Video: IRGC Aerospace Air Defense Excercise

[OldTwilight]

the best defense is offense .. we should have nuke ...

 

[pin gu]

Sorry bro
The best defense is bus defense 8 games zero goal

 

[AmirPatriot]

Its a nice and professional display of the mobile operation regime of the IRGC-ASF medium range SAM force.
These are the medium range units at the frontline, they need high discipline and training level to survive. These hunter units never rest, they are always on the move, they are the defense of higher tier systems like the also displayed Matla ol Fajr 2, Najm 802 and Ghadr.

Nothing really new was shown but some nice details.
They intentionally for example avoided to show the PESA Basir radar of the 3rd Khordad system and just showed the older Kavosh system.

Apologies for the late reply. I somehow completely missed your post.

The mobility aspect actually intrigued me during this video. I saw them dig out or smooth out areas in the desert in order for the trucks to launch from. Those Talash TELs don't look very off road capable. Surely that takes a lot of time. Maybe only done to protect roads in peacetime?

By the way, why do they also mount the Sayyad-2 missile on the Tabas TELAR? The TALASH TEL does after all have a higher number of missiles. Which brings me to again wonder why the Tabas TELAR has a 3 round capacity whereas Russian Buk systems have 4. I've noticed this trend of low number of missiles per TEL/TELAR in Iran quite a bit.

 

[OldTwilight]

حاجی فهمیدیم، شما بمب اتم می خواین، چشم می گم الساعه چندتاش رو براتون بسازن. امر دیگه ای هم هست؟

I will repeat it till my other countrymen repeat it and want to acquire it ...
back then , there were only few people who dared to asked for nuke ...

 

[PeeD]

@AmirPatriot

High value areas like Natanz have such prepared roads positioned around the high value area. Connected to them are prepared positions.
Prepared positions with sand berms can increase the survivability of SAM sites to near misses very much. Hence a Sayyad-2/Talash battery with lets say 6 prepared change sites around a high value area, can actually have a higher survivability than unprepared/random positions without protective sand berm.
In a situation where there is not direct high value area to protect and the area of operation can be a circle of 100km, random/unprepared positioning especially by more tactical assets like the 3rd Khordad should offer superior survivability.

Sayyad-2 on Raad-2 launchers is a interesting feature. Some points:

- Two different missiles in a SAM battery means two different seekers have to be jammed by the enemy.

- I think the IRGC-ASF has got itself the Sayyad-2/Talash because its their first anti ballistic missile asset. The team behind the Sayyad-2 is either a very good one, which has given it a high PK and reliability or the Sayyad-2 offers a different capability such as an dedicated/credible ABM capability (which Taher-2 may lack to that sophistication). In general the Sayyad-2 should be more sophisticated by now because it is being improved for longer because its a older project.

- The idea that they just want to have additional rounds available for increased operational flexibility can be dismissed for now: It looks like there is a special variant of the Sayyad-2, the S2C, different to the S2M of the Talash.


Finally for the 3 vs. 4 rounds of Buk and Raad-2/3rd Khordad:

What is better for Iran, a system with a footprint of a truck and 3 SAMs or a system with a footprint of a military vehicle with 4 SAMs?
Iran has miniaturized the Buk-M2 concept, went its own way and the result is even better in some design solutions compared to the Buk-M2.
Just imagine a single 3rd Khordad vehicle disguised as a truck in Syria or Yemen, using coarse OTH target data from Iran for a quick engagement, launch and disengagement. Due to its small footprint it can be used as a very effective ambush system and bring guerrilla warfare to the medium-range/high-altitude air defense field.

 

[AmirPatriot]

- I think the IRGC-ASF has got itself the Sayyad-2/Talash because its their first anti ballistic missile asset. The team behind the Sayyad-2 is either a very good one, which has given it a high PK and reliability or the Sayyad-2 offers a different capability such as an dedicated/credible ABM capability (which Taher-2 may lack to that sophistication). In general the Sayyad-2 should be more sophisticated by now because it is being improved for longer because its a older project.

Maybe, but I'm a bit sceptical since Iran's only ballistic threats are Saudi with their DF-3s and DF-21s, and Israel (though Israel is less of a threat as their missiles are nuclear tipped and are hence unlikely to be used). Now I don't want to be defeatist but I doubt the Sayyad-2 can accomplish the very difficult task of intercepting MRBMs.

What is better for Iran, a system with a footprint of a truck and 3 SAMs or a system with a footprint of a military vehicle with 4 SAMs?

The Buk can also look like a truck:

 

[PeeD]

@AmirPatriot

Yes it looks strange that the IRGC gets itself a endo atmospheric ABM SAM system. However as this are the deadliest weapons of the battlefield, so they seem to at least prepare for the future.

The point is: Talash-2 and Sayyad-2 have the exact same range. So why not get Raad-2 batteries instead which were developed by the IRGC-ASF SSJ itself?

The IRGC Sayyad-2 uses high power radars such as the Najm-802 or what I call the Talash-3. The IRGC Sayyad-2 looks like it is entirely based on electronic steered radars and one of them, the Najm-802 is an overkill for a 70km medium range SAM. So the answer to why Sayyad-2 for the IRGC should be that it is its ABM asset.
Other answers would sound strange, like: Sayyad-2 was such a superb product of the defense ministry that the IRGC just purchased it even though it has already a own new SAM system with exactly the same kinematic performance.
Actually the Sayyad-2 is a good missile for endo atmospheric interception of TBM and maybe MRBM, judging from its size and performance.


As for the Buk-M2 size: Its too broad to be mistaken as truck. In real life the launcher of the Buk-M2 is really huge, significantly larger than that of the Raad-2.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Yes it looks strange that the IRGC gets itself a endo atmospheric ABM SAM system.

Endo atmospheric? But wouldn't it need gas steering nozzles to effectively make interceptions outside the atmopshere?

The IRGC Sayyad-2 uses high power radars such as the Najm-802 or what I call the Talash-3. The IRGC Sayyad-2 looks like it is entirely based on electronic steered radars and one of them, the Najm-802 is an overkill for a 70km medium range SAM. So the answer to why Sayyad-2 for the IRGC should be that it is its ABM asset.

Or, it is possible the Talash-2 system is part of an integrated air defence system (IADS). Having one common radar for many systems would mean they could operate alongside each other in an IADS, without having a surplus of radars (even more than redundancy).

Another explanation is that Iran may want a larger, more sophisticated radar for intercepting stealth targets. Hence the AESA Najm-802.

Though your hypothesis is also very likely.

 

[PeeD]

Well S-band Najm-802 just to get coarse position data of a stealth target is not consistent with Iranian approach. The long range Bavar-373 does not have such a high performance battery level search radar, so why should the medium range Sayyad-2? Normally a VHF-band asset such as the Matla ol Fajr 2 is used for anti-stealth task.

Hence it looks like the Najm-802 is a starring high resolution radar capable/designed for ABM purposes. The large aperture and power is a plus against stealth targets too, yes.

The IRGC Sayyad-2 and its radar is of course part of the IADS but they could as well have just used Raad-2 launchers. In a wet country one could argue that IRGC-ASF wants to have a 24/7/365 sealed container SAM and got it for that reason, but Iran, not really.

So either the IRGC-ASF's Sayyad-2 compared to the IRIADF's is for a rather useless reason uprated with electronic steering and high power S-band search radar. Or it is uprated to provide a low-tier ABM capability. Of course we can't exclude that the IRGC-ASF has vast resources to buy S-band AESA radars instead of VHF-band to use their brute force against stealth targets.

Endo stands for inside

 

[AmirPatriot]

Well S-band Najm-802 just to get coarse position data of a stealth target is not consistent with Iranian approach. The long range Bavar-373 does not have such a high performance battery level search radar, so why should the medium range Sayyad-2? Normally a VHF-band asset such as the Matla ol Fajr 2 is used for anti-stealth task.

Hence it looks like the Najm-802 is a starring high resolution radar capable/designed for ABM purposes. The large aperture and power is a plus against stealth targets too, yes.

So either the IRGC-ASF's Sayyad-2 compared to the IRIADF's is for a rather useless reason uprated with electronic steering and high power S-band search radar. Or it is uprated to provide a low-tier ABM capability. Of course we can't exclude that the IRGC-ASF has vast resources to buy S-band AESA radars instead of VHF-band to use their brute force against stealth targets.

Endo stands for inside

Damn it I've talked about this sort of thing before and I still got it wrong. My mistake.

 

[AmirPatriot]

@PeeD I was watching the first video again since I was doing some research on Iran's Air Defences, I noticed that instead of everyone knowing of targets that need to be shot down, there was a guy on telephones telling other crews about heading, altitude etc... would this suggest that Iran doesn't yet have an IADS, or is the guy on the phone acting as sort of a commander?

 

[PeeD]

These are the data that define a target in Irans IADS. So in listing them the one at the telephone was discriminating one target from the others to talk about it (engagement yet, or not etc.). Sometimes rules of engagement demand tracking the target by a higher officer and then engagement order to be released to the SAM site at one point. Using encrypted voice is ok, faster than a text message like "engage!".

This would be at least my impression without having watched the video again.

 

[Stryker1982]

@AmirPatriot

Yes it looks strange that the IRGC gets itself a endo atmospheric ABM SAM system. However as this are the deadliest weapons of the battlefield, so they seem to at least prepare for the future.

The point is: Talash-2 and Sayyad-2 have the exact same range. So why not get Raad-2 batteries instead which were developed by the IRGC-ASF SSJ itself?

The IRGC Sayyad-2 uses high power radars such as the Najm-802 or what I call the Talash-3. The IRGC Sayyad-2 looks like it is entirely based on electronic steered radars and one of them, the Najm-802 is an overkill for a 70km medium range SAM. So the answer to why Sayyad-2 for the IRGC should be that it is its ABM asset.
Other answers would sound strange, like: Sayyad-2 was such a superb product of the defense ministry that the IRGC just purchased it even though it has already a own new SAM system with exactly the same kinematic performance.
Actually the Sayyad-2 is a good missile for endo atmospheric interception of TBM and maybe MRBM, judging from its size and performance.


As for the Buk-M2 size: Its too broad to be mistaken as truck. In real life the launcher of the Buk-M2 is really huge, significantly larger than that of the Raad-2.

From what I know, the problem with the Sayyad-2 missile acting as an endo-atmospheric interceptor is that it does not have the capability to make rapid maneuvers. As far as I know, Sayyad-2 doesn't have additional rocket thrusters, or gas steering nozzles to change course rapidly to make interceptions on maneuverable missiles/warheads.

I'm not sure about the simplicity of DF-3's and DF-21's and if it is similar to a simple Shahab-3 or if it's at the level of a Qiam or anything superior as their would be some difficulties in intercepting such a missile at the moment. Maybe Sayyad-3c compensates for these deficiencies or not, and Sayyad-4 is unknown for the moment but I'm expecting some good news on Sayyad-4 to handle these threats. I'm thinking it would be something similar to missiles used in PAC-3.

 

[N_Al40]

From what I know, the problem with the Sayyad-2 missile acting as an endo-atmospheric interceptor is that it does not have the capability to make rapid maneuvers. As far as I know, Sayyad-2 doesn't have additional rocket thrusters, or gas steering nozzles to change course rapidly to make interceptions on maneuverable missiles/warheads.

I'm not sure about the simplicity of DF-3's and DF-21's and if it is similar to a simple Shahab-3 or if it's at the level of a Qiam or anything superior as their would be some difficulties in intercepting such a missile at the moment. Maybe Sayyad-3c compensates for these deficiencies or not, and Sayyad-4 is unknown for the moment but I'm expecting some good news on Sayyad-4 to handle these threats. I'm thinking it would be something similar to missiles used in PAC-3.

Is Sayyad-4 a confirmed project?

 

[Stryker1982]

Is Sayyad-4 a confirmed project?

I think a new missile by the name of Sayyad-4 is expected for the Bavar-373 project to handle High altitude threats. Not much info is known about it though, and how maneuverable it is for Anti-BM threats. Again, if those Df-3's and Df-21's are at the level of sophistication of a Shahab-3 I don't expect much technological capability is need in the Sayyad-4 for endo-atmospheric interception.