Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

[About.to.be.banned]

This missile is apparently heavy. Otherwise it didn't need a booster that was burning 4+ seconds after it took off water (and probably more after that)

A launcher that can carry this type of missile will be very heavy. It simply would need all the weight balancing features and fins that a submarine has in order to keep afloat and be able to follow the sub. I think it is easier to build a sub that can carry such missile than having a towed launcher wit all those challenges. IRGC number one strategic priority is being fast and mobile. Having a heavy launcher ground their subs goes against that priority.

Only inbuilt system that could launch this missile is a Vertical launch system. Since this is not a VLS launch, I still think that diagram of @rahi2357 is correct and this is a launch from towed launchers (pontoon) rather than a new Submarine.

 

[haman10]

Can we agree that water is much more dense than air and that moving thru water requires much more energy and effort ? Yes, we can agree.

By itself, launching a missile from UNDER water surface is no technically easy task, then add in the depth of water that the missile must travel through before breaking the surface and the technical issues are considerable.

First...There is the sea state...

Douglas Sea Scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whatever the surface does, there are effects under the surface. A Cat 4 hurricane produced surface waves can affect underwater motions as deep as 100 meters. Obviously, no one is going to be launching subsurface missiles under these conditions. But even on the Douglas sea state of 0, there are underwater currents that WILL produce lateral course deviations of any body that travels perpendicular to those currents. An underwater missile launch will not be travelling with the current flow but quite vertically or with some angular path before breaking surface, correct ? So it appears the stability issues are quite resolved by the Iranians. We do not know up to what sea scale can this Iranian missile be launched but we can be generous with the kudos to the Iranians for resolving this.

Next...Breaking the surface...

Technically speaking, a torpedo is a missile -- an underwater missile -- of sorts. This is not semantics or wordplays to denigrate the Iranians. A torpedo is a technical sub-category of the missile family, and it is designed to operate underwater. Anyone who have been underwater, even in a bath tub, know how sensory deadened underwater can be. A torpedo is designed specifically for this environment. A missile, and let us use this word to denote an air traveling vehicle, is -- not so designed. This mean the missile must temporarily be a torpedo, and no matter how short that duration maybe, the entire contraption must have some awareness of the environments (plural) and when the contraption changes from a being a torpedo living underwater to an air traveling missile. It seems the Iranians have resolved this issue as well.

Next...The avionics...

The word 'avionics' is a portmanteau of 'aviation' and 'electronics'. A missile is an aircraft. Its avionics are designed for atmospheric flights. Its sensors are designed for effects that are produced by air, not effects produced by water. The avionics that depends on those sensors are engineered specifically for those effects from air, not effects from water. It means there cannot be a mismatch between sensors and the processors that work on those effects. It means the missile's avionics are essentially blind. The word 'blind' is important. It does not mean the avionics are not powered. It mean the entire avionics system is physically isolated from everything when it is underwater. Not only isolated but also protected because if the avionics are active, just waiting for those air produced effects, and somehow water produced effects are available, flight controls systems maybe activated underwater and disasters ensues.

If I look at this from a control system designer's perspective, there are several options available. The missile can have a physical switch that senses pressure differential between water pressure and air pressure. Now the question is the quality of this switch such as response time when the missile changes environment -- water to air. Assume the switch is top tier. Now the question is where to place the switch. If I place the switch at the missile's top section, the section that is the first to break surface, I must have a time delay based upon the missile's physical dimension, as from when the missile's lower section finally cleared the water's surface. Or I can place the switch at the missile's lowest part so there is no mistaking when the missile is no longer a torpedo.

This begs the question of: Are there advantages, disadvantages, and flaws on the location of this switch ? Absolutely.

If I place the switch at the missile's top section, the section that is the first to break surface, I can design in a pre-conditioning system that alerts the main avionics that the missile is about to break surface and these are the immediate air environment such as temperature, wind speed, baro, etc. If I place the switch at the lowest section, the section that is the last to clear water surface, the avionics would be shocked into service and sensors are at greatest risk for overload and require time to readjust. Or instead of just one switch, there can be several switches at strategic locations on the missile's body.

Depending on the missile's type, is it a pure ballistic or a cruise, I can design a control system with several switches to pre-condition the avionics' sub-systems to precision sequentially activate to maximize stability at environmental changes and finally -- stable flight. A ballistic missile does not have wings for aerodynamic exploitation but a cruise missile does, so I need to know when is the best time to deploy those wings. Going back to the Douglas sea scale. Since I may not have complete freedom to find stable location to launch, I should not have the missile in horizontal flight until X time have passed. I want the missile to continue vertical flight for at least two reasons:

1- To clear any potential higher than 0 sea state.
2- To allow the avionics time to assess the environment.

The longer this vertical flight, the better. But the downside is if the missile is a cruise type, the longer this vertical flight time, the higher the altitude, and the greater the risk of detection by the enemy. Remember, this is a subsurface launch, implying the launch mechanism -- the submarine -- want to get as close to the target as possible.

Summary...The technical issues presented are in no way comprehensive. The more sophisticate the base technology that supports the missile, no matter what type is it, the more sophisticate the weapon will be and the greater the flexibility of environment it can operate from. The US Navy is not going to tell you under what sea state it can subsurface launch its missiles, ballistic or cruise. For all you guys know, and I said 'you' without me in that group, the US Navy can subsurface launch under the cover of a Cat 4 hurricane and no one would know it.

Going back to the Iranians...What they did was technically impressive, and even if all they did was under sea state 0, they would be able to compensate for higher sea states. Kudos to them.

Today, I am officially becoming a military fanboy of Iran.

Positive ratings needed bro @Serpentine

 

[Arminkh]

Only inbuilt system that could launch this missile is a Vertical launch system. Since this is not a VLS launch, I still think that diagram of @rahi2357 is correct and this is a launch from towed launchers (pontoon) rather than a new Submarine.

See this:

This is a tomahawk launched from a vertical tube. So the missile's angle of entry into air has nothing to do with it's launch angle. Thus we can't conclude that the Iranian one was not launched vertically.

The other thing is that in this video you can see the subs periscope above water meaning the distance that the missile cruised under water is only a few meters.

However, in Iranian version, you don't see any periscope. It may be actually launched horizontally under the sea. That may have used an external tube like this:


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6xGzoMsgJW4/Tn_zj2TJu5I/AAAAAAAAEx8/dAFd0oad7Tg/s200/00.jpg

They may have combined the hoot super cavity engine with a cruise missile. The super cavity engine can act as a first stage both moving it towards the surface and giving it a considerable boost in speed. The second stage will start as soon as the missile reaches the surface which is what we saw.

 

[SOHEIL]

The video makes some things clear

1. This is not a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile. This has not been claimed as SLBM by Iran or by posters here and test video proves so. This missile has been fired at such depressed angle that it could not be a SLBM.

This either is a cruise missile capable of maneuver or a Submarine launched rocket. At this angle missile would never neave troposphere.


2. This size of missile could not be lauched from Torpedo tubes.

3. This missile has not been launched from VLS

4. This missile has emerged from sea with its boosters burning. This means that it has not been launched like a traditional SLBM or SLCM where pressurised air propels missile to surface and after that its engine ignites.

5. Combining point 2,3,&4 means that this is not a Submarine Launched Cruise Missile. This missile is a of a complete new category which could be called Undersea Launched Cruise Missile.

Now some poster ( I think @haman10 ) has speculated that this missile has been launched from special launchers fitted to your submarine. I only half agree with him. Though this has been launched from special launchers, I do not think those launchers have been welded on your Submarine. This is due to two reason. First being that if launchers are welded to your submarine, your submarine would become unstable when it launches this missile due to recoil. It may go into a uncontrolled spin.This is due to the reason that an externbally welded launch system would be at a greater distence from submarin's core and thus same amount of force would result in greater torque.Second being that igniting a missile inside a tube is dangerous for a Submarine. If missile fails for some reason, it would blow up your Submarine. This is the reason that mose SLBMs and SLCMs adopted pressurise air ejection system.


What I think is that this missile has been launched and would be employed from a specialised towed launched system (in similar ways like Towed Sonar arrays are employed with submarines) which would be towed by your submarines.

This would make increase sonar profile of your submarines, but let's be realistic here. Most of big navies with extensive ASW arm would have easily detected your subs anyway (I am talking about USN here, but there are at least two dozen more Navies apart from USN which has highly developed ASW arm), but your enemies could not. Your Arab enemies does not have a Navy to speak of, and Israelis (If this missile has enough range to reach Israel) could not bring their ASW assets to Persian Gulf. So it would satisfy needs of Iran.


I am with @rahi2357 on this one as I think he has depicted correct launch system in one of earlier post.




That is a plus point for Tomahawk as a missile has to be teeny tiny in order to be launched from tubes. Number of Tube fired SLCM from a submarine is limited by storage capacity of a submarine (would be in hundreds) as all missiles could be fired from single torpedo tube. In VLS system or the system that Iran would employ, number of missiles are limited by number of Tubes (in single digit) and the Sub has to return to port in order to reload.


@kollang @Serpentine @mohsen @SOHEIL @Arminkh @Daneshmand @rahi2357 @Ostad @jack 86000 @Dominance @500 @yavar @Imran Khan @raptor22 @Azeri440 @gambit @Hyperion @Oscar @Oldman1 @rahi2357 @JEskandari @Oublious @Militant Atheist @xenon54 @Penguin

What do you think about this missile?

What is your idea about a vertical tube !

We have to wait for more information about this :

 

[About.to.be.banned]

See this:

This is a tomahawk launched from a vertical tube. So the missile's angle of entry into air has nothing to do with it's launch angle. Thus we can't conclude that the Iranian one was not launched vertically.

The other thing is that in this video you can see the subs periscope above water meaning the distance that the missile cruised under water is only a few meters.

However, in Iranian version, you don't see any periscope. It may be actually launched horizontally under the sea. That may have used an external tube like this:


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6xGzoMsgJW4/Tn_zj2TJu5I/AAAAAAAAEx8/dAFd0oad7Tg/s200/00.jpg

They may have combined the hoot super cavity engine with a cruise missile. The super cavity engine can act as a first stage both moving it towards the surface and giving it a considerable boost in speed. The second stage will start as soon as the missile reaches the surface which is what we saw.

If you view this video you find that first launch has been vertical and missile has gone up. Second missile too has been launched vertically and has reoriented after getting out of water. You would notice that if you see a plume of pressurised gas + water shooting up just a fraction of second before missiles exits.

There is no periscope in case of Iranian launch as probably there was no sub around. This test was from a pontoon pretty much like all Indian SLBM test of India has been, as India's SSBN is only in service now, not five years ago when India started SLBM's test.

 

[SOHEIL]

Only inbuilt system that could launch this missile is a Vertical launch system. Since this is not a VLS launch, I still think that diagram of @rahi2357 is correct and this is a launch from towed launchers (pontoon) rather than a new Submarine.

Just a crazy proposal !!!

Please mind technical & operational difficulties !

 

[yavar]

Hey brother at Iran Military forum someone posted your video and said it was from you, and it's the highest
Ranked video with 14 points. Thanks for still keeping us informed

np brother . thanks for your nice words

 

[500]

Yes, I compare Iran no only with Germany but 2 times of Germany. One can not overlook Korea for its current level of technology just because it was not among LEADING INDUSTRIAL POWERS 30 years ago...

Korea... When your ayatulas came to power Iran had MORE GNP per capita than Korea! Now Korea has 5.5 times more.

World Development Indicators-Google Public Data Explorer

So first u need to kick ur ayatulas then probably something will work in Iran.

But let,s imagine they decided for some known reasons to wipe Iran. Do you think Iranians will allow others to reach them and wipe them out??

All US and Russia need to do is push the button. In 10 minutes there will be no Iran.

 

[haman10]

All US and Russia need to do is push the button. In 10 minutes there will be no Iran.

Maybe .

But for a regime like you its like this : all "russia , US and iran" need to do is pushing a button .

10 mins tops and there will be no zionist regime

 

[Oldman1]

See this:

This is a tomahawk launched from a vertical tube. So the missile's angle of entry into air has nothing to do with it's launch angle. Thus we can't conclude that the Iranian one was not launched vertically.

The other thing is that in this video you can see the subs periscope above water meaning the distance that the missile cruised under water is only a few meters.

However, in Iranian version, you don't see any periscope. It may be actually launched horizontally under the sea. That may have used an external tube like this:


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6xGzoMsgJW4/Tn_zj2TJu5I/AAAAAAAAEx8/dAFd0oad7Tg/s200/00.jpg

They may have combined the hoot super cavity engine with a cruise missile. The super cavity engine can act as a first stage both moving it towards the surface and giving it a considerable boost in speed. The second stage will start as soon as the missile reaches the surface which is what we saw.

Astute subs don't have vertical tubes.

This one was launch from a U.S. boat and you don't see a periscope.

 

[Azeri440]

The video makes some things clear

1. This is not a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile. This has not been claimed as SLBM by Iran or by posters here and test video proves so. This missile has been fired at such depressed angle that it could not be a SLBM.

This either is a cruise missile capable of maneuver or a Submarine launched rocket. At this angle missile would never neave troposphere.


2. This size of missile could not be lauched from Torpedo tubes.

3. This missile has not been launched from VLS

4. This missile has emerged from sea with its boosters burning. This means that it has not been launched like a traditional SLBM or SLCM where pressurised air propels missile to surface and after that its engine ignites.

5. Combining point 2,3,&4 means that this is not a Submarine Launched Cruise Missile. This missile is a of a complete new category which could be called Undersea Launched Cruise Missile.

Now some poster ( I think @haman10 ) has speculated that this missile has been launched from special launchers fitted to your submarine. I only half agree with him. Though this has been launched from special launchers, I do not think those launchers have been welded on your Submarine. This is due to two reason. First being that if launchers are welded to your submarine, your submarine would become unstable when it launches this missile due to recoil. It may go into a uncontrolled spin.This is due to the reason that an externbally welded launch system would be at a greater distence from submarin's core and thus same amount of force would result in greater torque.Second being that igniting a missile inside a tube is dangerous for a Submarine. If missile fails for some reason, it would blow up your Submarine. This is the reason that mose SLBMs and SLCMs adopted pressurise air ejection system.


What I think is that this missile has been launched and would be employed from a specialised towed launched system (in similar ways like Towed Sonar arrays are employed with submarines) which would be towed by your submarines.

This would make increase sonar profile of your submarines, but let's be realistic here. Most of big navies with extensive ASW arm would have easily detected your subs anyway (I am talking about USN here, but there are at least two dozen more Navies apart from USN which has highly developed ASW arm), but your enemies could not. Your Arab enemies does not have a Navy to speak of, and Israelis (If this missile has enough range to reach Israel) could not bring their ASW assets to Persian Gulf. So it would satisfy needs of Iran.


I am with @rahi2357 on this one as I think he has depicted correct launch system in one of earlier post.




That is a plus point for Tomahawk as a missile has to be teeny tiny in order to be launched from tubes. Number of Tube fired SLCM from a submarine is limited by storage capacity of a submarine (would be in hundreds) as all missiles could be fired from single torpedo tube. In VLS system or the system that Iran would employ, number of missiles are limited by number of Tubes (in single digit) and the Sub has to return to port in order to reload.


@kollang @Serpentine @mohsen @SOHEIL @Arminkh @Daneshmand @rahi2357 @Ostad @jack 86000 @Dominance @500 @yavar @Imran Khan @raptor22 @Azeri440 @gambit @Hyperion @Oscar @Oldman1 @rahi2357 @JEskandari @Oublious @Militant Atheist @xenon54 @Penguin

What do you think about this missile?

I do agree with your analysis , also worth to mention some Iranian members say it was Besat sub
Besat-class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but considering its displacement its quite smaller than U-214
which leads me to doubt that such missile could even be fitted in Besat.

unless there is some secret Iranian sub then I agree that it seems to be a separate launcher.

Maybe .

But for a regime like you its like this : all "russia , US and iran" need to do is pushing a button .

10 mins tops and there will be no zionist regime

really? how will that happen?

 

[Oldman1]

The video makes some things clear

1. This is not a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile. This has not been claimed as SLBM by Iran or by posters here and test video proves so. This missile has been fired at such depressed angle that it could not be a SLBM.

This either is a cruise missile capable of maneuver or a Submarine launched rocket. At this angle missile would never neave troposphere.


2. This size of missile could not be lauched from Torpedo tubes.

3. This missile has not been launched from VLS

4. This missile has emerged from sea with its boosters burning. This means that it has not been launched like a traditional SLBM or SLCM where pressurised air propels missile to surface and after that its engine ignites.

5. Combining point 2,3,&4 means that this is not a Submarine Launched Cruise Missile. This missile is a of a complete new category which could be called Undersea Launched Cruise Missile.

Now some poster ( I think @haman10 ) has speculated that this missile has been launched from special launchers fitted to your submarine. I only half agree with him. Though this has been launched from special launchers, I do not think those launchers have been welded on your Submarine. This is due to two reason. First being that if launchers are welded to your submarine, your submarine would become unstable when it launches this missile due to recoil. It may go into a uncontrolled spin.This is due to the reason that an externbally welded launch system would be at a greater distence from submarin's core and thus same amount of force would result in greater torque.Second being that igniting a missile inside a tube is dangerous for a Submarine. If missile fails for some reason, it would blow up your Submarine. This is the reason that mose SLBMs and SLCMs adopted pressurise air ejection system.


What I think is that this missile has been launched and would be employed from a specialised towed launched system (in similar ways like Towed Sonar arrays are employed with submarines) which would be towed by your submarines.

This would make increase sonar profile of your submarines, but let's be realistic here. Most of big navies with extensive ASW arm would have easily detected your subs anyway (I am talking about USN here, but there are at least two dozen more Navies apart from USN which has highly developed ASW arm), but your enemies could not. Your Arab enemies does not have a Navy to speak of, and Israelis (If this missile has enough range to reach Israel) could not bring their ASW assets to Persian Gulf. So it would satisfy needs of Iran.


I am with @rahi2357 on this one as I think he has depicted correct launch system in one of earlier post.




That is a plus point for Tomahawk as a missile has to be teeny tiny in order to be launched from tubes. Number of Tube fired SLCM from a submarine is limited by storage capacity of a submarine (would be in hundreds) as all missiles could be fired from single torpedo tube. In VLS system or the system that Iran would employ, number of missiles are limited by number of Tubes (in single digit) and the Sub has to return to port in order to reload.


@kollang @Serpentine @mohsen @SOHEIL @Arminkh @Daneshmand @rahi2357 @Ostad @jack 86000 @Dominance @500 @yavar @Imran Khan @raptor22 @Azeri440 @gambit @Hyperion @Oscar @Oldman1 @rahi2357 @JEskandari @Oublious @Militant Atheist @xenon54 @Penguin

What do you think about this missile?

Possible launch like the UGM-109 from a canister?

 

[monaspa]

The video makes some things clear

1. This is not a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile. This has not been claimed as SLBM by Iran or by posters here and test video proves so. This missile has been fired at such depressed angle that it could not be a SLBM.

This either is a cruise missile capable of maneuver or a Submarine launched rocket. At this angle missile would never neave troposphere.


2. This size of missile could not be lauched from Torpedo tubes.

3. This missile has not been launched from VLS

4. This missile has emerged from sea with its boosters burning. This means that it has not been launched like a traditional SLBM or SLCM where pressurised air propels missile to surface and after that its engine ignites.

5. Combining point 2,3,&4 means that this is not a Submarine Launched Cruise Missile. This missile is a of a complete new category which could be called Undersea Launched Cruise Missile.

Now some poster ( I think @haman10 ) has speculated that this missile has been launched from special launchers fitted to your submarine. I only half agree with him. Though this has been launched from special launchers, I do not think those launchers have been welded on your Submarine. This is due to two reason. First being that if launchers are welded to your submarine, your submarine would become unstable when it launches this missile due to recoil. It may go into a uncontrolled spin.This is due to the reason that an externbally welded launch system would be at a greater distence from submarin's core and thus same amount of force would result in greater torque.Second being that igniting a missile inside a tube is dangerous for a Submarine. If missile fails for some reason, it would blow up your Submarine. This is the reason that mose SLBMs and SLCMs adopted pressurise air ejection system.


What I think is that this missile has been launched and would be employed from a specialised towed launched system (in similar ways like Towed Sonar arrays are employed with submarines) which would be towed by your submarines.

This would make increase sonar profile of your submarines, but let's be realistic here. Most of big navies with extensive ASW arm would have easily detected your subs anyway (I am talking about USN here, but there are at least two dozen more Navies apart from USN which has highly developed ASW arm), but your enemies could not. Your Arab enemies does not have a Navy to speak of, and Israelis (If this missile has enough range to reach Israel) could not bring their ASW assets to Persian Gulf. So it would satisfy needs of Iran.


I am with @rahi2357 on this one as I think he has depicted correct launch system in one of earlier post.




That is a plus point for Tomahawk as a missile has to be teeny tiny in order to be launched from tubes. Number of Tube fired SLCM from a submarine is limited by storage capacity of a submarine (would be in hundreds) as all missiles could be fired from single torpedo tube. In VLS system or the system that Iran would employ, number of missiles are limited by number of Tubes (in single digit) and the Sub has to return to port in order to reload.


@kollang @Serpentine @mohsen @SOHEIL @Arminkh @Daneshmand @rahi2357 @Ostad @jack 86000 @Dominance @500 @yavar @Imran Khan @raptor22 @Azeri440 @gambit @Hyperion @Oscar @Oldman1 @rahi2357 @JEskandari @Oublious @Militant Atheist @xenon54 @Penguin

What do you think about this missile?

can you say more about point 2 and point 3 ?

 

[About.to.be.banned]

can you say more about point 2 and point 3 ?

In order to be capable of of being able to be launched from Torpedo tubes, a missile should be thin (533mm dia), short (lenght of torpedo tube), and light (capable of being loaded manually).Thus this missile could not have been launched from a torpedo tube.

In VLS system, as the name suggest, missile should be launched vertically. such depression of launch angles is not possible in a VLS launch.

 

[monaspa]

In order to be capable of of being able to be launched from Torpedo tubes, a missile should be thin (533mm dia), short (lenght of torpedo tube), and light (capable of being loaded manually).Thus this missile could not have been launched from a torpedo tube.

In VLS system, as the name suggest, missile should be launched vertically. such depression of launch angles is not possible in a VLS launch.

There are at least several submarines capable launching 650mm torpedoes ,including Russian Akula Class (4 650MM tubes) and German Dolphin (Displacement is closer to Iranian Baset Sub)

here is VL of Tomahawk from Los Angeles Class submarines