Depot maintenance is done at the manufacturer's or equivalent approved level.

With phase maintenance, the jet is put into a hangar and personnel begins to remove panels to gain access to underlying components. All components: avionics, life support, and environmental, and engine(s) are removed. For an F-16, a 'non-stealth' fighter, the strip down process takes about 2 days, then inspection another two days, reassembly takes another 2-3 days, for an average phase hangar time of about one week, give or take one day.

With depot maintenance, the aircraft, civilian or military, is actually flown off to the manufacturer or an equivalent approved facility. The F-22's depot level facility is at Hill AFB, Utah. Much more inland and in a valley. Not much hurricane there. At the depot level, the aircraft is literally stripped down to the bare airframe. Time can be up to 60 days, depending on airframe.

So for what happened at Tyndall, those F-22s that were abandoned could not have been flown out, not because of unplanned extensive maintenance but because of SCHEDULED maintenance. For a hurrevac, I do not need radar to fly. The F-16s in the Thunderbirds do not have radars and guns to fly. So for a hurrevac, as long as the jet is flyable under combat allowed criteria, it would fly if there is a pilot available.

The problem with ignorant and inexperience but arrogant people like you is that you do not understand the proper contexts of the language involved. The F-22 requires extensive maintenance? What does it mean in your ignorant interpretation of the word? Does it mean the jet breaks something every time it flies? Newsflash for you, O Ignorant One, give me one hour and I can write up anything that would make a jet Code Three: Grounded.

You never heard of the phrase 'Code Three'? How about 'Code One'?

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/code-one.html

In aviation, an aircraft that is 'Code One' after a flight is considered zero defects (ZD) and readied for the next day's sortie list. It does not mean the aircraft is maintenance free. Various inspections and fluid samples must be taken and each action grounded the jet. You removed a panel to take oil sample? Grounded. You unlocked the LOX bottle to refill? Grounded. But overall, the jet is considered Code One.

The F-22 requires 'extensive' maintenance is because work is required to preserve its low radar observability features, not because the jet breaks some things every time it flies. Every time a panel is opened and closed, measurement must be taken to see if its 'stealth' was raised above a certain level, so until that is done, the jet is grounded. Not because something serious was broken. For a hurrevac, that would be unnecessary and the jet would have been flown off. It would require actual time served in the air force for you to understand what I am talking about.

But the bottom line is that you do not know WTF you are talking about and is blowing thru your anus.

 

[VEVAK]

Many small UAV based AEW asset can also be replaced by one aerostat AEW asset. Pro for the UAVs is that they can be used for offensive air campaigns, pro for aerostat is low operation cost and persistent coverage.

There is one approach the IRGC seems to follow on SHORADs, with the Tor based Oghab Iran will get the most cost effective electronically scanned SHORAD system in the world.

If the IRGC also uses the Oghab, it can make use of its advanced radar system to not only simplify the missile interceptor but also: develop guided AAA projectiles.
Connect one of the new truck mountet Sarir 100mm guns to each Oghab system in the battery as AAA slaved component and feed the projectile with command radio data from the Oghab PESA radar. That would mean that this guided projectile just needs a antenna at its rear to receive data, no seeker, no IMU, just a actuator steering system.
The 100mm caliber is both large enough to pack it in (Russians are doing it with 57mm) and has enough fragmentation performance to kill a large target with a single shot.
Range a coverage performance can be improved to 6-8km, increasing engagement cycle.
The elegance of this system would be: No booster propulsion system, no guidance system inside the projectile.
Cost drivers would only be high-g rated mechanical and electrical components.

Imagine a Tor/Oghab system connected to two Sarir 100mm trucks with 2 x 8 ready to fire guided rounds. 9th Day missile with 15km instead of Tor-M1 10km and 16 instead of 8 rounds. 4 guidance channels and multiply all by four for a whole Oghab battery.
This would be a highly cost effective SHORAD system that could reliably protect against the whole spectrum of atmospheric, non-hypersonic threats. Protect Ghadir radars, BMEW radars, OTH radars, aerostat radars and whole cities.

Btw. each TOR-M1 system costed Iran $ 20-25m, let see how much the Oghab will.

Yes the exact opposite is also true multiple AEW UAV assets can be replaced by a single large AEW Aircraft however, if you do not possess the type of Air Force needed to be able to properly escort and protect that single asset & the large runway you'll need to take off from which do you think will have far greater survivability in an actual war against an adversary that possess far superior Air Force?

Of course preferably it's shouldn't be a matter of either or and Iran should have both but if you want to operate a small fleet of larger AEW then you'll also need a fleet of Air Superiority fighters & in the future Air Superiority UCAV's to protect them. Also you have to realize that a fleet of a handful of large AEW's aircraft will be high priority targets and a country like the U.S. will be able to use handful of more expensive hypersonic weapons to take them out while they are still on the ground at far greater ranges.
And no doubt the type of operations you'll be using them for(Offensive, Defensive,....) will no doubt dictate which is the more preferable option a single faster and larger aircraft with far greater range in terms of sensor capability or a fleet of smaller and slower AEW UAV assets with far less senor capability. But that factor simply can't exclude the Air assets you'll need to protect a larger more expensive AEW asset.


As for mounting AAA on top of relatively expensive truck makes them more mobile but at the same time it also makes them easier targets. Simply put if the American were going to bother with hitting every AAA in Iran then they'd run out of cruise missile long before we ran out of military assets so I personally don't see the need to build a large force of larger caliber mobile AAA systems. Yes a small specific amount for specific battlefield operation protecting mobile unites however, I still believe that vast majority of our AAA systems from the Samavat on up to the 100mm Saeer should be towed with multiple AAA systems networked, sensor fused & remotely operated with assigned fixed location protecting a site. And for mobile AAA I'm more favorable to smaller caliber shorter barrel systems capable of greater accuracy and speed at shorter engagement ranges.

In terms of cost of the Oghab system let's hope it's not only affordable but it can be mass produced to be mass deployed.
That said when it comes to military budget on domestic weapons accusation I personally believe as long as that money is being spent on more sophisticated defense equipment & the weapon are 100% produced in country that's from materials used in it's construction to every little component then we can even afford to outspend the Saudis because if it's truly 100% domestic then that money will not only be recycled into the economy and create jobs but will also help develop more advanced infrastructure around it with no foreign currency required that will rather quickly trickle down to the civilian sector.
Unfortunately in Iran it's always the civilian sector that messes things up just look at Iran Khodro do you honestly think if the IRGC was in total control of that company they'd be in the mess they are in today? Especially with all the money that company has made and is capable of making.

 

[VEVAK]

No, I will dumb it down for you...

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-u...ndalls-raptors-ride-out-hurricane-michae.html
While most of Tyndall’s F-22s departed to other bases before the hurricane hit, 17 Raptors were left to ride out the storm. The remaining Raptors were either undergoing planned maintenance or could not be safely launched on very short-notice.

See the highlighted? There are two types of 'planned maintenance': Phase and Depot.

https://www.army.mil/article/27690/phase_maintenance_ensures_aircrafts_remain_battle_ready

https://www.dau.edu/acquipedia/pages/articledetails.aspx#!504

Phase maintenance is done at the unit level. Depot maintenance is done at the manufacturer's or equivalent approved level.

With phase maintenance, the jet is put into a hangar and personnel begins to remove panels to gain access to underlying components. All components: avionics, life support, and environmental, and engine(s) are removed. For an F-16, a 'non-stealth' fighter, the strip down process takes about 2 days, then inspection another two days, reassembly takes another 2-3 days, for an average phase hangar time of about one week, give or take one day.

With depot maintenance, the aircraft, civilian or military, is actually flown off to the manufacturer or an equivalent approved facility. The F-22's depot level facility is at Hill AFB, Utah. Much more inland and in a valley. Not much hurricane there. At the depot level, the aircraft is literally stripped down to the bare airframe. Time can be up to 60 days, depending on airframe.

So for what happened at Tyndall, those F-22s that were abandoned could not have been flown out, not because of unplanned extensive maintenance but because of SCHEDULED maintenance. For a hurrevac, I do not need radar to fly. The F-16s in the Thunderbirds do not have radars and guns to fly. So for a hurrevac, as long as the jet is flyable under combat allowed criteria, it would fly if there is a pilot available.

The problem with ignorant and inexperience but arrogant people like you is that you do not understand the proper contexts of the language involved. The F-22 requires extensive maintenance? What does it mean in your ignorant interpretation of the word? Does it mean the jet breaks something every time it flies? Newsflash for you, O Ignorant One, give me one hour and I can write up anything that would make a jet Code Three: Grounded.

You never heard of the phrase 'Code Three'? How about 'Code One'?

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/code-one.html

In aviation, an aircraft that is 'Code One' after a flight is considered zero defects (ZD) and readied for the next day's sortie list. It does not mean the aircraft is maintenance free. Various inspections and fluid samples must be taken and each action grounded the jet. You removed a panel to take oil sample? Grounded. You unlocked the LOX bottle to refill? Grounded. But overall, the jet is considered Code One.

The F-22 requires 'extensive' maintenance is because work is required to preserve its low radar observability features, not because the jet breaks some things every time it flies. Every time a panel is opened and closed, measurement must be taken to see if its 'stealth' was raised above a certain level, so until that is done, the jet is grounded. Not because something serious was broken. For a hurrevac, that would be unnecessary and the jet would have been flown off. It would require actual time served in the air force for you to understand what I am talking about.

But the bottom line is that you do not know WTF you are talking about and is blowing thru your anus.

F-22 Ti casting style Air Frame and limited production numbers makes extensive maintenance especially when it's Air Frame related extremely time consuming & rather difficult. However, at the end of the day the F-22 remains THE MOST advanced Air Superiority Fighter ever produced on the planet & currently there isn't a single produced fighter jet to this day that could go head to head against the F-22 and the fact that it went into production 2 decades ago say's a lot. The combo of super cruise(high speed, high endurance) , Stealth(with internal weapons bay & unmatched in terms of RCS compared to size) & 2D TVC on a compact highly maneuverable and extremely hard to detect airframe makes it the most fearsome platform on the planet that can always be upgraded through time with modern avionics, sensors,.....
So the real question is after producing an engineering marvel like the F-22 platform, after 2 decades later, rather than improving on the near perfection that is the F-22 how could you (The U.S.) go o so very wrong with the utter turkey of a platform that is the F-35? And I'm talking strictly platform NOT sensors, avionics,.....

 

[gambit]

So the real question is after producing an engineering marvel like the F-22 platform, after 2 decades later, rather than improving on the near perfection that is the F-22 how could you (The U.S.) go o so very wrong with the utter turkey of a platform that is the F-35? And I'm talking strictly platform NOT sensors, avionics,.....

Turkey of a platform? Here we go again...

First, am going to be a dick about this and ask what contribution to aviation have Iran gave for you to call the F-35 a 'turkey'? Sure as the sky is blue that the sentiment DID NOT came from experience, either personal or national.

Second, all the criticisms leveled at the F-35 have been laid to rest. Everything from it supposedly cannot maneuver 9g to it burning up ship decks.

Your usage of the word 'platform' is meaningless. It is too generic. Try again and try to be more specific. And if you bring up Pierre Sprey, I know you are out of touch.

 

[Mr Iran Eye]

>>>>>>> However, at the end of the day the F-22 remains THE MOST advanced Air Superiority Fighter ever produced on the planet & currently there isn't a single produced fighter jet to this day that could go head to head against the F-22 <<<<<<<