Read the forum code of contact
By: - 10th April 2007 at 01:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
now add a few su-30s / mig-31s and they'll be good to go
By: - 10th April 2007 at 20:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, I think, SA-17 Buk should be the next step, ...to punish agressor planes.
By: - 10th April 2007 at 21:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, I think, SA-17 Buk should be the next step, ...to punish agressor planes.
You may be right, I am definitely not the Russian SAM expert here :D
Just to humor you, how about if they just went for an S-400 instead? I mean, why blow up something 30 km away when you can do the same at 3 times that range?
By: - 10th April 2007 at 22:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Because of costs. No doubt, the s-300/s-400 systems are much more capable (longer ranges, more jam immunity, etc) than Buk. But in the context of an American aggression s-300/s-400 will be destroyed anyway by sheer number of planes, launched missiles and launched PGM. Just by saturation the US air-force can do the job. So you (Iran) should focus in a system with the following attributes:
a- Low cost (almost dispensable)
b- Extreme mobility for very frequent relocations
c- Able to hunt enemy planes after they launched the war-load but are deep in the Iranian mainland.
SA-17 fit almost perfectly in this description. It have much more mobility than S-300/S-400 and by the same cost you can buy far more batteries. It have the range and ceiling to hunt the planes that launched the PGM that supposedly will confront the Tor systems. Their mission is not “to defend” but to “cause damage”.
Clearly for China or Russia, s-300/s-400 will be more useful because these countries will have the ability to repulse a NATO bombardment campaign. Iran will not. Consequently it will have to focus in asymmetrical retaliation.
By: - 11th April 2007 at 02:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Because of costs. No doubt, the s-300/s-400 systems are much more capable (longer ranges, more jam immunity, etc) than Buk.
I'd say that "much more capable" is an overwhelming understatement. The Buk-M2 is a fabulous tactical SAM asset, but the heavies like the S-300PM-1/2 and S-400 are pretty much area denial systems, as in you will be denied the ability to pass through their airspace.
a- Low cost (almost dispensable)
I don't have the numbers right here (Land Based Air Defence volumes are still in a freaking box somewhere in this house), but the Buk-M2 is not exactly a cheap system, either, and will hardly be "almost dispensable".
b- Extreme mobility for very frequent relocations
The S-300PM-2 and S-400 are just as mobile as a Buk-M2, people tend to forget that just because they're big strategic SAMs that they aren't highly mobile as well.
c- Able to hunt enemy planes after they launched the war-load but are deep in the Iranian mainland.
The S-300PM-1/2 and S-400 are just as capable, if not more so, given that they have longer ranged missiles and radars to find those aircraft.
Don't get me wrong, the Buk-M2 is a fine system. It'd cause all manners of hell on a tactical battlefield. But if you really want to cause damage and perhaps even defend a strategic target, the added expense of buying a relocateable S-300PM-2 or S-400 is well worth it. Plus, the S-400 would also provide a robust ATBM capability to defend against Jericho missiles from, say, Israel.
By: - 11th April 2007 at 05:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd say that "much more capable" is an overwhelming understatement. The Buk-M2 is a fabulous tactical SAM asset, but the heavies like the S-300PM-1/2 and S-400 are pretty much area denial systems, as in you will be denied the ability to pass through their airspace.I don't have the numbers right here (Land Based Air Defence volumes are still in a freaking box somewhere in this house), but the Buk-M2 is not exactly a cheap system, either, and will hardly be "almost dispensable".
The S-300PM-2 and S-400 are just as mobile as a Buk-M2, people tend to forget that just because they're big strategic SAMs that they aren't highly mobile as well.
The S-300PM-1/2 and S-400 are just as capable, if not more so, given that they have longer ranged missiles and radars to find those aircraft.
Don't get me wrong, the Buk-M2 is a fine system. It'd cause all manners of hell on a tactical battlefield. But if you really want to cause damage and perhaps even defend a strategic target, the added expense of buying a relocateable S-300PM-2 or S-400 is well worth it. Plus, the S-400 would also provide a robust ATBM capability to defend against Jericho missiles from, say, Israel.
Realistically speaking, if you wanted to defend Tehran with S-300PM-2 or S-400 how many launchers is that going to take and how many radars come with it. Last but not least how much is it going to set you back? I'm still scratching my head as to how Russia can afford these big SAMs as they (and the AN-2500) are much larger than anything in the west short of ABMs. I don't think anything will come close until the full caliber SM-3 but even then you're only talking S-400 size and it won't be a SAM anyway.
By: - 11th April 2007 at 20:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry, I miss-expressed myself. I didn’t mean than Buk are “disposable”. I mean that surely they are cheaper than S-300PMU2/3, and if both have to confront the US air force, it must be assumed that they probably will be destroyed. But for the cost of one Triumph battery you can purchase several Buk-M2 batteries and deploy in several far-located but probable targets (Busher, Natanz, Inshafan) for point-defence jointly with Tor-M1. Triumph is an area defence, true! But how many Triumphs you will need to cover all Iranian assets. Even Russia and China have lastly purchased few of these systems.
On the other hand, I doubt about the rapid mobility of mast-towed radars like the Clam-Shell and Flap-Lid. They are mobile, but are mobile enough to hide after a launch salvo? I.e. are they mobile like the TEL?
By: - 12th April 2007 at 01:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It cost the Chinese 8 billion dollars to buy enough S-300 class missiles and systems to reasonably cover their capital. With Iran's 180 billion dollar GDP they could NEVER hope to afford enough S-300's to protect much of anything. The Iranians would have to go the Algerian route and start trading state oil assets for weapons
By: - 12th April 2007 at 05:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Realistically speaking, if you wanted to defend Tehran with S-300PM-2 or S-400 how many launchers is that going to take and how many radars come with it.
Depends on what you're defending against. Realistically you can't defend against an American strike, all we have to do is oversaturate the area with TLAMs. Lots will get shot down, but if you shoot seven of them for every one S-300PM-2 or S-400 battery, you might loose six but one will get through. Easy enough to compensate in the same manner for shorter range SAMs as well. It's a numbers game.
That being said, to adequately set up a robust defense, I'd start with three batteries. That's jsut my own assessment though; like I said, they'll get saturated if it comes to that.
Radars? Each battery has one TOMB STONE or GRAVE STONE engagement radar. They also tend to feature a 76N6 low-altitude acquisition radar as well. At the batallion level, they'll have a BIG BIRD for EW. The interesting bit is the 96L6; it's billed as a 76N6 and TIN SHIELD (some people use those in place of the more expensive BIG BIRD) replacement; does that mean it's a battalion level, or a battery level asset?
By: - 12th April 2007 at 05:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
On the other hand, I doubt about the rapid mobility of mast-towed radars like the Clam-Shell and Flap-Lid. They are mobile, but are mobile enough to hide after a launch salvo? I.e. are they mobile like the TEL?
FLAP LID is the S-300PT/PS/PM's radar, TOMB STONE is the S-300PM-1/2's radar. Either one can be mounted on an 8x8 chassis, they don't have to be mast-mounted. To get around this, prepared sites seem to feature raised berms to park the radar on, but you don't have to do that either. CLAM SHELL does have to be mast-mounted, but you don't have to use CLAM SHELL either. You can use a 96L6 instead, and that'll also be mobile like the FLAP LID or TOMB STONE.
None of these, Tor and Buk-M2 included, can fire on the move, and all of them will have to be stationary throughout the engagement. Once the radar is no longer needed t oguide the missile, they can pull chocks and get moving.
By: - 12th April 2007 at 05:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
SA-15 huh? Looks like a nice fat target for an ALARM-equipped Tornado GR.4 to me........ ;)
By: - 12th April 2007 at 06:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
it seems to me the best way for someone to defend static strategic assets like munitions plants, nukular depots against mass barrages of TLAMs, jassms unleased from long range is NOT the heavy expensive S300+ types who will rapidly face a losing numbers game but fast reacting and accurate systems like Tor, Vl-mica, Spyder, crotale-NG,linebacker cued by IIR/radar and fired from multiple mobile locations spread near the target area. costwise they are about same the TLAM/jassm hence can be purchased in good numbers. they are also more agile and have a low minimum range. many like vl-mica and the
python part of spyder could be LOBL freeing the small TEL to relocate after
a salvo.
A good gun system like pantsyr on tracked/truck cued by radar/optics is also
a decent inner layer...mounted on berms or atop hills for longer LOS.
I would reserve the S300+ for the Tornados and growlers trying to poke their nose in and provide ECM and SEAD support. :diablo:
so deploy heavy SAMs on the coast and along expect ingress routes for manned platforms and the mixed SR-SAM and gun platoons around strategic sites.
also had this fanciful idea of using a series of metal nets strung on poles to
catch passing TLAMs :D
By: - 12th April 2007 at 09:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I tend to agree with WisePanda and Garry.Against determined and cappable enemy as USA,mix of high cost long range and low cost,short range systems is needed.
A good gun system like pantsyr on tracked/truck cued by radar/optics is also
a decent inner layer...mounted on berms or atop hills for longer LOS.
Something like this "cheap" Pantsyr based on BPM-3 with optical sensor.
Also,Iran must invest in modern radar and C3 systems.Radar such as Protivnik-GE(59N6-E) is capable of detecting 1,5m2 RCS targets at 340 km and 0,1m2 at 200 km.Such radar can give target location to pasive systems(average error in distance is 50 m,in heigh 350 m).Also after providing good multi layered defence,there is passive countermeasures such as Gazetchik-E,wich work for TV,Laser and passive or active radar guided munnitions.
MANPADs like the Igla-S have anti cruise missile capability if you can maintain communications and control of your forces.
Yes.And the fact that Igla-S with Planshet system can receive data from command and comunication systems such as Ranjir(9S737M),make this cheap and simple system very formidable enemy.In some sence this is mobile SAM complex.:)
By: - 12th April 2007 at 13:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Depends on what you're defending against. Realistically you can't defend against an American strike, all we have to do is oversaturate the area with TLAMs. Lots will get shot down, but if you shoot seven of them for every one S-300PM-2 or S-400 battery, you might loose six but one will get through. Easy enough to compensate in the same manner for shorter range SAMs as well. It's a numbers game.That being said, to adequately set up a robust defense, I'd start with three batteries. That's jsut my own assessment though; like I said, they'll get saturated if it comes to that.
Radars? Each battery has one TOMB STONE or GRAVE STONE engagement radar. They also tend to feature a 76N6 low-altitude acquisition radar as well. At the batallion level, they'll have a BIG BIRD for EW. The interesting bit is the 96L6; it's billed as a 76N6 and TIN SHIELD (some people use those in place of the more expensive BIG BIRD) replacement; does that mean it's a battalion level, or a battery level asset?
So maybe three or so Tomb Stones and a couple Big Birds to take out. Makes me wonder if they (the SAM makers) will ever get around to something like a distributed system with say 100 T/R modules on 100 smaller mounts (you could stick them on HUMVEEs or the launchers themselves) to make it harder to take down with a couple stealthy missiles. Of course somehow they have to be able to talk to each other and integrate the info and that link is vulnerable to jamming unless it's fiber optic or something. Who knows.
By: - 12th April 2007 at 14:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes Sferrin, the “hydra type” radar networks. So far a few theoretical works centred on this idea have been known. But no practical designs at all except planning based on “network-centric warfare”. Not very much at all.
By: - 12th April 2007 at 16:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What is the strength of Iranian air defence forces today - missile types and numbers?
By: - 13th April 2007 at 16:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What is the strength of Iranian air defence forces today - missile types and numbers?
Long range: ~10 S-200VE Vega launchers (probably modernized by Belarus).
Mid-range: ~150 Hawks (most of them probably modernized by Iranians, but repaired by them too - average potential).
45 НQ-2J and unknown number of Iranian clones named Sayad.
24-30 SA-6, modernized by Russians.
Low range: 29 Tor-M1, 30 Rapiers and unknown number of HQ-7/FM-80.
Also 1000-1700 man-portable surface-to-air missile systems:
200 Strela-3;
250 Strela-2M;
190 HN-5A (Chinese clone of Strela-2);
100 Igla-1;
50 Stingers;
50 RBS-70.
Also 1500-1700 AA guns:
80-100 ZSU-57-2;
50-190 57-mm S-60;
50-95 40-mm Bofors L-70;
250 37-mm 61-K and it's Chinese analogs Type-55;
up to 100 35-mm Oerlikon (24 Skyguard systems);
75 ZSU-23-4 Shilka;
250-500 ZU-23-2 (local production);
large quantities of 14.5-mm ZPU-4 and ZPU-2.
Also numbers are impressive, actually nothing to impress USAF or even IsrAF.
By: - 24th April 2007 at 09:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Dear Members,
Some good photos of Russian antiair system being discussed in this thread.
Jack E. Hammond
Posts: 2,318
By: TEEJ - 9th April 2007 at 23:14
Image taken at Natanz 9 April 2007