SAM system based on Nasr missile

[The Last of us]

From what I know, Sajiel never got deployed, but the Fakhour did. Right?



Let's have Iranian tea in this thread, shall we:

Iranian Air Defense Systems | Page 59

I deleted my post here and replied to you in the Iranian airforce thread.

 

[Fenrir]

Now my question is are there some kinds of missiles that are kinda like the same in that you can have a motor or an engine that can be used - perhaps with some modifications - to power 2-3 different kinds of missiles ? Or a guidance system that can be plugged into 2-3 different kinds of missiles.

I didn't get a tag. So sorry for the delayed response.

To answer your question, yes there are missile families that have common elements that are shared between several different missiles, but they tend to be used for similar missions - like SM-2:

Which forms the basis of both SM-3:

And SM-6:

They all have similar missions though. SM-2 can be used as an anti-missile, anti-aircraft or anti-ship missile. SM-3 can be used as an anti-satellite missile, anti-ballistic missile and has very limited use as an anti-aircraft missile. SM-6 combines high-performance anti-missile and anti-aircraft duties at longer ranges than SM-2 but at shorter distances than SM-3.

SM-4, which never made it into production, was a land-attack variant of SM-2.

SM-3 was derived from SM-2:

The SM-3 uses the same solid rocket booster and dual thrustrocket motor as the SM-2ER Block IV missile for the first and second stages and the same steering control section and midcourse missile guidance for maneuvering in the atmosphere.

RIM-161 SM-3 (AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense)

SM-6 shares parts with AIM-120 and SM-2:

The missile uses the airframe of the earlier SM-2ER Block IV (RIM-156A) missile, adding the active radar homing seeker from the AIM-120C AMRAAM in place of the semi-active seeker of the previous design.

Raytheon: Standard Missile-6 (SM-6)

So theoretically, yes you can have motors or seekers or warheads from multiple missiles and use them on other missiles, but again, their missions will be the same.

However, you don't tend to see ballistic missile be converted into SAMs because of their design elements. Ballistic missile motors are low impulse and have slower acceleration - the exact opposite of what you want on a high-performance SAM that needs to counter fast moving, maneuverable aircraft. While they can maneuver, ballistic missile tend not to maneuver enough to track moving targets, again, something SAMs need to do to respond to aircraft.

Interestingly, a SAM has been converted into a ballistic missile. The Chinese DF-7, a derivative of the Russian S-75 Dvina, as seen here:

Was converted into a low precision ballistic missile for tactical battlefield use:

DF-7/Dongfeng 7/M-7/Project 8610/CSS-8: Chinese surface-to-surface tactical ballistic missile converted from HQ-1/2/3/4. M-7 missile is the only Chinese ballistic missile that can be launched at a slant angle. The rear section of the HQ SAMs are retained, but the forward half is greatly enlarged into a shuttle shape to house bigger warhead and more fuel, while the control surfaces on the forward section are deleted. Armed with a 500 kg warhead (two and half a time of that of the original SAM version) the maximum range of M-7 is 200 km (more than four times of that of the original SAM version)

罕见的国产M7导弹[图]--中华网--军事频道

DF-7 / M-7 / 8610 / CSS-8

In this conversion the rear section, including the motor where retained for use on the new ballistic missile:

If a ballistic missile is going to be converted, its best use is as a SLV or target missile for ABM testing.

This is a US "Bumper" V2 used as a SLV:

With a few modifications you can turn a ballistic missile into an Air-to-Surface weapons, like AGM-48 Skybolt:

To recap:

Can you use common elements to form a family of "plug and play" missiles? Yes, the Standard series of US missiles has demonstrated that, but ballistic missiles have poor aerial performance and can't maneuver enough to catch fast, maneuverable aircraft and thus are ill-suited for conversion to SAMs. SAMs can be converted to ballistic missiles with a few modifications.

Frankenstein weapons comprised of ballistic missile, SAM and air-to-air missile parts aren't common due to the dissimilar missions requirements placed on each type of missile.

@Armstrong

 

[RAMPAGE]

why would we do that when alternatives are available?

By alternatives, do you mean importing off-the-shelf systems? If so, then you should also think about the benifits of procuring a local system. You get to save precious foregin exchange reserve and also get a system that is more than 50% cheaper.

 

[Indus Falcon]

By alternatives, do you mean importing off-the-shelf systems? If so, then you should also think about the benifits of procuring a local system. You get to save precious foregin exchange reserve and also get a system that is more than 50% cheaper.

Do keep in mind that sometimes importing from China is cheaper. What we could do is license produce a system, thereby giving us not only the technical know how, but the capability to improve upon it.

 

[JamD]

Here are a couple of reasons why it is a bad idea:

1- The Structure will have to be redesigned (It's a NEW MISSILE):
The structure of a ballistic missile is designed for little lateral loads (sideways loads) but a SAM/AAM is expected to do violent maneuvering to chase an aircraft and experiences substantial lateral loads. Consequently the structure will have to be reinforced at the very least.

2- A New Rocket Motor will be needed:
Rockets are designed with specific mission profiles in mind and have specific thrust profiles. A ballistic missile will have a simple profile but a SAM/AAM will have complex profiles (and might even be staged). Some are even throttleable (hybrids). So your original NASR motor will have the wrong thrust profile. Also you will need better propellants to achieve more total impulse (product of all thrust and firing duration). Also a higher specific impulse motor's casing will have to be strengthened again leading to point 1.

3- New (Larger) Control Surfaces will be needed:
As SAM/AAM need to maneuver violently they need control surfaces (in conjunction with vectoring). You will need to add these to the NASR. Again pointing towards point 1.

4- You will need a seeker:
Let's not even think about how are where we are getting this from. Let's assume we have one. We will need to add it to the missile. You will need to make room for it.

5- Control:
Perhaps it is my bias speaking as an aerospace controls engineer but you the most difficult thing to do will be to design the control and guidance system (assuming you've taken care of all of the things above). To try to control such a drastically changing plant (the missile) which is supposed to maneuver so well (a non linear control problem) is a difficult task. And then the guidance problem is just super difficult. You can imagine even as a layman how difficult it must be to try to chase a maneuvering target in the most efficient way possible that maximizes the kill probability. This is a very difficult and advanced task to perform and USA and Russia have had decades of experience (and tonnes of research) to support their efforts. Sadly we have no such experience or research base in these fields.

As a related observation, I have noticed that in Pakistan we have a dearth of good control engineers, even in strategic organizations. Something which bothers me very much. We need to build this capability as well.

6- Seeker Technology:
I don't know much about this but I doubt we can currently produce a seeker that is resistant to countermeasures (if we do even produce one). I will not say much on this as I don't know much.

7- Sensors:
You will need remarkable sensors (gyros, accelerometers). I think we get these from China so this shouldn't be an issue, theoretically, at least.


CONCLUSION:
What we are then talking about is an entirely new missile from the ground up. Also I have speculated on the reason why we don't have AAM/SAM programs in the first place as well. These are difficult tasks. Ballistic missiles are relatively easier to design and manufacture. They are dumber than SAM/AAM. Sure there might be cases where you'd convert a SAM to a surface to surface missile but going the other way is an uphill battle. Starting from scratch makes way more sense than trying to make a substandard Frankenstein of missile. I hope I have contributed positively to the discussion

 

[Penguin]

And the range............?

Would depend on the design of the new missile, more precisely the rocket motor and rocket fuel (assuming a non-airbreathing design)..

 

[Indus Falcon]

Bhai, you are more knowledgeable than me. I may have made a mistake. My reference to the name 'Sejil' for air-borne Hawk was the following photo which is most probably mislabeled.


View attachment 253211

You were right. The only thing being Sajiel, didn't make it to production, whereas the Shahin and Fakour -90 did.

Shahin is SAM, Sajiel on the other hand is AAM. Both are advanced versions of the Raytheon Hawk

Fakour-90 is derived from the Phoenix AIM-54

Please see the following link:

Iranian Air Defense Systems | Page 59

 

[haman10]

didn't make it to production,

Not only it did , it's first kill was one of the most valuable targets of IRIAF : the Iraqi super etendard fighter loaded with exocet missiles

 

[Indus Falcon]

Would depend on the design of the new missile, more precisely the rocket motor and rocket fuel (assuming a non-airbreathing design)..

You said "Hatf IX Nasr is a ballistic missile" TO which I asked "what is its range"

Hatf IX Nasr is a ballistic missile. You could reemploy some components like launchers, but you'ld need an entirely new missile,

 

[Penguin]

You said "Hatf IX Nasr is a ballistic missile" TO which I asked "what is its range"

60 km (37.3 mi)[

AIM054A

AIM-54A

Fakour-90

 

[MastanKhan]

Here are a couple of reasons why it is a bad idea:

1- The Structure will have to be redesigned (It's a NEW MISSILE):
The structure of a ballistic missile is designed for little lateral loads (sideways loads) but a SAM/AAM is expected to do violent maneuvering to chase an aircraft and experiences substantial lateral loads. Consequently the structure will have to be reinforced at the very least.

2- A New Rocket Motor will be needed:
Rockets are designed with specific mission profiles in mind and have specific thrust profiles. A ballistic missile will have a simple profile but a SAM/AAM will have complex profiles (and might even be staged). Some are even throttleable (hybrids). So your original NASR motor will have the wrong thrust profile. Also you will need better propellants to achieve more total impulse (product of all thrust and firing duration). Also a higher specific impulse motor's casing will have to be strengthened again leading to point 1.

3- New (Larger) Control Surfaces will be needed:
As SAM/AAM need to maneuver violently they need control surfaces (in conjunction with vectoring). You will need to add these to the NASR. Again pointing towards point 1.

4- You will need a seeker:
Let's not even think about how are where we are getting this from. Let's assume we have one. We will need to add it to the missile. You will need to make room for it.

5- Control:
Perhaps it is my bias speaking as an aerospace controls engineer but you the most difficult thing to do will be to design the control and guidance system (assuming you've taken care of all of the things above). To try to control such a drastically changing plant (the missile) which is supposed to maneuver so well (a non linear control problem) is a difficult task. And then the guidance problem is just super difficult. You can imagine even as a layman how difficult it must be to try to chase a maneuvering target in the most efficient way possible that maximizes the kill probability. This is a very difficult and advanced task to perform and USA and Russia have had decades of experience (and tonnes of research) to support their efforts. Sadly we have no such experience or research base in these fields.

As a related observation, I have noticed that in Pakistan we have a dearth of good control engineers, even in strategic organizations. Something which bothers me very much. We need to build this capability as well.

6- Seeker Technology:
I don't know much about this but I doubt we can currently produce a seeker that is resistant to countermeasures (if we do even produce one). I will not say much on this as I don't know much.

7- Sensors:
You will need remarkable sensors (gyros, accelerometers). I think we get these from China so this shouldn't be an issue, theoretically, at least.


CONCLUSION:
What we are then talking about is an entirely new missile from the ground up. Also I have speculated on the reason why we don't have AAM/SAM programs in the first place as well. These are difficult tasks. Ballistic missiles are relatively easier to design and manufacture. They are dumber than SAM/AAM. Sure there might be cases where you'd convert a SAM to a surface to surface missile but going the other way is an uphill battle. Starting from scratch makes way more sense than trying to make a substandard Frankenstein of missile. I hope I have contributed positively to the discussion

Hi,

Best post so far---and no commendations. Understanding the Pakistani perspective and limitations----should have had a positive rating.

 

[Indus Falcon]

Hi,

Best post so far---and no commendations. Understanding the Pakistani perspective and limitations----should have had a positive rating.

I said the same thing in Post#59

 

[cabatli_53]

I think Pakistan should test HISAR A and HISAR O developed by Turkey

I don't know maybe some of you don't like him cause of political reasons but From a Turk's percpective, He is like: If PM was Pervez Musharref, We would have already been working on such strategic projects with establishing deep and under-table collaborations(If neccessary). After Pervez era ended in Pakistan, Something is changed consciously and The roadway between two state is only remained on speeches instead of active collaboration field efforts. Pervez Musharraf was like a Turk who is considered as sole leader (with Azerbaijan, Aliyev family) who is able to reach all secrets of Turkish Republic If required and It was same for Turkish officials in Pakistan. There was seriously strategic under-table collaborations between two state as well and It was also known that Turkey supports all activities of him in all conditions politically/economically but Today, What we are doing is just to hope such things. Some believes the real problem is about money but I don't suppose It is about money.

Anyway, Hisar is the name of surface to air missile family which is aiming to cover all air layers of homeland protections. The missiles are designed to integrate naval fleets and future naval programs of Turkey. The program is scheduled as;

Korkut CIWS

Hisar-A Autonomous SAM (2017)

Hisar-A: Low altitude SAM (2017)

Hisar-O: Medium Altitude SAM (2017)

Hisar-U: Long Altitude SAM (2020's)

Hisar-MANPAD project will also be revealed in following years.

Turkish Air Defence Systems

 

[SQ8]

@Icarus @Oscar @Technogaianist - I've heard many argue, on this forum, that the Al-Khalid and the Jf-17 is a plug and play type of platform in the sense that its designed for adaptability/upgradability !

Now my question is are there some kinds of missiles that are kinda like the same in that you can have a motor or an engine that can be used - perhaps with some modifications - to power 2-3 different kinds of missiles ? Or a guidance system that can be plugged into 2-3 different kinds of missiles.

Heck as a finance guy I can't even begin to explain myself so perhaps an analogy would make more sense; can we have a missile much the same way there are screwdrivers with one body and many different heads !

I know its crappy example but hey....I know my Mergers and Acquisitions not my Missiles !

It can be. For e.g, the Russian R-27 R is the missile with the same motor but a Radar warhead and the R-27T is the same missile with an infrared warhead. Its been there done that.


BUT, this has to be engineered into the initial design.


Not the only finance guy Bhatta, as for your merger's and acquisitions..

 

[Goenitz]

@JamD
referring to ur post..
i agree new rocket motor design is needed. plus some stremgth of material is required to sustain turns..
suppose we get a good seeker.. can we develop just guidance kits which can maneuver missiles?
like JDAMs kit.. which can turn simple gravity bombs into precision bombs.. idea is instead of making control fins, we can make a thrust vector out door/plant unit, which can vector the thrust isntead of fins controlling aerodynamically.so this kit can make any regular missile (with seeker etc) into a SAM, if not tehn a SAM into a very good SAM.. like sukhoi maneuver.... ? any insight ?
@MastanKhan @syedali73

on second thoughts, teh temperature and velocity of escaping gas may make it impossible... i am not sure but THAAD may use thrust vectoring.. its launch seems like that... or may eb we can use control like TOR which uses sudden gas emission (at launch) to manuever.. ? bcz settalite uses this technology.. and pak has made numerous satellites..
I know good control engineers are rare in pak (even in UK , many control eng are chinese)
@Technogaianist ur professional opinion on using thrust vectoring in missiles..

on 3rd thoughts ( if this kind of phrase exist)

the plane thrust vector control seems an ADD ON. i mean if we can develop this, we can use it on jf-17 whenevr mission reuires.. its not permanent...