Sayyad-2 vs PAC-1/2

[PeeD]

Best option would be a multi car units with 1 AESA X-band leading them even if the cost is $12 Million instead of 3 and that way you can track a large number of targets and you can send that data to a unit of 3-4 Tabas vehicles that would have their own radars off and only used as backup to the AESA + 1-2 vehicles for SHORAD operation capable of intercepting projectiles Also other mobile support, command, coms, surveillance,... will be based on operational requirements)

With the proper tactics, software, navigation and datalink between each vehicle having just 1 AESA X-Band vehicle in each unit would be like all of them are equipped with X-Band AESA radars (So basically for a $3M investment per vehicle your upgrading your very slow MiG-29's to very slow MiG-35's)

And if Iran focuses on mass producing every little components needed to build X-Band AESA radars with Iranian built compact long ranged solid state transmitters we will also be able to build more capable missiles and the price difference between that and the 3rd of Khordad will only be a little more at best not double the price

even as a backup to other fixed or less mobile AIDS system I would still be preferable to at least have one 3rd of Khordar or AESA in each unit for better autonomy if those sites are taken out

And you produce the $12Million USD AESA at a rate of 1 per month (12 per year) for $144Million + the $3 Million USD Tabas at a rate of 1 Per Week (52 per year) for $156M for a total of $300M And in terms of price that's equivalent to buying 2 Su-30's with ammo a year which should be minimum requirement on such a system in a country who hasn't paid to acquire more advanced modern fighters for the past 40 years! Our F-4's are now 50 years old and a country our size should have at least purchased 12 new modern fighters a year every year not including CAS fighter or trainers!

What you are talking about is already there: the 3rd Khordad battery: Bashir advanced PESA radar and 3-4 3rd Khordad TELARs with a slave TEL.

The Bashir PESA just has lower LPI capabilities than a AESA, in terms of "speed" and range it is like a AESA (hell you can replace the Bashir with a Najam-802 if you think AESAs are needed here).

This is a whole structured SAM system that can work without IADS support if needed. Some SHORAD and AAA is also welcome here because the Bashir radar of the system needs protection.

Now the difference to the Tabas: This is a single independent autonomous system it works at a lower tier-level than the 3rd Khordad battery structure.

The Tabas does not need a battery structure! It just need a Toyota communication vehicle, HF and UHF link is already sufficient.
It can drive and hide somewhere 20-30km from the next IADS communication node.
It can receive location of a identified target from:
- IADS
- 3rd Khordad battery
- Search with its own radar if necessary (here it has a risk of detection due to its old school radar)

The Tabas is the infantry soldier of Iranian SAMs. At $2-3m it is expandable (20 Tabas for a single Su-30). Due to its battery independent nature you can have many location along the frontline with single Tabas systems. This means very small footprint: No convoy of vehicles like a SAM battery.

If you realize what a capability this means, you understand that it is not outdated at all. It is more one of the genius asymmetrical approaches of the IRGC.
It shows that every technology, even older ones can have a valuable place.

Just to show what this means: 30 years ago, at the end of the war, the IRGC bought SA-2 batteries for million dollars. If you would have told them that in 25 years a single vehicle would do the same job at almost twice the range for 2-3 million $, just with half the missile load as penalty...

Its exactly systems like the Tabas that stop your dream of Su-30s to come true. Decision makers will take those 20 Tabas over one Su-30SM every day in Irans current threat situation.

A SAM concentration node like the 3rd Khordad can engage 16 targets at once, has 24 ready to fire missiles and would still cost cost probably half as much as a Su-30 at $35-40m. A S-300PMU-2 battalion able to engage 6 targets with 32 ready to fire missiles costs $150-200m. That's a price for which you can get more than 4 full size 3rd Khordad battery which create 4 circles with 150km radius protecting about the same area as a S-300 but with 64 guidance channels and 96 ready to fire missiles, each several times cheaper than a S-300 SAM.

So to conclude:

For 150-200 million dollars you can get following systems:
- 1 S-300 battalion, 6 simultaneous engagements, 36 ready to fire missiles, 400km protected circle area
- 3 Su-30SM with variable location, 8-10 simultaneous engagements with 8-10 missiles, a variable 120km circle protected. Secondary role as bomber.
- 4 3rd Khordad full size batteries, 64 simultaneous engagements, 96 ready to fire missiles protecting a circle area of about 300km
- 60 single vehicle autonomous Tabas systems, with 60 simultaneous engagements, 180 ready to fire missiles, protecting 60 circle areas of 100km

Protected square km ranking:
1- Tabas = 471 000km²
2- 3rd Khordad = 282 000km²
3- S-300 = 125 000km²
4- Su-30SM = 33 000km² (variable location)

System redundancy ranking (how many single critical systems to kill to knock out whole system complex)
1- Tabas = 60
2- 3rd Khordad = 16
3- Su-30SM = 3
4- S-300 = 1

The Tabas can only achieve this overall system performance by using the most cost effective technologies and avoid pitfalls like "AESA is a must". Thanks god there is no influential military industrial complex in Iran that dictates developments. IRGC ideas that allow Iran to protect itself against a enemy with 50-times higher military budget.

PS:
Fun fact: Tabas or 3rd Khordad does not need to kill the enemy aircraft --> they just need to endanger them sufficiently that they feel necessary to fly at lower levels.
Once they are in that envelope, other systems such as SHORAD, MANPADs and AAA will become dangerous.

 

[TheImmortal]

You don't know much about anything!!!

So a few fragments is NOT going to take down an F-15 let alone an F-22 and the titanium structure is VITAL you just don't know enough on the subject to understand how much

And you keep going on about the speed of the missile as if your getting the Kinetic power of a direct hit!

And how many times do I have to say this the SPEED OF YOUR MISSILE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FRAGMENTS BLOWN OVER 10 METERS OUT OF THE SIDE OF THE MISSILE!

And it's a ridicules assumption that enemy fighters aren't going to turn when fired upon! Especially from over 40km out! So the speed of the fighter will only mean something if the fighter was flying in a head on collision towards your fragments so if anything the fighter will turn and the speed of the fighter will work counter to your absurd argument!

And any bird can take down any aircraft it just depend on where you get hit!

1) It is irrelevant if the F-22 gets taken “down” or gets damaged. Either way it will be out of commission! That’s a success!

2) Apparently you fail to understand the simple concept that when a warhead explodes the projectiles coming out of the warhead are coming at HIGH SPEED. So IRREGARDLESS of the speed of the missile the explosion of the warhead will cause high speed in itself! Why is this so hard for you to understand!

It’s how some long range A2A missiles work! They explode above the target aiming their projectiles downward across a wide net!

The Israeli F-16 was in Golan heights when it was hit! Thus it was in process of returning! I don’t know where you get this notion Israel fires it’s missles from 40KM, Israel uses BVR missiles, glide bombs, or air launched cruise missiles and never has to enter Syrian airspace. They fire from 100KM+ away!

 

[VEVAK]

What you are talking about is already there: the 3rd Khordad battery: Bashir advanced PESA radar and 3-4 3rd Khordad TELARs with a slave TEL.

The Bashir PESA just has lower LPI capabilities than a AESA, in terms of "speed" and range it is like a AESA (hell you can replace the Bashir with a Najam-802 if you think AESAs are needed here).

This is a whole structured SAM system that can work without IADS support if needed. Some SHORAD and AAA is also welcome here because the Bashir radar of the system needs protection.

Now the difference to the Tabas: This is a single independent autonomous system it works at a lower tier-level than the 3rd Khordad battery structure.

The Tabas does not need a battery structure! It just need a Toyota communication vehicle, HF and UHF link is already sufficient.
It can drive and hide somewhere 20-30km from the next IADS communication node.
It can receive location of a identified target from:
- IADS
- 3rd Khordad battery
- Search with its own radar if necessary (here it has a risk of detection due to its old school radar)

The Tabas is the infantry soldier of Iranian SAMs. At $2-3m it is expandable (20 Tabas for a single Su-30). Due to its battery independent nature you can have many location along the frontline with single Tabas systems. This means very small footprint: No convoy of vehicles like a SAM battery.

If you realize what a capability this means, you understand that it is not outdated at all. It is more one of the genius asymmetrical approaches of the IRGC.
It shows that every technology, even older ones can have a valuable place.

Just to show what this means: 30 years ago, at the end of the war, the IRGC bought SA-2 batteries for million dollars. If you would have told them that in 25 years a single vehicle would do the same job at almost twice the range for 2-3 million $, just with half the missile load as penalty...

Its exactly systems like the Tabas that stop your dream of Su-30s to come true. Decision makers will take those 20 Tabas over one Su-30SM every day in Irans current threat situation.

A SAM concentration node like the 3rd Khordad can engage 16 targets at once, has 24 ready to fire missiles and would still cost cost probably half as much as a Su-30 at $35-40m. A S-300PMU-2 battalion able to engage 6 targets with 32 ready to fire missiles costs $150-200m. That's a price for which you can get more than 4 full size 3rd Khordad battery which create 4 circles with 150km radius protecting about the same area as a S-300 but with 64 guidance channels and 96 ready to fire missiles, each several times cheaper than a S-300 SAM.

So to conclude:

For 150-200 million dollars you can get following systems:
- 1 S-300 battalion, 6 simultaneous engagements, 36 ready to fire missiles, 400km protected circle area
- 3 Su-30SM with variable location, 8-10 simultaneous engagements with 8-10 missiles, a variable 120km circle protected. Secondary role as bomber.
- 4 3rd Khordad full size batteries, 64 simultaneous engagements, 96 ready to fire missiles protecting a circle area of about 300km
- 60 single vehicle autonomous Tabas systems, with 60 simultaneous engagements, 180 ready to fire missiles, protecting 60 circle areas of 100km

Protected square km ranking:
1- Tabas = 471 000km²
2- 3rd Khordad = 282 000km²
3- S-300 = 125 000km²
4- Su-30SM = 33 000km² (variable location)

System redundancy ranking (how many single critical systems to kill to knock out whole system complex)
1- Tabas = 60
2- 3rd Khordad = 16
3- Su-30SM = 3
4- S-300 = 1

The Tabas can only achieve this overall system performance by using the most cost effective technologies and avoid pitfalls like "AESA is a must". Thanks god there is no influential military industrial complex in Iran that dictates developments. IRGC ideas that allow Iran to protect itself against a enemy with 50-times higher military budget.

PS:
Fun fact: Tabas or 3rd Khordad does not need to kill the enemy aircraft --> they just need to endanger them sufficiently that they feel necessary to fly at lower levels.
Once they are in that envelope, other systems such as SHORAD, MANPADs and AAA will become dangerous.

Azizam how could you say that it's a good thing that we DON'T have a powerful military industrial complex??????? I can fully understand if you had said that the current structure of our Defense Industry is superior to countries like the U.S. where we can build more weapons for our investments but not spending a sufficient amount of money on our Defense Industry is the BIGGEST MISTAKE Iran has made and continues to make especially since we have our own fairly advanced defense industry!

At the end of the day the more investment you make in your own defense industry the faster your country moves forward technologically in the production of better products because It's the Defense industry of every country that leads the way forward in almost every high tech technology and building the most advanced BLDS motors, Jet Engines, Avionics, Mapping and Navigation, Electro Optics, Software, Processor, Naval Engines, communication, Composites, metallurgy, 3D Printing, Robotics, Helo's....

So proper investment is a necessity that effects almost every high tech civilian industry in Iran so it's NOT just about Defense and in Iran sadly we have political leaders that are bikheyal or only care about their political carriers so CLEARLY we need strong men and whether they are lobbyist working for a military industrial complex or IRGC Generals or GM of a Defense company I DONT care but we need someone to constantly be pushing reckless politicians like Rohani!


Su-30's cost 50-60Million only on paper! With all the spare parts, ground equipment and tools needed to operate and maintain them, pilot gear, training equipment, a few standard upgrades, sufficient number of weapons and various external pods,.... they end up costing on average ~ $150 Million per Aircraft and the only way to bring the cost to a more manageable number in the long run is if you do what the Chinese and Indian's did and pay enough to have your own production line with access to their weapons system .... So for me Su-30's would only be a worth while investment if they are upgraded with a more modern PESA (Snow Leopard at least) or AESA radars and come with tech transfer and Iranian production of the Aircraft, spare parts, weapons,... (Not assembly line)

And you can't simply fill the gap of interceptors with Air Defense alone and if we do that they'll simply adapt and fire a large number of low cost, low payload projectiles from outside their range and overwhelm our SAM's so at the very least we need capable supersonic low RCS UCAV's with Air to Air capability and payload capacity of ~3000lb and produced at sufficient numbers to fill that gap and unlike manned fighters the vast majority of your UCAV's can remain unused packed and stored during peace time so you can easily afford to stock as many as 2000 over 2 decades without breaking the bank

And US F-22's, F-35's & upgraded F-15's can easily achieve a kill ratio of 8:1 or higher against Su-30's equipped with the Bars radar so I would say with the current threat assessment producing large number of highly capable Iranian produced UCAV's is far more important and losing the UCAV's at a ratio of 20:1 would still sting less than losing a single Su-30

And Iran Technologically has the capability to do it we just have leaders that simply lack the will to pay for it or lack to foresight to understand

Also the best way for Iran to move past just publishing scientific papers toward actual products is with proper investment in the Defense industry specifically towards high tech products!!! Sadly we lack both a Presidential or parliamentary leadership that understands this with no strong lobby that would push them and make them understand.

 

[gambit]

1) It is irrelevant if the F-22 gets taken “down” or gets damaged. Either way it will be out of commission! That’s a success!

No, it is not a success.

A defensive action is successful only if the attacker was rendered impotent BEFORE he begins his offensive actions, whatever those actions maybe. Did you shot down the bomber BEFORE he dropped, or AFTER he delivered and in the egress part of his mission? An argument could be made for a successful defense if somehow the attacker was diverted/misled and he delivered his bombs elsewhere unimportant, but that argument becomes pointless when facing an adversary like the US whose technology is sufficiently advanced that only the weather is an effective deterrent.

Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) is a two-way street. The attacker needs to perform in order to further refine tactics, methods, and technology. The defense needs to perform in order to refine tactics, methods, technology, and RECOVERY. Remember, there is no BDA if the attacker was defeated prior to his tactics.

If you lose a Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants (POL) depot, how long would it take for you to recover in order to be an effective contributor to the war effort? In this endeavor, it is irrelevant if you rendered one or more of the attackers 'out of commissioned'. You do not know how able is he to recover from his own damages. In the final analysis, if you lose that POL depot, your defensive tactics, methods, and probably including technology, have failed. Can you repair and restock that POL depot?

Just in case you think I made up that POL category...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classes_of_supply

Class III - POL - Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants (POL) (package and bulk): Petroleum, fuels, lubricants, hydraulic and insulating oils, preservatives, liquids and gases, bulk chemical products, coolants, deicer and antifreeze compounds, components, and additives of petroleum and chemical products, and coal.

This is a category of SUPPLY or logistics for war.

At high level, a damaged adversary is also a denial of resources on his part. But if you are in charge of a defensive position, there is a mental shift from doing damage to him to the preservation of resources for you. If you somehow forced the attacker to deliver his bombs elsewhere, that is a greater success than if you managed to damage a few of his bombers AFTER he has delivered his bombs that destroyed your POL depot.

There is a definite science of warfare and what I explained is just a tiny part of Professional Military Education (PME) that covers that science.