What's new

Iranian Air Defense Systems

Sina-1 said:
I urge my hamvatans to take a moment and read through this tweet. Even if you don’t agree with the conclusion, the hardware depiction is very informative.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1217221181029474306

ps. @PeeD is this by any chance your Twitter account?
Click to expand...
Agreed,I think that this post does an extremely concise job of pointing out the potential problems and weaknesses with this system.
 
.
mohsen said:
No, it's the first missile.
by second missile, aircrafts fuel on the wing catches fire.

Sabotage is one theory and naturally they have to investigate it.
Click to expand...
if that is first missile ( i don't know how you detect it as first missile ) then they should investigate.
in the cctv video you can see that there is no fire. nor in first and second
 
Last edited:
.
viewer said:
f that is first missile ( i don't know how you detect it as first missile ) then they should investigate.
Click to expand...
why you say that its about our national security why he must send it to enemy .are we shut down the plane most of them iranian if yes for what reason 2 why the hell doing there in desert in 6am .do you no dont let any one getting near 10km from site. 3 who the hell he can get the missile movie with that speed are you the ones saying it is iq 40 or some ones in island in albania for example and why you get mad of this mistake
 
.
mohsen said:
No, it's the first missile.
by second missile, aircrafts fuel on the wing catches fire.

Sabotage is one theory and naturally they have to investigate it.
Click to expand...
the film clearly show two missile and by the time of explosions I say the aircraft was flying toward the air-defense site . then after some time from the second hit we have the engine explosion .
first hit took 16sec second hit around 12 sec and engine explosion 50sec later .
I wonder why the pilot didn't ask for any help in that time .

by the way @TheImmortal in which picture you say the sign of any shrapnel on cockpit ? i only see one who showed something similar on the wings

by the way does anybody can explain to me why the CCTV is so shaky ?
 
.
Hack-Hook said:
the film clearly show two missile and by the time of explosions I say the aircraft was flying toward the air-defense site . then after some time from the second hit we have the engine explosion .
first hit took 16sec second hit around 12 sec and engine explosion 50sec later .
I wonder why the pilot didn't ask for any help in that time .

by the way @TheImmortal in which picture you say the sign of any shrapnel on cockpit ? i only see one who showed something similar on the wings

by the way does anybody can explain to me why the CCTV is so shaky ?
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1216351800103706624

Look at cockpit front windshield. Looks like one of the missiles detonated from the front shooting the shrapnel into the aircraft.

It would explain why there was no communication as the aircraft went down.
 
.
I still don't understand how any air defense system cannot differentiate between an outbound passenger plane and an incoming cruise missile. Even systems from the 80's and perhaps even earlier could tell the difference.

Iran bought the Tor M-1 in the 2000's. I have a hard time believing that the CPU and other vital hardware of the early 2000's Tor was unchanged since the 80's. Like I said, in that case, the first iphone would have more processing power.

The Tor M1 unit cost is approx $20 million. If the CPU/processors of the Tor's produced and sold to Iran in the 2000's were from the 80's then why not just buy a PS3 and use its CPU ? Also software upgrades are pretty common with such weapons systems no ?

So every single time a passenger plane takes off the Tor M1 operators see an incoming cruise missile ? I'm sorry but that's impossible!

If the Tor system was that terrible and useless then nobody would want to purchase it and also, why place it near an airport ?

What it boils down to is that the Tor M1 system must have had the capability to differentiate between outbound planes and incoming cruise missiles or at the very least there must have been some sort of protocol in place, otherwise countless passenger planes would have been shot down over the years.

If the Tor M1 truly can't tell the difference between any flying object then it couldn't even protect tank divisions or infantry either because if a friendly jet or drone were to fly overhead to provide close air support it would get shot down.

There was another incident a few years back where tensions were high and an Iranian SAM shot down a jet ? I'm not sure about the specific details but the fact that this doesn't happen all the time proves that the specific operators were at fault, not the system itself.

In regards to the T-72's Iran purchased, I'm pretty sure Iran bought them in the early 2000's, not the 90's and yes they're more advanced than versions from the 80's, like the ones Saddam tried to use against the USA, which couldn't even fire on the move.

Another example, to make my point. The C-130 Hercules, American military transport plane was first produced in the early 50's, but they're still being produced to this day. In 2020 they're still being produced but obviously the technology has changed. Sure it may look the same from the outside, with the same "shell" essentially however the ones produced this year are using modern technology up to the days standards.

Even the "shell" the airframe is most likely made of modern, lighter/synthetic materials today. The F-15 is another example. An F-15 from the 70's looks similar to an F-15 made today. The average person probably wouldn't be able to tell much of a difference but in reality its a completely different machine.

Anyways, at the end of the day, a thorough investigation has to take place and those people who were criminally negligent and acted incompetently have to pay for their crimes. I don't think Iranians will rest until that happens.





PeeD said:
The design is from the mid 80's, still state of the art but lacking computing power to do complex signal analysis, today standard in all Iranian systems.
Under 90% of the conditions it would not need it anyway. Longer range systems and the IADS would do that.
If something enters Tor kill envelope it almost certainly a valid target.

And no Russia would not update the Tor-M1 sold to Iran in the mid 2000's. They like Greek ones are the same: M1 export standard from the late 80's which in turn is a minor modification of the original Tor of the mid-80's.

Tor is made to move with tank divisions protect them and avoid killing aircraft and helicopters with Soviet military IFF system. In no scenario airliners would start close to Tor's envelope. Only in peacetime situations where it is directly under IADS control a safe operation could be established. Unfortunately on that night it had lost contact to IADS and apparently believed a war has started and it needs to protect its assigned objects at all cost. This would be standard practice: for some reason the enemy has been successful to immediately degrade the IADS, hence independent operation in worst case situation starts... only that it was no emergency situation, enemy spoofed and deceived only... and civilian flights were allowed to be done...



Nice example: Yes mid-90's Iranian T-72S are the same as the mid-80's T-72B, the strongest T-72 variant. Changing a working model is a difficult task, sometimes its not needed. Computerized signal analysis may be even regarded as something unnecessary today for a system with the original role of the Tor.




No need to upgrade a working system. Only if it is necessary to add a capability to it. Tor-M1 is a great system today for it's role, even 35 years after it was made.



Civilian aircraft normally soon climb outside the altitude envelope of the Tor-M1 into safe and fix corridors.
Pantsir-S1 for example is an Russian airforce system, designed to operate near airports and air bases. Tor-M1 on the other hand is a army system made to move with tank divisions with only Soviet/Russian aircraft and helicopters close to it.
Btw. the alleged Buk kill in Ukraine: Buk is also a army system with Soviet military IFF...



1: Alert 3 normally would have all civilian airports closed at least, or even all air corridors closed
2: Activating Tor-M1 for a given area is a dangerous step given the details of the system
3: Tor-M1 operating on its own, outside IADS will just kill anything that enters its assigned sector in alter 3 conditions.

So this is why things like that didn't happen in the past.
Click to expand...
 
.
Iran worked so hard in the past few years to develop a good air defence industry and outsiders were even impressed by it. It's sad isn't it how just with a single incident, all that publicity Iran's air defence had is now worth little. Until Iranian air defence now proves itself in a proper incident such as shooting down an F-35 or F-22 etc, then I don't see this damage being improved anytime soon. Obviously this incident does not change the reality of Iran's air defence capabilities, but as we know, the world is run mostly by perception.
 
.
Mr Robot said:
Iran worked so hard in the past few years to develop a good air defence industry and outsiders were even impressed by it. It's sad isn't it how just with a single incident, all that publicity Iran's air defence had is now worth little. Until Iranian air defence now proves itself in a proper incident such as shooting down an F-35 or F-22 etc, then I don't see this damage being improved anytime soon. Obviously this incident does not change the reality of Iran's air defence capabilities, but as we know, the world is run mostly by perception.
Click to expand...
As per your statement, this is mainly damaging from publicity point of view. Iran’s real AD capabilities will not be affected substantially from this event. The main difference is now that US fanboys and Iran haters are having fun on our expense and at this tragic accident. Let’s keep our heads down and focus on the real issues. Let the pathetic internet clowns have their fun.
 
. .
Hack-Hook said:
It won't say why the airplane managed to make a u-turn.
Click to expand...

Gravity & Physics

If the controls are destroyed and pilots are dead then natural physics take over guiding the plane ( especially with damage to engines/wing) will determine flight path.

When you throw a paper airplane in the air what determines its flight path?

Answer: Wind/Gravity/physics/structure of paper airplane
 
.
TheImmortal said:
Gravity & Physics

If the controls are destroyed and pilots are dead then natural physics take over guiding the plane ( especially with damage to engines/wing) will determine flight path.

When you throw a paper airplane in the air what determines its flight path?

Answer: Wind/Gravity/physics/structure of paper airplane
Click to expand...
There also is an inertia law in physics .
And the flight plane of a paper airplane is determined by how is the wind . where is the center of gravity how much symetrical you built it and how you throw it And many more things.
 
. .
.
. .

Similar threads

A
Iranian Defence News & Discussions.
Replies
9
Views
360
AbdulQadir7
A
D
Slovakia to buy Israeli Barak MX air defense systems for $610M
Replies
0
Views
586
dani191
D
S
  • Article
The Spada 2000 is a short-range Italian air defense system, used by Pakistan, with 25 km range.
Replies
0
Views
509
sidkhan2
S
A
PAKISTAN'S BLACK AERO AIR DEFENCE MISSILE SYSTEM: BHARAT MATA'S NIGHTMARE
Replies
0
Views
480
AbdulQadir7
A
H
  • Article
China has refused to sell Israel laser air defense systems against drones.
Replies
3
Views
467
sidkhan2
S

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Military Forum Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom