Iranian Air Defense Systems

[VEVAK]

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.

Really? You wanna excuse the absurdity of the F-35 with the fact that Iran's modern Defense industry didn't really start till nearly a century after the U.S.! That's your excuse?

In terms of platform the F-35B may be an improvement on the Harrier so I don't have much to say about that however as a replacement to take over most of the U.S. fleet it is a platform that is SLOWER & Less Maneuverable then an F-16 (armed for air combat with 2x AiM-9 & 2x AiM-120) let alone most of it's +4th gen adversaries and competitors like the Su-35, MiG-35, Typhoon,.... let alone future 5th gen's like the Su-57 that can super cruise faster than the F-35's max speed which are the future adversaries that it would be facing and it's so called stealth capabilities where again challenged and made out to be a joke by a dinky little German Radar in Germany just recently so it would seem all the F-35 is left with is it's sensor superiority and advanced radar which is something that can be matched and out matched through future upgrades to previously mentioned platforms. And if the F-35 truly lacks the proper stealth and clearly lacks the proper maneuvering capabilities to fend off incoming SAM's and at the same time does NOT possess the speed and maneuverability to fend off and run away from modern interceptors add to an absurdly high price tag is what makes it a turkey of platform whos total reliance is on it's sensor superiority and the hope that a single scratch doesn't wipe out the aircraft stealth capabilities when in stealth mode.

And since you brought Iran into this. As I mentioned the U.S. Defense industry is nearly 100 year's older than Iran's (and I'm talking modern weapons post industrial steel) and the main reason for that is due to one corrupt Iranian King after another over half a millennia that where either fooled by foreigners or allowed them to dictate our policies! And that's why once Iran had it's 1st Democracy the Brits and the U.S. did all they could to overthrow it and so they did and now that we have our 1st Republic you are still at it again and have been at it for 4 decades!

Do you understand that under the previous Iranian Monarchy (Phalavi's the U.S. #1 regional so called ally) Iran had a leadership that literally begged for 40 years to get their so called western allies to sell Iran a single industrial Steel Mill? We had morons as leaders that chose begging their masters for over 4 decades to buy a freaking steel mill over actually doing the work with less money to build one themselves. And we are not talking rocket science here rather industrializing a process that's been done to build knifes and swords for centuries and something the Germans industrialized what in 18th century?


And the filed of Aviation is ~ a century old technology that Iran only really started getting into little over 30 years ago which puts us behind 80 years in terms of overall experience and over 50 years behind the U.S. in terms of various infrastructural requirements and in some areas less and some areas maybe even more. However now unlike before where we had a leaders that begged to buy steel mills we have a leadership that is attempting to close that gap domestically and the reason the progress appears slower in Iran than countries like S.Korea or Israel is because unlike them due to sanctions no one is handing us the engine and other vital parts, materials & components. And today due to proper leadership those sanctions have failed to persuade Iran from not pursuing those fields but rather forced us to do the work ourselves and that's why it's taken us longer. However due to those very sanctions the experience, tools, and infrastructure gained puts us a step ahead of countries that only appear ahead of Iran because they got to buy the engines, buy the high end composites, rent out foreign testing facilities to test their landing gears and other vital parts, buy and import the sensors, avionics,.....
So as long as Iran keeps putting in the work domestically in the grand scheme of history that 50 years gap the U.S. has in some areas of infrastructure will slowly dissipate but that's something that will take time and it's not something that will happen today, tomorrow or even in the next 3 decades but it will happen and in the grand scheme of history this little gap will mean nothing.

 

[skyshadow]

Talash battery deployed in Siraf air defense site near Asaluyeh

in larger scale satellite image there is a Kavosh early warning radar in that air defense site

 

[skyshadow]

 

[gambit]

Really? You wanna excuse the absurdity of the F-35 with the fact that Iran's modern Defense industry didn't really start till nearly a century after the U.S.! That's your excuse?

Excuse? No, it is a challenge.

A military aircraft is a national asset. It requires literally everything a country is capable of producing. What make you think your criticisms of the F-35 are valid when the best your Iran have done is modified the F-5's basic platform? Why modified the vertical stabs? Regardless of platform, any jet will benefit the most from fly-by-wire upgrade, so is that ripoff of an F-5 have a fly-by-wire flight control system or not?

What I see in your criticisms of the F-35 are rehashed Pierre Sprey, which I expected coming. Using the language of the climate change believers, the science is settled, the F-35 won.

...made out to be a joke by a dinky little German Radar in Germany...

You mean this explanation by me...???

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/expe...ealth-jet-for-100-miles.637873/#post-11807075

...just recently so it would seem all the F-35 is left with is it's sensor superiority and advanced radar which is something that can be matched and out matched through future upgrades to previously mentioned platforms.

Unless and until your Iran can get those upgraded platforms, your criticisms of the F-35 are meaningless, assuming those other platforms can be upgraded in the first place.

And if the F-35 truly lacks the proper stealth...

What does that -- proper stealth -- mean? Ignorant people like you toss out these terms without knowing their true contexts.

 

[VEVAK]

Excuse? No, it is a challenge.

A military aircraft is a national asset. It requires literally everything a country is capable of producing. What make you think your criticisms of the F-35 are valid when the best your Iran have done is modified the F-5's basic platform? Why modified the vertical stabs? Regardless of platform, any jet will benefit the most from fly-by-wire upgrade, so is that ripoff of an F-5 have a fly-by-wire flight control system or not?

What I see in your criticisms of the F-35 are rehashed Pierre Sprey, which I expected coming. Using the language of the climate change believers, the science is settled, the F-35 won.


You mean this explanation by me...???

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/expe...ealth-jet-for-100-miles.637873/#post-11807075




Unless and until your Iran can get those upgraded platforms, your criticisms of the F-35 are meaningless, assuming those other platforms can be upgraded in the first place.


What does that -- proper stealth -- mean? Ignorant people like you toss out these terms without knowing their true contexts.

My intention isn't to diss American tech as I said the F-22 is an engineering marvel and remains unmatched to this very day however you have yet to challenge any of the real facts about the F-35A & if we put it's stealth issues aside the aircraft is still:

1.An overpriced single engine fighter
2.It has a limited payload capacity in stealth mode.
3.The Platform is slower then most of it's adversaries. (Speed is life, as a pilot you should know that.)
4.It's less maneuverable then most of it's adversaries.

And by comparison Typhoon, Rafale, MiG-35, Su-35,... are all faster and more maneuverable which gives them the upper hand in catching or running from an F-35 and they are all more capable at dodging incoming missile due to greater maneuverability & Speed.

As for the F-35's advantages they are all mainly electronics & software related which in general are easier to upgrade than the actual platform it's self.​

I've spoken with you enough times to not have to explain my self over every little detail every single time because we both know that technically there is no such thing as a truly stealth fighter jet (At least not one that's known) we simply have low RCS that makes them harder to detect the further out they are. Yes back in the day stealth aircrafts who's signature was smaller than a birds would get filtered out as clutter which made them appear invisible to radars but those days are long gone!
Today if your RCS (From all sides) is any larger than a 3X3inch Rubik's cube and/or if small standard scratches made by small dust particles during flight causes you to further lose your front angle low RCS characteristics ( So far the F-35 canopy issues is one example) then in layman's terms I'd say the platform doesn't have proper or sufficient stealth.

Stop using Iran as an excuse! Just look up the date of when Iran got it's 1st industrial steel plant as appose to the date the U.S. started it's 1st industrial steel plant. Because at the end of the day all the advancements U.S. has today over Iran in terms of military hardware is directly tide into the infrastructure the U.S. has been able to build and mass over time. Because today even if Iran was to create a detailed design of a fighter jet superior to anything the U.S. has in stock, the actual infrastructure needed to build the thing simply does NOT exist yet and until it does how could there actually be a challenge??? So yea it's an excuse!

 

[Sineva]

Heres a pic of the sa6 and taer 1 semi mobile launchers

 

[gambit]

...however you have yet to challenge any of the real facts about the F-35A & if we put it's stealth issues aside the aircraft is still:

1.An overpriced single engine fighter​

Overpriced compared to what and under what criteria?

2.It has a limited payload capacity in stealth mode.

That is the laws of physics. Real physics. Not Iranian physics. When Iran truly entered the 'stealth' arena, you can talk.

3.The Platform is slower then most of it's adversaries. (Speed is life, as a pilot you should know that.)

Two things I learned when I was active duty:

- In a fight, you win not by fighting under your opponent's rules, but by forcing him to fight under yours. And cheating is allowed.

- Slow and low, you go. Fast and high, you die.

The second rule applies even to this day. When they said 'speed is life', they do not mean you fly at maximum all the time. What they really mean is acceleration, which is not the same as constant velocity. And when you are in a turn, you lose speed, so if your jet can provide that acceleration to cancel out that loss of AND gain at the same time, you increase your odds of survival. The bottom line is that when it comes to aviation, nothing is standalone. Everything works in relation and concert with each other. At certain situations, speed works, at others, not. But of course, if only you had served and/or take time to learn in-depth, you would have known that.

4.It's less maneuverable then most of it's adversaries.

BS. The F-35 is rated for 9g, the human limit.

But let us stay with that, shall we? Iran's pride is the F-14, correct? When I was on the F-111, we actually kept up with the F-14. The F-111 was more agile than most people thought. In fact, the F-14 and F-111 shares many DNA, notably its variable geometry wings.

The F-35 is not evolutionary like its adversaries. It is REVOLUTIONARY. Other countries WILL learn the hard way -- in exercises -- that what they got ain't gonna cut it. When I can kill you from afar without you knowing when and where, there is no need to brag about my maneuverability.

I've spoken with you enough times to not have to explain my self over every little detail every single time because we both know that technically there is no such thing as a truly stealth fighter jet (At least not one that's known) we simply have low RCS that makes them harder to detect the further out they are.

I understand low radar observability better than you. I never said 'truly stealth fighter' or even implied such.

Yes back in the day stealth aircrafts who's signature was smaller than a birds would get filtered out as clutter which made them appear invisible to radars but those days are long gone!

Really? Then you better tell the China and the Russians that. Come to think of it, better tell the Iranians as well about that supposedly 'stealth' fighter they tried to convinced the world they are capable of building.​

 

[Sineva]

Heres a pic of the sa6 and taer 1 semi mobile launchers

And here is the optical fire control systems for the sa6 launcher

Heres the opposite side of the sa6 semi mobile launcher showing the large hatch for the operators compartment next to the truck cab.

 

[VEVAK]

Overpriced compared to what and under what criteria?


That is the laws of physics. Real physics. Not Iranian physics. When Iran truly entered the 'stealth' arena, you can talk.​

Based on the criteria of not wasting your money on stocking up a large fleet of these Aircrafts when there are so many better options and using cheaper stealth UCAV's and cruise missiles to fill gap of the F-35's stealth capabilities when it comes to strikes

Two things I learned when I was active duty:

- In a fight, you win not by fighting under your opponent's rules, but by forcing him to fight under yours. And cheating is allowed.

- Slow and low, you go. Fast and high, you die.

The second rule applies even to this day. When they said 'speed is life', they do not mean you fly at maximum all the time. What they really mean is acceleration, which is not the same as constant velocity. And when you are in a turn, you lose speed, so if your jet can provide that acceleration to cancel out that loss of AND gain at the same time, you increase your odds of survival. The bottom line is that when it comes to aviation, nothing is standalone. Everything works in relation and concert with each other. At certain situations, speed works, at others, not. But of course, if only you had served and/or take time to learn in-depth, you would have known that.

I've told you this before, I along with most Iranians my age have served for it was NOT mandatory for us!

As for cheating in war if your attempting to hint at the fact that selling the F-35 to other countries is an attempt at cheating then I totally agree! Having others purchase the F-35 is much like having a Trojan horse/Spy inside their Airforce.

As for flying tactics from what I know Americans pilots usually fly at higher altitude and are trained to take the high ground in air combat and I'm guessing that's why the F-35's IRST is located underneath the nose unlike your Russian counterparts that usually go low and that's why they place their IRST over the nose.
Aircrafts built to fly low either put their optical solution at the tip of the nose like the Su-25 or like the A-10 the optical/Laser solution is put on a pod that extends low enough beneath the aircraft to ensure that the tip of the nose does not restrict your field of view when flying at low altitudes.

The Q-313 was also designed to fly low and slow and in many ways it's far better suited to do so than the F-35A however it still remain a far worse turkey of a design than the F-35 (It's like taking the flaws of the F-35A and multiplying them by 1000 and at least the F-35 has it's sensors to fall back on)

BS. The F-35 is rated for 9g, the human limit.

But let us stay with that, shall we? Iran's pride is the F-14, correct? When I was on the F-111, we actually kept up with the F-14. The F-111 was more agile than most people thought. In fact, the F-14 and F-111 shares many DNA, notably its variable geometry wings.

An Aircraft's max G's simply state it's structural integrity at high G's and NOT it's maneuvering capabilities! It's sad that I have to repeat that to you!

And yes compared to today's fighter the F-14 is not a highly maneuverable aircraft however for it's time and compared to it's massive "size" it was still highly maneuverable fighter and of course it couldn't turn as good as an F-5 or other smaller aircrafts however it still had it's speed to fall back on and its thrust and wing design allowed it to perform a few maneuvers that gave them an edge over more maneuverable fighter jets but the F-35 does not have those characteristics

The F-35 is not evolutionary like its adversaries. It is REVOLUTIONARY. Other countries WILL learn the hard way -- in exercises -- that what they got ain't gonna cut it. When I can kill you from afar without you knowing when and where, there is no need to brag about my maneuverability.

Yea like removing the gun for radar guided missiles on fighter jets was revolutionary!!! O wait I forget that so called revolutionary move resulted in the U.S. fearing the removal of the gun to this very day! So guess some ppl never learn!

I understand low radar observability better than you. I never said 'truly stealth fighter' or even implied such.

If you truly understood it then what's up with your next statement?

Really? Then you better tell the China and the Russians that. Come to think of it, better tell the Iranians as well about that supposedly 'stealth' fighter they tried to convinced the world they are capable of building.

Again what part of my statement do you think was untrue? Back in the day stealth had far greater meaning because radars filtered them out as natural clutter where as today it more a matter of range of detection! That doesn't mean it's not useful however unlike a few decades ago it's not full on stealth.

 

[gambit]

Based on the criteria of not wasting your money on stocking up a large fleet of these Aircrafts when there are so many better options and using cheaper stealth UCAV's and cruise missiles to fill gap of the F-35's stealth capabilities when it comes to strikes

What has Iran contributed to military aviation regarding strategic and tactical doctrines to emboldened you to criticize US in those arenas?

I've told you this before, I along with most Iranians my age have served...

As for cheating in war if your attempting to hint at the fact that selling the F-35 to other countries is an attempt at cheating then I totally agree! Having others purchase the F-35 is much like having a Trojan horse/Spy inside their Airforce.

Here is what I said again...

- In a fight, you win not by fighting under your opponent's rules, but by forcing him to fight under yours. And cheating is allowed.

The advice was meant for air combat, not for inter-state relations.

In air combat, any advantage you have is a rule. Simply put, no fighter is perfect. Each fighter have strengths and weaknesses. If you have a longer radar range, keep the fight, and the kills, under that advantage. If you can out turn under a certain altitude, take the fight to that altitude. If you have superior acceleration, do not engage in a turning fight. This goes back to WW I, refined in tactics in WW II, and we tries to embed some of that logic and algorithm into the hardware today. An area that your Iran do not have expertise in.

The 'cheating' I was referring to was in trickery, deception, mislead, seduction, enhancement, basically, anything an air force can do outside of the individual fighters to put the enemy fighters into inferior postures. AWACS is cheating because the AWACS platform extends the battlespace vision and gives its fighters 'unnatural' advantage. The word 'unnatural' does not mean Mother Nature but in reference to the jet's designed-in features and capabilities. In-flight refueling is another form of 'cheating' because it extends the fighter's fuel capacity in another 'unnatural' way. These two capabilities enhanced US airpower to the point that we are essentially unchallenged anywhere we fly. Another form of 'cheating' is data links and sharing, not just between manned but also with unmanned platforms. People mocks US pilots for not wanting to fight without these assets but they are wrong. Foolishly wrong. Whatever you have you must take to the fight because this is war, not a boxing match with a trophy at the end.

What you said about 'cheating' revealed your ignorance and I do not blame you for that ignorance. You may have served but I doubt you served in any meaningful way beyond your two-yrs commitment. I already knew how to fly before I joined the USAF. Instead of spending my money on cars, I spent on flight lessons after school. You did not understand the context of what I posted because you have no relevant experience in military aviation.

As for flying tactics from what I know Americans pilots usually fly at higher altitude and are trained to take the high ground in air combat and I'm guessing that's why the F-35's IRST is located underneath the nose unlike your Russian counterparts that usually go low and that's why they place their IRST over the nose.
Aircrafts built to fly low either put their optical solution at the tip of the nose like the Su-25 or like the A-10 the optical/Laser solution is put on a pod that extends low enough beneath the aircraft to ensure that the tip of the nose does not restrict your field of view when flying at low altitudes.

You do not know what you are talking about. When I said this...

- Low and slow, you go. Fast and high, you die.

It does not specify exact altitude/airspeed combination for every situation. When I was on the F-111, we trained for low altitude terrain following (TF) flights at near Mach. But even so, flight planning often have the F-111 at above 10k in some situations and lower in others. The advice is meant for keeping a low flight profile after the lessons learned from the XB-70 program and the U-2 shoot down incident.

Again...You have no relevant military aviation experience and your Iran do not contribute to the arts and crafts of air warfare since the beginning of aviation in general, but here you are making pronouncements against a potential opponent who have been in the lead in aviation since the first flight.

The Q-313 was also designed to fly low and slow and in many ways it's far better suited to do so than the F-35A however it still remain a far worse turkey of a design than the F-35 (It's like taking the flaws of the F-35A and multiplying them by 1000 and at least the F-35 has it's sensors to fall back on)

I have been reserved about the Q-313 out of respect for my fellow airmen, even for Iran, but now I will opine: The Q-313 is a fake.

Just about everything of the jet seems wrong for a manned platform. If I am proven wrong in the coming days, I have no problems with it. But I doubt Iran will be able to pull it off. In Iran, maybe for public consumption. But for experienced professionals, the Q-313 is a fraud. I wait for the day when I am proven wrong.

An Aircraft's max G's simply state it's structural integrity at high G's and NOT it's maneuvering capabilities! It's sad that I have to repeat that to you!

And it is really sad for you that you think that just because you lifted that quote somewhere in the Internet, it make valid your criticism of the F-35. I know what 9g feels like. You do not.

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/f-35-faces-most-critical-test-180971734/

The F-35 have been flown by experienced pilots from partner countries and your maneuvering capabilities criticism are done for, as in no longer valid. It is sad for your critical thinking skills, or lack thereof, that you do not recognize how far behind you really are. If the F-35 is as inferior as you believes, the chorus of objections from our partners' pilots would have been obvious by now, instead, the jet increasingly received affirmation even over inevitable birthing pains of a new platform. And who has not experienced such?

And yes compared to today's fighter the F-14 is not a highly maneuverable aircraft however for it's time and compared to it's massive "size" it was still highly maneuverable fighter and of course it couldn't turn as good as an F-5 or other smaller aircrafts however it still had it's speed to fall back on and its thrust and wing design allowed it to perform a few maneuvers that gave them an edge over more maneuverable fighter jets but the F-35 does not have those characteristics

I will go out on a limb and say this: The F-35s on the USS America WILL decimate Iran's F-14s without the F-35 pilots breaking 6gs.

Yea like removing the gun for radar guided missiles on fighter jets was revolutionary!!! O wait I forget that so called revolutionary move resulted in the U.S. fearing the removal of the gun to this very day! So guess some ppl never learn!

Like I said earlier -- When your Iran contribute to military aviation, you can criticize what we do on our jets. When your F-14s starts dropping out of the sky from directions unknown you will realize how revolutionary the F-35 really is.

If you truly understood it then what's up with your next statement?

So what is up with it? What did I said that was wrong? If it is so easy to filter out 'stealth' then why are the Russians and Chinese investing in something that is supposedly figured out?
​

Again what part of my statement do you think was untrue? Back in the day stealth had far greater meaning because radars filtered them out as natural clutter where as today it more a matter of range of detection! That doesn't mean it's not useful however unlike a few decades ago it's not full on stealth.

Your statement is complete ignorance. And I say that kindly.

If the distance is close enough, any radar will pick up the F-117 or F-22. The US never made any claim about being 'invisible'. The word 'invisible' is largely a media hype word. The technically correct phrase that the USAF used is 'low radar observable'. The operative word is 'observable'. Not 'invisible'. It means the seeking radar can 'see' the F-117 but only at very short distance. It was not 'today' like you absurdly stated but have ALWAYS been that way. I have used the phrase 'low radar observable' on this forum since '09. Your continuing mischaracterization of the concept is why I have no problems saying I understand the concept better than you do.

 

[skyshadow]

so they have AA missiles

https://twitter.com/x/status/1189931262766649345

https://twitter.com/x/status/1189888359725965312

 

[arashkamangir]

so they have AA missiles

https://twitter.com/x/status/1189931262766649345

https://twitter.com/x/status/1189888359725965312

it could have been a MANPAD. I have little doubt about the presence of advanced AA in Hezbollah's possession but I doubt they would roll out big systems for a UAV.

 

[Battle of Waterloo]

Probably MANPAD. It failed shortly after launch.

 

[DoubleYouSee]

Probably MANPAD. It failed shortly after launch.

It seems the era of the manpads has gone by.........

 

[Sina-1]

You have no relevant military aviation experience

Arguing credentials over the net? Come on now? For all we know you could be an overweight saudi! Personal credentials cannot serve as premises in an argument, e.g. I am a super duper professor in aviation with 50 years aviation experience from Boeing, thus everything I say is the truth.

Iran do not contribute to the arts and crafts of air warfare since the beginning of aviation in general,

Anybody is free to present their hypotheses based on freely available data. What ones country has or has not done makes no difference whatsoever.

but here you are making pronouncements against a potential opponent who have been in the lead in aviation since the first flight.

See above!


However I will say this. When f117 was firstly introduced; Radars in no shape or form were prepared for an aircraft with passive radar sig reduction techniques. Today the situation is different and the means for locating such low-observable crafts has had a rapid advancement. One part of it is purely due to the applied physics e.g. using different radar frequency bands, however IMO the most disruptive technology in the field is AI and machine leaning. By applying mathematical models that can efficiently plow through massive amount of data from e.g. OTH radar is what has helped the current air defence systems to close the gap with radar reduced sig crafts.

So yeah, one could really argue if the F35 is the best bang for the buck offensive weapons platform. I'm not saying that it isn't. However the question is absolutely relevant. The premises have changed in 20 years. The state-of-the-art air defences present are radically different compared to the ones in mind when ordering and designing the F35.

Also, I am an engineering fanboy and therefore an absolute fan of american engineering. BUT, putting all your eggs in the Lockheed basket doesn't seem to be the most sensible approach. Time will tell I guess...