What's new

Iranian Air Defense Systems

Does the Iranian S-300 PMU-2 missiles have TVC?
if so this technolog will be reverse engineered for sure,....if Iran does not have TVC technology, which I doubt, they should have it.....

Qiam-1 ballistic missile has thrust vectoring, so Iran should be capable to implement them into air defence missiles...why not...

 
.
Does the Iranian S-300 PMU-2 missiles have TVC?
if so this technolog will be reverse engineered for sure,....if Iran does not have TVC technology, which I doubt, they should have it.....

Qiam-1 ballistic missile has thrust vectoring, so Iran should be capable to implement them into air defence missiles...why not...

Its quite possible the bavar 373 sams do have tvc,but without a proper look at the rear of the missile you cant really tell.The s300s that iran received do have tvc and iran has had previous experience with tvc for its larger ssms.Heres a pic of a coupled tvc system from an early hq9 sam.The bavar sam if it has tvc would probably look very similar to this,tho another less likely option would be a gas dynamic system like that used on the s300vm/sa23,this taps gas from the exhaust which is then re-injected into the exhaust stream.
HQ-9-Round-Nozzle-1S.jpg
 
.
@AmirPatriot

A less complex but also probably less robust solution and more expensive is to use a simple ARH seeker equipped SAM with one search-only radar, like the the Aster and others. The Iranian solution would be a good one if it works that way, all systems which would be designed to counter stealth opponents would be more complex.

Two different radars on two trucks looks complex but another point is that we have a problem in practice with my described solution:

The Bavars SAM seeker would almost certainly be in X-band. But AESA technology for X-band is still very new, expansive and hard to master. In my description above both Bavar battery radars would have to be X-band AESAs to work that way. Iran has displayed AESA systems up to S-band, with the Hafez for example.
So it would be a more likely theory that the acquisition and engagement radar is in fact a S-band system with no actual "engagement" capability, means the ability to illuminate a target. It could be a AESA beamforming radar like the Hafez, used for emergency battery search capability, missile up-link communication and missile tracking during engagement. It could additionally be optimized to form a high energy pencil beam to track a distant or stealth target, but with no illumination capability to guide the Bavars SARH SAM seeker autonomously. In emergency it could work alone by using the Bavars missile up-link to guide it in a much less robust and accurate command guidance mode.

The necessary engagement radar able to illuminate a target would be the "engagement radar" of the Bavar. It looks like a AESA system, but due to the reasons mentioned above it would be a quite huge achievement to build a rather large X-band AESA for tracking and illumination. Rather high power levels are necessary and Iran is not known to possess such state of the art semi conductor capabilities. A X-band system explains the smaller aperture size of it and a AESA solution with lower power than a S-300 like PESA could archive a comparably high illumination power by more precise pencil beam forming.
We could dismiss it being a AESA and just looking like one from the outside, a high power direct feed PESA would be muh easier to build. Could it be a reduced AESA with no receiving capability as explained in the previous post, in order to make it easier to build? No such system is known and I'm not sure if this would be technically feasible, but I dont exclude the possibility that only by taking out the receiver function they were able to create a high power AESA Illuminator.

One question would be why using two trucks if both radars could be mounted on a single one judging from the size. Its for system redundancy and because both radars work in different S- and X-bands.

So why do these radars look like AESAs?
-A horn or lens feed system is missing (like on Patriot, Big bird, Tombstone PESAs)
-A waveguide is missing on the front (the horizontal channels on the aperture face, like on Meraj-4 and Bashir)
-The clean face of the radar aperture continuous 100% of surface area and shape in total depth of the aperture and the total depth of the aperture is not rather thin compared to PESA designs but thick.

The Bavars radars have all those traits, hence they are almost certainly AESAs even if there is a slim possibility of a just unusual looking PESA.

Some might ask what the main advantage of a AESA would be in this context.

Lets take the Meraj-4, Matla ol Fajr-3 and Najam 802 as example. These 3 could form something like a Iranian Nebo-M system, even if lacking a third L-band component.
As PESAs the Meraj-4 and Matla ol Fajr-3 would make use of their large emitting power and aperture size to do continuous volume search in VHF and S-band. Signal analysis of the two would make it possible to determine whether its a stealth target or a conventional one. In a stealth case the Meraj-4 would see nothing but the Matla ol Fajr-3 would. Here is where a advanced AESA like the Najam 802 could do following: Its aperture size and emitting power is smaller than its S-band colleague the Meraj-4, hence it would normally have no chance to see the stealth target. It would use its AESA given precise beam forming capabilities to do a tight sector search in which a small pencil beam scans the airspace portion where the Matla-ol-Fajr-3 has detected a potential stealth target. Hence even if operating in the less stealth effective S-band, it could pick up the target visible by the Matla-ol-Fajr-3 and do the necessary target analyzing and more importantly provide much more accurate S-band grade target coordinate data to Bavar batteries. Signal analysis in such a case could even classify the target, whether its a missile, decoy, fighter and so on. Additionally it would be able to keep track of the target in case of heavy jamming, where volume search PESAs Meraj-4 and Matla ol Fajr-3 would already be jammed.
I learned a lot. Thanks Man!
 
.
Thank you for your valuable contributions @PeeD. Unfortunately my replies don't do your post justice as I am not so familiar with the technicals as you are... If you don't mind I will invite @eagle2007 to also contribute to this thread since he is probably much more familiar than I am.
 
Last edited:
.
You are welcome AmirPatriot and eagle2007 too (if he is not from the CIA!)

Regarding the missile of the Bavar, it is clearly designed to meet the kinematic benchmark set by the S-300PMU2, both are 7m+ SAMs.

Regarding TVC: It is only really useful against ballistic missiles and that only under following conditions:

A TVC system only works if exhaust gas is still ejected from the nozzle. This requires a rather complex dual pulse solid fuel motor. Even more: For 200km long range SAMs the second pulse must have a duration of tens of seconds.

I'm not even sure if lastest 200km rated S-300PM2 missiles meet that requirement. Technically its more likely that even the S-300PM only uses the TVC system for initial trajectory alignment right after the start and for the first 40km which is is able to intercept high speed re-entry vehicles of MRBMs. I doubt whether there is enough gas pressure left after 200km travel to have beneficial effects on the TVC system. It makes sense to have TVC against ballistic missiles, more so if the interception takes place at 40km which would set the interception altitude very high, so high that aerodynamic control via fins would not be sufficient to pull the necessary Gs up there. I called this high altitude interception capability of the S-300 limited exo-atmospheric interception capability in the previous posts, but this is very limited and not comparable to the i.e SM-3 which should have all axis exo-atmospheric control.

Against manned fighter type targets TVC might be even a unnecessary/uneconomical design element. With the large warheads, vertical attack aspect, high speeds and max. target maneuvers of 15G at best, aerodynamic control via fins are almost certainly enough. American MIM-104 Patriot does not use TVC and is even used against TBMs and Russians also omitted TVC for the S-300V (only used at start phase before stage separation). So The Bavar and Sayyad-4 should have no penalties of PK against manned fighter type targets and still be effective against BMs.

Its possible that the Sayyad-3 has a sort of TVC and is used in the Patriot PAC-3 role against BMs, it would be a wise decision given that the possibly 200km+ kinematic capability of the Sayyad-4 would be a overkill for 40km max. range upper endo-atmospheric ABM operation.

The Bavar design team went for many US-pattern designs solutions with the Bavar. The heritage of the missiles is from the SM-1. So for the Sayyad-4 operation also input from the AIM-54 could have been used, i.e the vertical dive on target attack, which ensures a high PK. This would be Independent from other SAMs not in Irans possession, with designs at hand to study.
So the Bavars Sayyad-4 looks like a Iranian solution with missile layout similar to the S-300PM but with SM-1 design heritage and possibly AIM-54 influences to archive highly effective long range anti-fighter performance. It might have skipped some of the extras like the TVC system but likely due to different objectives (more anti-fighter) and good economic considerations. As it is almost certainly a multi-missile system, specialized objectives and roles like ABM operation could be possibly passed to the Sayyad-3.
 
.
and eagle2007 too (if he is not from the CIA!)

With the sort of knowledge he has I'm surprised he isn't...

Its possible that the Sayyad-3 has a sort of TVC and is used in the Patriot PAC-3 role against BMs

Another thing we had not thought about. Although it has been quoted to have a 150 km range. On the other hand, the launch canisters shown at the official unveiling were most likely Sayyad-3 canisters, and Rouhani did say the B-373 would be tested on a Ballistic Missile...

The Bavar design team went for many US-pattern designs solutions with the Bavar. The heritage of the missiles is from the SM-1.

I dunno... the Sayyad-2 certainly has this;

sayyad05.jpg


But the Sayyad-3 and 4 don't look like it at all.

qtgGvvR.jpg


1394012910285093_PhotoL.jpg
 
.
With the sort of knowledge he has I'm surprised he isn't...



Another thing we had not thought about. Although it has been quoted to have a 150 km range. On the other hand, the launch canisters shown at the official unveiling were most likely Sayyad-3 canisters, and Rouhani did say the B-373 would be tested on a Ballistic Missile...



I dunno... the Sayyad-2 certainly has this;

sayyad05.jpg


But the Sayyad-3 and 4 don't look like it at all.

qtgGvvR.jpg


1394012910285093_PhotoL.jpg
Agreed,the sayyad 2 is very clearly based on the rim66/sm1,however the sayyad 3+4 appear to be very different from not only the rim66/sm1 but also from each other.I would have said that the sayyad 4 looks to be far more likely to have been either heavily inspired by,or perhaps even copied[?] from,the s300 5v55k/48n6e interceptors as the bi-conical nose section on it is very obvious and the cable duct is also very similar as well,tho the rear control surfaces are quite different.The sayyad 3 reminds me of the patriots mim104 interceptor tho once again the rear control surfaces are different.
 
.
As said in the previous post there is no doubt that the general arrangement, layout and size of the Sayyad-4 is modeled on the S-300s 48N6E (which btw, is a indication that a SAGG/TVM guidance is used instead of independent SARH). But the detail design elements have a SM-1 heritage in my opinion, the Sayyad-2 design team also worked on the dash 3 and 4. The Sayyad-2 school is the basis, the Sayyad-4 is very different from the Sayyad-2 and SM-1, but has the same heritage, nothing negative there.
It would be bad if the Iranian team got a S-300PM round somehow and just copied it to a own variant. Here a design team which learned some 15 years ago from the SM-1 design, copied it and then went to built a different variant, the Sayyad-2 and now has sufficient skills to design a S-300PM layout missile if ordered to do so. No one criticizes the team which created the lastest SM-3 block because the design heritage is from the SM-1 school.

Some additional Bavar details: One integral benefit against VLO/stealth targets for SARH SAGG/TVM guided missiles is that they work in bi static mode. This means that the RF illumination by the engagement radar will be reflected by the stealth design to a different direction to avoid detection. But as the receiver of the system in a SAGG/TVM SAM is at the missiles seeker, it will receive the illumination RF signal from a different aspect. A SAM that use a energy efficient trajectory and performs a dive attack on the target has much better chances to receive RF reflection signals from a stealth aircraft and home on it. A ARH seeker equipped SAM on the other hand would not have such a benefit and send and receive RF signals at a angle to the target which is optimized to reflect RF signals to a different direction. Due to this effect, it may often happen that a engagement radar which illuminates a target will not receive RF signals back to establish a track but if it had a SAGG/TVM SAM near the target it would be able to establish a bi-static track of the target.

Here is where a new stealth optimized SAM system could benefit from recently archived high accuracy/resolution levels of digital 3D AESA VHF-band search radars. If system position systems are accurate enough a such a VHF-band radar would provide accurate enough target coordinate data for the engagement radar to point is tight mainlobe beam to the estimated target area. The engagement radar would have no track of the target but get continuously updated by the VHF-band radar to point its mainlobe on target. It would first see the target via its bi static SAM seeker in the terminal phase. Its possible that systems like the S-300PM have already such a "blind mode" against stealth targets implemented. However I don't know if practical results of such a mode would be robust enough.
 
. .
Iran IRGC Aerospace Division "Defenders of the Velayat Skies" drill رزمایش "مدافعان حریم ولایت" سپاه


finally they are showing new stuff, nice video...
i can see raad air defence family and Sayyad 2
maybe we will see B-373 soon? lets see...
 
. .
it is political decision which the government doesn't want to take

totally illogically

B-373 is an air defence system which is not an offensive weapon, its an defensive weapon.
So Iran was ready to test a ballistic missile some days ago, which is an offensive weapon, but it doesnt show B-373, which is defensive? naaaaah, thats not logical
they dont show it because its not ready yet....
 
. . .
View attachment 374436
IRGC SAM's target & hit Ground-Ground Missiles & Air Launched bombs for the 1st time

The type of Ground to Ground missile that was intercepted was not disclosed!
I'm especially impressed by the hitting of the bombs! (small targets)

This was not expected and demonstrates proficient short range systems!

The hitting of the ground to ground missile could mean a cruise or ballistic missile... the latter would be significantly more impressive... Let's await further details.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom