Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

[TheImmortal]

People forget Iran was quick to point out the 1800kg payload to keep international pressure off.

Because with a standard payload of 800-1000KG, the range of the missile would be approaching 3000KM much higher than the self-imposed 2000KM limit iran has set for BM range.

So far the US hasn’t called Iran out on this tactic.

 

[Hassan Al-Somal]

I think a PVB version of the khoramshahr will likely be for delivery (1or2 warheads) against targets beyond 2000km like hitting Diego Garcia but for within 2000km deploying 3 Emad RV's maybe even with a bunch of decoys will likely work best against anti ballistic missile systems because the more projectiles you force them to track post boost and attempt to target and engage the harder it will be for any Air Defense system.

I think Iran will eventually test out both regardless...

Does that mean in essence khoramshahr is or could operate as an ICBM? Basically, a missile that could give the IRGC a flexibility that can go beyond 2000KM range provided it can go beyond that range?

p.s., everything people write here are pure speculations, and no one here has an inside info in the Iranian missile development. There are many Iran watchers who would use any information out there in order to exaggerate what they perceive to be an Iranian "threat". Therefore, people should emphasize that people are just speculating things here.

 

[yavar]

 

[VEVAK]

Does that mean in essence khoramshahr is or could operate as an ICBM? Basically, a missile that could give the IRGC a flexibility that can go beyond 2000KM range provided it can go beyond that range?

p.s., everything people write here are pure speculations, and no one here has an inside info in the Iranian missile development. There are many Iran watchers who would use any information out there in order to exaggerate what they perceive to be an Iranian "threat". Therefore, people should emphasize that people are just speculating things here.

ICBM's are BM with ranges beyond 5000km NOT 2000km
Khoramshar is an IRBM which in general cover ranges of ~2000km to 4500km depending on their 2nd stage or PBV & Warhead
Diego Garcia is about 4000km from Iran so NO Khoramshar is NOT an ICBM at least not one with a viable size payload
Khoramshahr has the capability to travel 2000km with a 1.8 tone warhead which means with a smaller warhead and a post boost vehicle they can travel much further.... So I don't know why that would be so hard to comprehend....

 

[PeeD]

Here something I wrote some time ago about the Khorramshahr and a new graphic to describe it:

Last year Iran sent a message to western military intelligence by showing the video of the Khorramshahr missile launch.


I got an idea already back then what that message was but it took until this year till my idea got more solid by the parade footage.


The idea is based on two points:


1: The Khorramshahr did a strange maneuver after its boost phase: One of its vernier engines suddenly started to fire, creating a roll moment.

Back then some said this was a malfunction.


2: The Khorramshahr has a very large guidance section. Based on the video from this years parade it is clearly visible that the cable duct ends too early for any kind of realistic guidance system. This means the Khorramshahr has for some reason extra space after the upper tank section.


So what is that space used for? A kind of large guidance system?

Clear no, this was sufficiently miniaturized already with the Qiam.

Penetration aids? Maybe but there is enough space in the RV.


So how can these both points be combined?

To make it short:

The Khorramshahr turned 180° after its main engine went off and the first stage was ejected/separated to the front of the RV.

For what reason?

Well I think that extra space for the guidance sections actually houses the 3 600kg warheads in a reverse orientation.

This is a concept the Soviets pioneered with their SLBMs to make them more compact and shorter.


So after RV separation the RV fly basically upside down and the booster stage in front of it (another maneuver may let it fall short, inside Iran or it fly in forward position of the RV and act as penetration aid).



So why this strange and seemingly complicated method?

1: Missile becomes overall more compact and space around the tip of the nose can be used elegantly to house subsystems (e.g guidance)

2: As the R-27, on which the Khorramshahr is based, has fortunately a separate turbopump for it's two venier engines, they can act as PBV control engines after main engine shut down.

3: Using venier engines for that re-orientation maneuver means that the PBV does not need any extra high power control engines. Cost and complexity saved. A cold gas system could be sufficient for warhead/RV ejection trajectory changes. A spring based release system is even simpler.

4. With the large first stage in front, it could be utilized as a kind of penetration aid after in breaks up at re-entry. Or even explode in front in a controlled fashion to create debris.


In short: You does not need any additional engines for the PBV/MRV or just a cheap cold gas system for a limited MIRV capability if desired/felt necessary.


This all is very complex and hard to master and terms of innovation would be a really a great achievement. It would give Iran a conventional MVR/MIRV MRBM with high penetration aid capability and the destructive power of three Sejil-2/Ghadr-F missiles.


Things that speaks against this idea: The nose tip of the Khorramshahr could be shorter and more blunt, I doubt the guidance system would need that extra space. However that extra space could house penetration aids. The shown and tested example could be the sub-munition variant instead of the MRV.


Alternative explanations for this all:

-The sudden maneuver by the venier engine was to change the trajectory in order to reduce the range and let the warhead come down inside Iran.

-The additional space houses a second stage of a complex PBV that has its own boost engines and orientation/venier engines.

-The additional space houses a massive mount of penetration aids or a electronic warfare system/IR decoys.



Ok. I think analysts would go for my version because those two points make best sense in that way.


If correct it becomes clear that the Khorramshahr is a effort by Iran to create a "Qiam-1 for 2000km range".

The Qiam-1 is the most cost effective SRBM Iran has. It is sufficiently accurate and high speed, especially in its terminally guided variant to be used against strongly protected and defended targets 700-800km around Iran.

To put it simply again: Iran has thousands of them (or will have sooner or later) and can use it against thousand high priority targets around Iran.


However, enemy air- and missile power is a threat beyond those 700km.

60% would come from those 700km regions, 30% from regions beyond that and within 2000km and 10% from strategic ranges beyond 2000km.


Ghadr series and Sejil series had previously a role to suppress enemy assets to around 2000km, first and foremost with their sub munition warheads. With the Emad and the higher accuracy it offered, individual and hardened targets could be attacked directly at those ranges.

However Ghadr and Sejil were far from economic for strikes against enemy assets at those ranges. They are most economic as retaliation weapons against enemy area targets because each strike sends a message.


But for the task of knocking out individual/hardened targets, only the Emad was available. Compared to terminally guided Qiam variant, the Emad is still significantly more expensive.


With the Khorrmashahr this situation changes. It gives Iran a weapon that is more cost effective than the Qiam, delivers the same punch at ranges up to 2000km.

This offers a significant change in capabilities.

Area targets can be attacked by a terminally unguided large, single submunition warhead of 1800kg.

Individual or hardened targets by 3 wearheads similar to the recently shown terminally guided Qiam variant. The guidance system of each of the three MaRVs could be rather crude after a accurate trajectory injection by the main guidance system of the Khorramshahr. Even a wind-correction level guidance system for the MaRVs could be sufficient to offer the ~50m CEP necessary


What is cost effective? Calculate the cost of a 2000km strike radius low level interdictor bomber or a stealth fighter bomber, its qualification, operation, support systems cost plus its weapon cost.

If you have that number estimate the cost of a Khorramshahr and see how many you can get for that money.

Then estimate how many targets needs to be taken out and determine if you can get sufficient numbers

________
After Baradar Skyhawk (Skyshadow?) on instagram provided good analysis I wanted to offer this analysis as thanks in return.

 

[VEVAK]

Here something I wrote some time ago about the Khorramshahr and a new graphic to describe it:

Last year Iran sent a message to western military intelligence by showing the video of the Khorramshahr missile launch.


I got an idea already back then what that message was but it took until this year till my idea got more solid by the parade footage.


The idea is based on two points:


1: The Khorramshahr did a strange maneuver after its boost phase: One of its vernier engines suddenly started to fire, creating a roll moment.

Back then some said this was a malfunction.


2: The Khorramshahr has a very large guidance section. Based on the video from this years parade it is clearly visible that the cable duct ends too early for any kind of realistic guidance system. This means the Khorramshahr has for some reason extra space after the upper tank section.


So what is that space used for? A kind of large guidance system?

Clear no, this was sufficiently miniaturized already with the Qiam.

Penetration aids? Maybe but there is enough space in the RV.


So how can these both points be combined?

To make it short:

The Khorramshahr turned 180° after its main engine went off and the first stage was ejected/separated to the front of the RV.

For what reason?

Well I think that extra space for the guidance sections actually houses the 3 600kg warheads in a reverse orientation.

This is a concept the Soviets pioneered with their SLBMs to make them more compact and shorter.


So after RV separation the RV fly basically upside down and the booster stage in front of it (another maneuver may let it fall short, inside Iran or it fly in forward position of the RV and act as penetration aid).



So why this strange and seemingly complicated method?

1: Missile becomes overall more compact and space around the tip of the nose can be used elegantly to house subsystems (e.g guidance)

2: As the R-27, on which the Khorramshahr is based, has fortunately a separate turbopump for it's two venier engines, they can act as PBV control engines after main engine shut down.

3: Using venier engines for that re-orientation maneuver means that the PBV does not need any extra high power control engines. Cost and complexity saved. A cold gas system could be sufficient for warhead/RV ejection trajectory changes. A spring based release system is even simpler.

4. With the large first stage in front, it could be utilized as a kind of penetration aid after in breaks up at re-entry. Or even explode in front in a controlled fashion to create debris.


In short: You does not need any additional engines for the PBV/MRV or just a cheap cold gas system for a limited MIRV capability if desired/felt necessary.


This all is very complex and hard to master and terms of innovation would be a really a great achievement. It would give Iran a conventional MVR/MIRV MRBM with high penetration aid capability and the destructive power of three Sejil-2/Ghadr-F missiles.


Things that speaks against this idea: The nose tip of the Khorramshahr could be shorter and more blunt, I doubt the guidance system would need that extra space. However that extra space could house penetration aids. The shown and tested example could be the sub-munition variant instead of the MRV.


Alternative explanations for this all:

-The sudden maneuver by the venier engine was to change the trajectory in order to reduce the range and let the warhead come down inside Iran.

-The additional space houses a second stage of a complex PBV that has its own boost engines and orientation/venier engines.

-The additional space houses a massive mount of penetration aids or a electronic warfare system/IR decoys.



Ok. I think analysts would go for my version because those two points make best sense in that way.


If correct it becomes clear that the Khorramshahr is a effort by Iran to create a "Qiam-1 for 2000km range".

The Qiam-1 is the most cost effective SRBM Iran has. It is sufficiently accurate and high speed, especially in its terminally guided variant to be used against strongly protected and defended targets 700-800km around Iran.

To put it simply again: Iran has thousands of them (or will have sooner or later) and can use it against thousand high priority targets around Iran.


However, enemy air- and missile power is a threat beyond those 700km.

60% would come from those 700km regions, 30% from regions beyond that and within 2000km and 10% from strategic ranges beyond 2000km.


Ghadr series and Sejil series had previously a role to suppress enemy assets to around 2000km, first and foremost with their sub munition warheads. With the Emad and the higher accuracy it offered, individual and hardened targets could be attacked directly at those ranges.

However Ghadr and Sejil were far from economic for strikes against enemy assets at those ranges. They are most economic as retaliation weapons against enemy area targets because each strike sends a message.


But for the task of knocking out individual/hardened targets, only the Emad was available. Compared to terminally guided Qiam variant, the Emad is still significantly more expensive.


With the Khorrmashahr this situation changes. It gives Iran a weapon that is more cost effective than the Qiam, delivers the same punch at ranges up to 2000km.

This offers a significant change in capabilities.

Area targets can be attacked by a terminally unguided large, single submunition warhead of 1800kg.

Individual or hardened targets by 3 wearheads similar to the recently shown terminally guided Qiam variant. The guidance system of each of the three MaRVs could be rather crude after a accurate trajectory injection by the main guidance system of the Khorramshahr. Even a wind-correction level guidance system for the MaRVs could be sufficient to offer the ~50m CEP necessary


What is cost effective? Calculate the cost of a 2000km strike radius low level interdictor bomber or a stealth fighter bomber, its qualification, operation, support systems cost plus its weapon cost.

If you have that number estimate the cost of a Khorramshahr and see how many you can get for that money.

Then estimate how many targets needs to be taken out and determine if you can get sufficient numbers



________
After Baradar Skyhawk (Skyshadow?) on instagram provided good analysis I wanted to offer this analysis as thanks in return.

Go 1 Min into the video and pay attention to the clouds the veneers kicked in simply to keep the nose up to get a high trajectory injection and they worked perfectly with no malfunction at all and attempting such a complex maneuver with an entire dead weight of an empty missile would no doubt increase the chances of malfunctions plus it would be much easier to do a flip post separation if absolutely necessary...

Aside from that I agree with most of what you said and was a good read thank you! Except with the Qiam's I wouldn't say firing 4 Qiam's would be as economical as firing 1 khoramshahr equipped with 4 400-450kg RV for ranges of even 800km because you simply can't just include the cost of the missile we have to include all the cost of fueling, fuel storage, manpower, launch platform, maintenance..... over time and in terms of overall costs a single Khoramshar would cost less overtime than 4 Qiam's even if the Missile's production cost is $1Million USD as appose to $200k for each Qiam

I think with a proper MIRV with accuracy of 50 meters Iran can slowly replace the production of it's Qadr variants including Emad by simply producing 1 Khormashar a week (52 per year) and should follow suite with it's Solid Fuel Sejils

 

[scythian500]

A piece of paper about silo launched missiles (land based and sea based) from Malek Ashtar uni:

http://www.mut.ac.ir/uploads/other/ketaab2/EB-69.pdf

 

[TheImmortal]

I think with a proper MIRV with accuracy of 50 meters Iran can slowly replace the production of it's Qadr variants including Emad by simply producing 1 Khormashar a week (52 per year) and should follow suite with it's Solid Fuel Sejils

I don’t agree. That would mean it would take Iran 10 years to reach a storage of 500+ missiles.

Considering depending on the propellant the storage life of a solid missile is 5 to 25 years and liquid propellant is even shorter that would mean slowly the storage of older ceased missiles dwould reach their shelf life. Since you ceased production of those missiles, they would simply be discarded and no new missiles would take their place (just more Khormashahr).

Assuming that 25-30% of Khormashahr missiles get destroyed during a conflict (bombing of known storage locations) and another 10% malfunction or completely miss their target....that leaves Iran with around 250 missiles for offensive capability at the end of that 10 year window.

That’s hardly enough to wage a long war of attrition especially considering Iran has no Air Force to attack targets outside of its borders and will entirely rely on BMs.

Iran has already consolidated its BM inventory. There is value in having different types. Firing 2 Emads alongside a Khormashahr missile will increase survivability if Iran decides to fire salvos.

If Iran is working on a long range drone or weapon that can cause an EMP burst around known area such as radar/missile defense locations prior to an attack that will make a potential missile attack have a high rate of success.

 

[Websorber]

Iran’s missile test: a provocation, not a violation

https://www.iiss.org/blogs/survival-blog/2018/12/iran-missile-test

 

[Sineva]

I don’t agree. That would mean it would take Iran 10 years to reach a storage of 500+ missiles.

Considering depending on the propellant the storage life of a solid missile is 5 to 25 years and liquid propellant is even shorter that would mean slowly the storage of older ceased missiles dwould reach their shelf life. Since you ceased production of those missiles, they would simply be discarded and no new missiles would take their place (just more Khormashahr).
.

The storage life of liquid fueled missiles only becomes an issue if those missiles are stored in a fully fueled state,otherwise their lifespan can be nearly indefinite in an unfueled state.Even then there are russian liquid fueled icbms that have remained in a fully fueled state for literally years on end without any problems.

 

[skyshadow]

https://thehill.com/policy/internat...no-limitations-to-expanding-range-of-missiles

Iranian general sees no 'limitations' to expanding range of missiles: report

 

[VEVAK]

I don’t agree. That would mean it would take Iran 10 years to reach a storage of 500+ missiles.

Considering depending on the propellant the storage life of a solid missile is 5 to 25 years and liquid propellant is even shorter that would mean slowly the storage of older ceased missiles dwould reach their shelf life. Since you ceased production of those missiles, they would simply be discarded and no new missiles would take their place (just more Khormashahr).

Assuming that 25-30% of Khormashahr missiles get destroyed during a conflict (bombing of known storage locations) and another 10% malfunction or completely miss their target....that leaves Iran with around 250 missiles for offensive capability at the end of that 10 year window.

That’s hardly enough to wage a long war of attrition especially considering Iran has no Air Force to attack targets outside of its borders and will entirely rely on BMs.

Iran has already consolidated its BM inventory. There is value in having different types. Firing 2 Emads alongside a Khormashahr missile will increase survivability if Iran decides to fire salvos.

If Iran is working on a long range drone or weapon that can cause an EMP burst around known area such as radar/missile defense locations prior to an attack that will make a potential missile attack have a high rate of success.

It's not about the number of missiles you have rather more about the number of payloads you can deliver and targets you can take out.

If all 250 out of 500 missiles hit their targets your looking at taking at ~700 targets with 1000LB payloads (MIRV) and ~20 or so with 3000lp payloads and lets not forget these are only for targets beyond 800km of Iranian soil(+1000km from launch site) and that's with a 50% success rate and fact is the success rate may be that low or even as low as 30% at the start but it's not likely that they'll stay that low and Ballistic Missiles aren't and can't be the only weapon in Iran's arsenal and these are specifically for replacement of Liquid fuel MRBM and you still have your solid fuel (A replacement for the Sajil-2 capable of delivering 3 or more MIRV should also be produced at a rate of 1 per week) and all targets aren't going to be beyond 800km of Iranian soil so yea it's more than enough

On top of that unlike solid fuel missiles, liquid fuel missiles don't store fuel inside and with modern nano coating and proper storing methods your unfueled booster and engines could last 30 years or more and yes no doubt you'll need to produce more fuel and replace the fuel in storage tanks over and over again so what? Because if your already producing the fuel for them then that shouldn't be a problem and you would have to do that regardless. And there is no real way to predict what achievements IRGC will have in the next 20 years.

 

[TheImmortal]

It's not about the number of missiles you have rather more about the number of payloads you can deliver and targets you can take out.

If all 250 out of 500 missiles hit their targets your looking at taking at ~700 targets with 1000LB payloads (MIRV) and ~20 or so with 3000lp payloads and lets not forget these are only for targets beyond 800km of Iranian soil(+1000km from launch site) and that's with a 50% success rate and fact is the success rate may be that low or even as low as 30% at the start but it's not likely that they'll stay that low and Ballistic Missiles aren't and can't be the only weapon in Iran's arsenal and these are specifically for replacement of Liquid fuel MRBM and you still have your solid fuel (A replacement for the Sajil-2 capable of delivering 3 or more MIRV should also be produced at a rate of 1 per week) and all targets aren't going to be beyond 800km of Iranian soil so yea it's more than enough

On top of that unlike solid fuel missiles, liquid fuel missiles don't store fuel inside and with modern nano coating and proper storing methods your unfueled booster and engines could last 30 years or more and yes no doubt you'll need to produce more fuel and replace the fuel in storage tanks over and over again so what? Because if your already producing the fuel for them then that shouldn't be a problem and you would have to do that regardless. And there is no real way to predict what achievements IRGC will have in the next 20 years.

Go look at how much LBS/KGS of bombs the Syrian airforce dropped during the civil war. Or for that matter the RAF during end of the war. Or for that matter the US airforce. Look at Iraq war or 60 day Lebanon war.

I am shocked you think 3000 x 250 or 500 is enough armament to fight a war. The US will easily drop that much in the first DAYS of the Iran war on Iranian military targets.

The reliance on BMs to deliver Iran’s outside the border response is not realistic especially considering the amount of targets Iran will have to hit (Israel, SA, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Afghanistan, Etc.)

 

[VEVAK]

Go look at how much LBS/KGS of bombs the Syrian airforce dropped during the civil war. Or for that matter the RAF during end of the war. Or for that matter the US airforce. Look at Iraq war or 60 day Lebanon war.

I am shocked you think 3000 x 250 or 500 is enough armament to fight a war. The US will easily drop that much in the first DAYS of the Iran war on Iranian military targets.

The reliance on BMs to deliver Iran’s outside the border response is not realistic especially considering the amount of targets Iran will have to hit (Israel, SA, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Afghanistan, Etc.)

Again your looking at Liquid fueled BM as if they are the ONLY weapons in Iran's arsenal and again your looking at targets beyond 800km of Iranian soil as if they are the only targets worth hitting. Fact is in a war against any regional power or even against the U.S. Iran would mainly be conducting attacks against targets that are within 700-800km of Iranian soil! Yes there are a handful of large bases in Saudi Arabia that are between 800km-1600km away and maybe another handful of U.S. operated bases outside Saudi Arabia that pose a serious threat to Iran beyond 800km as for Israel how many targets inside Iran do you think the Israeli Airforce can hit? I can promise you it won't be nowhere near 800 targets taken out with 1000lb warheads before their entire Airforce is taken out! Hell according to the Israeli Airforce it's self just taking on Iran's Nuclear facilities alone would cost them 50% of their fleet.

So don't confuse targets beyond 800km with targets within! In Syria the Syrian Airforce wasn't flying sorties against targets beyond 800km from their base! And in Lebanon again the same thing with the Israeli Airforce. And you really can't compare the U.S., China or Russia with Iran because we don't even spend 1/5 of what the Russian's spend on weapons production let alone the U.S.

From Iran's perspective being able to takeout nearly 700 targets beyond 800km of Iranian soil using Liquid Fueled Ballistic Missiles alone will be sufficient because Solid Fuel BM can take on another 700 targets hopefully + Cruise Missiles + future UCAV's + and to a smaller extent your Airforce + Special Forces so all of them put together should be sufficient enough for targets beyond ~800km of Iranian soil.

Now within 800km that's where Iran needs a massive stock to makeup for our lack of Airpower and you'll need a vast sock of tactical missiles that can easily be transported, programed and launched easily and quickly which makes the Fatteh class and Zolfaghar class a great platform to mass produce and continue upgrading and that's the type of missiles Iran would need to mass produce at much higher rates

 

[Stryker1982]

Hell according to the Israeli Airforce it's self just taking on Iran's Nuclear facilities alone would cost them 50% of their fleet

I doubt the israelis said this