What's new

Sayyad-2 vs PAC-1/2

Who would have won Sayyad-2 or PAC-1/2

  • Sayyad-2

    Votes: 14 60.9%
  • PAC-1

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • PAC-2

    Votes: 10 43.5%

  • Total voters
    23

T-72B

FULL MEMBER
Aug 27, 2018
267
0
203
Country
China
Location
Indonesia
Ok guys let's compare three of these system, three of them have similar appearance but let's see what it's different
 

Hack-Hook

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 11, 2012
15,868
3
15,039
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
all of them will win , pac-1 a little less but still , all of them are dangerous to your health if they attack your plane
 

PeeD

FULL MEMBER
Nov 28, 2014
1,510
21
6,409
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
What can be said is that the Talash-2/Sayyad-2 is a much more cost effective system but with lower performance than the Patriot. Missile is smaller, SARH guided instead of TVM. Radar is mechanically steered instead a phased array.

I personally think the Talash-2 is so innovative that it is probably the most cost efficient modern SAM system in the world. It takes the Aegis system idea one step further, so much I can say.
 

VEVAK

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 24, 2013
2,406
1
3,536
PAC patriots are battel tested and have intercepted fixed trajectory BM with a success rate of above 30% although their success was against a country that was technologically far less advanced still since the systems have been around long enough with various upgrades and improvements on the system where as Iran's Sayyad 2 has not been battel tested nor has it been around long enough to improve upon

Yes not doubt I could claim that Iran's Sayyad-2 with the Talash system is better than the original patriots MIM-104A without question and I could easily claim that in most aspect they are better than the PAC-1's & PAC-2's that were used in the early 90's simply due to more advanced software, hardware & high speed networking capabilities but that wouldn't make them any better than an upgraded PAC-2's that may be in use today with more modern software and hardware upgrades

And PAC-3's come with AESA radars which is a major advantage
 

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
5,742
-12
9,680
Country
United States
Location
United States
PAC patriots are battel tested and have intercepted fixed trajectory BM with a success rate of above 30% although their success was against a country that was technologically far less advanced still since the systems have been around long enough with various upgrades and improvements on the system where as Iran's Sayyad 2 has not been battel tested nor has it been around long enough to improve upon

Yes not doubt I could claim that Iran's Sayyad-2 with the Talash system is better than the original patriots MIM-104A without question and I could easily claim that in most aspect they are better than the PAC-1's & PAC-2's that were used in the early 90's simply due to more advanced software, hardware & high speed networking capabilities but that wouldn't make them any better than an upgraded PAC-2's that may be in use today with more modern software and hardware upgrades

And PAC-3's come with AESA radars which is a major advantage

Comparing apples to oranges in regards to what Iran needs it’s AD for.

While Iran needs AD to protect against fighters, drones, cruise missiles. Across the Persian Gulf they need their AD to protect against BMs and quasi BMs.

Iran’s main opponents (Israel and US) are VERY unlikely to use BMs as they are nuclear equipped! Iran is one of the only countries (maybe THE ONLY) in the world to have long range BM that use conventional warheads.

The exception would be if Israel uses Jericho missiles to target Iranian military assets. But then again Israel doesn’t have the arsenal of BMs to stage long range warfare! It wasn’t part of their military doctrine!

Saudi Arabia has a bunch of highly inaccurate missiles that would cause civilian casualties before anything else. Should be easy to intercept.

So again, what is PACs success against crusie missiles and fighter jets? Not very battle tested here, unless you count war games.
 

PeeD

FULL MEMBER
Nov 28, 2014
1,510
21
6,409
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
There are benefits which the Talash-2/Sayyad-2 has over the Patriot.

- The Sayyad-2 is probably a SAGG/GAI hybrid. Due to SAGG is can be called dual-band, while the Patriot is just X-band.
- I don't know about latest Patriot variants, but compared to older ones the Sayyad-2's ground aided inertial system allows more difficult detection of attack and shorter warning time.
- This is only increased by the IRGC's variant that use the "Najm-802" as battery-level search asset. An AESA, low powered, but certainly with advanced LPI capabilities.

So in its IRGC variant following benefits over the Patriot:
- More cost effective due to split of the complex/expensive X-band PESA radar into a moderate, low power S-band AESA and a X-band mechanical illuminator.
- Search by S-band LPI AESA is much more difficult to detect than the high power PESA of the Patriot.
- GAI system decreases warning time. Target can only initiate evasive maneuver when it is basically too late if it has not a F-35 like automatic warning suite. Lastest Patriot variants likely have this feature too.
- SARH system on board makes it more robust against data-link jamming.
- Dual S- and X-band guidance, likely with SAGG, makes it more difficult to jam than the X-band-only Patriot.
- It is possible that one IRGC variant is the worlds first S-band-only SAM system

The Patriot, still have other benefits over the Talash-2/Sayyad-2 but the innovation the team behind it has done is incredible.
They go their own ways and the Bavar-373 is the evolution of the concepts of this team. Chinese, North Koreans... everyone learned from the masters in this field, the Soviets and copied the systems almost 1:1. But Iranians just skipped the cool cold launch system and changed launcher to a 10x10 that allows 6 instead of 4 LRSAMs. So sometimes they decrease complexity (cold launch) and sometimes increase it (6 missiles per TEL which means 3 TELs will do a better job than 4 S-400 TELs).

In total the Talash-2/Sayyad-2 offers everything needed: 70km range (same as original S-300 and Patriot), multi-target engagement, robustness against jamming du to dual-band system, short warning time due to GAI, LPI --> hard to detect, due to modern AESA.
But most importantly, all that in a very cost effective way.
 

T-72B

FULL MEMBER
Aug 27, 2018
267
0
203
Country
China
Location
Indonesia
There are benefits which the Talash-2/Sayyad-2 has over the Patriot.

- The Sayyad-2 is probably a SAGG/GAI hybrid. Due to SAGG is can be called dual-band, while the Patriot is just X-band.
- I don't know about latest Patriot variants, but compared to older ones the Sayyad-2's ground aided inertial system allows more difficult detection of attack and shorter warning time.
- This is only increased by the IRGC's variant that use the "Najm-802" as battery-level search asset. An AESA, low powered, but certainly with advanced LPI capabilities.

So in its IRGC variant following benefits over the Patriot:
- More cost effective due to split of the complex/expensive X-band PESA radar into a moderate, low power S-band AESA and a X-band mechanical illuminator.
- Search by S-band LPI AESA is much more difficult to detect than the high power PESA of the Patriot.
- GAI system decreases warning time. Target can only initiate evasive maneuver when it is basically too late if it has not a F-35 like automatic warning suite. Lastest Patriot variants likely have this feature too.
- SARH system on board makes it more robust against data-link jamming.
- Dual S- and X-band guidance, likely with SAGG, makes it more difficult to jam than the X-band-only Patriot.
- It is possible that one IRGC variant is the worlds first S-band-only SAM system

The Patriot, still have other benefits over the Talash-2/Sayyad-2 but the innovation the team behind it has done is incredible.
They go their own ways and the Bavar-373 is the evolution of the concepts of this team. Chinese, North Koreans... everyone learned from the masters in this field, the Soviets and copied the systems almost 1:1. But Iranians just skipped the cool cold launch system and changed launcher to a 10x10 that allows 6 instead of 4 LRSAMs. So sometimes they decrease complexity (cold launch) and sometimes increase it (6 missiles per TEL which means 3 TELs will do a better job than 4 S-400 TELs).

In total the Talash-2/Sayyad-2 offers everything needed: 70km range (same as original S-300 and Patriot), multi-target engagement, robustness against jamming du to dual-band system, short warning time due to GAI, LPI --> hard to detect, due to modern AESA.
But most importantly, all that in a very cost effective way.
Nice analysis @PeeD and btw wher you get that speculation? Is there any link about your Sayyad-2 vs Patriot comparision?
 

PeeD

FULL MEMBER
Nov 28, 2014
1,510
21
6,409
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
All information released by Iranian media, open source. Some more difficult to get for amateurs but all intended to be picked up by enemy professionals.

Details like SAGG system and S-band-only operation can't be confirmed but are likely based on current information.
Some could be intended false information from Iran for enemy intelligence, but it looks real.
 

VEVAK

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 24, 2013
2,406
1
3,536
There are benefits which the Talash-2/Sayyad-2 has over the Patriot.

- The Sayyad-2 is probably a SAGG/GAI hybrid. Due to SAGG is can be called dual-band, while the Patriot is just X-band.
- I don't know about latest Patriot variants, but compared to older ones the Sayyad-2's ground aided inertial system allows more difficult detection of attack and shorter warning time.
- This is only increased by the IRGC's variant that use the "Najm-802" as battery-level search asset. An AESA, low powered, but certainly with advanced LPI capabilities.

So in its IRGC variant following benefits over the Patriot:
- More cost effective due to split of the complex/expensive X-band PESA radar into a moderate, low power S-band AESA and a X-band mechanical illuminator.
- Search by S-band LPI AESA is much more difficult to detect than the high power PESA of the Patriot.
- GAI system decreases warning time. Target can only initiate evasive maneuver when it is basically too late if it has not a F-35 like automatic warning suite. Lastest Patriot variants likely have this feature too.
- SARH system on board makes it more robust against data-link jamming.
- Dual S- and X-band guidance, likely with SAGG, makes it more difficult to jam than the X-band-only Patriot.
- It is possible that one IRGC variant is the worlds first S-band-only SAM system

The Patriot, still have other benefits over the Talash-2/Sayyad-2 but the innovation the team behind it has done is incredible.
They go their own ways and the Bavar-373 is the evolution of the concepts of this team. Chinese, North Koreans... everyone learned from the masters in this field, the Soviets and copied the systems almost 1:1. But Iranians just skipped the cool cold launch system and changed launcher to a 10x10 that allows 6 instead of 4 LRSAMs. So sometimes they decrease complexity (cold launch) and sometimes increase it (6 missiles per TEL which means 3 TELs will do a better job than 4 S-400 TELs).

In total the Talash-2/Sayyad-2 offers everything needed: 70km range (same as original S-300 and Patriot), multi-target engagement, robustness against jamming du to dual-band system, short warning time due to GAI, LPI --> hard to detect, due to modern AESA.
But most importantly, all that in a very cost effective way.

From the pics I've seen at best the Najm802 an ESA or PESA at best


I really don't see towers of multi transmitters for it to be called AESA so I really don't know what your basing that on!
 

T-72B

FULL MEMBER
Aug 27, 2018
267
0
203
Country
China
Location
Indonesia
From the pics I've seen at best the Najm802 an ESA or PESA at best


I really don't see towers of multi transmitters for it to be called AESA so I really don't know what your basing that on!
So it is PESA radar?
 

PeeD

FULL MEMBER
Nov 28, 2014
1,510
21
6,409
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
From the pics I've seen at best the Najm802 an ESA or PESA at best


I really don't see towers of multi transmitters for it to be called AESA so I really don't know what your basing that on!

We only have PESA or AESA, both are specifics of ESA. So how could it then be "PESA at best"? PESA is already the minimum most basic for an ESA.

There is a interesting story behind this system, photos of its T/R modules are available in public internet so we are sure it is a AESA.
 

VEVAK

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 24, 2013
2,406
1
3,536
We only have PESA or AESA, both are specifics of ESA. So how could it then be "PESA at best"? PESA is already the minimum most basic for an ESA.

There is a interesting story behind this system, photos of its T/R modules are available in public internet so we are sure it is a AESA.

ESA is PESA which means electronically scanned array and there only on 2 active phased array radar's 1st the out dated PESA that uses a single Transmitter
PESA
upload_2018-9-18_13-21-35.png

AESA
upload_2018-9-18_13-40-15.png



upload_2018-9-18_13-43-35.png

vs
Towers of solid state transmitters
upload_2018-9-18_13-48-51.png


So the AESA uses multiple multi frequency solid state transmitter modules each transmitting in a beam and at a different frequency which is the main thing that makes the radar passive and reduces detectable radar imitations because they are transmitting in a beam in different directions and at different frequencies

The Najm does NOT have multi solid state transmitter towers now on a bigger size radar if you wanna save money and use less transmitters I guess you can stick a bunch of PESA radars each transmitting at different frequencies together each transmitting in a beam and at different direction and at various frequencies and get the same effect but the way you transmit beam at different direction will be more like a PESA and that may be more effective for a stationed radar on the ground I don't know but I do know it would be extremely hard to construct

And by hard to construct and maintain I mean it would be simpler to build 160-200 Doppler radars like the ones used on the Kowsar beached together In groups of 4 and each transmitting at different frequency and placed on 40-50 1 Tone tactical vehicles all networked together with fiber optics with each radars responsible for sending pulse beams and conducting search in a specific headings and altitudes
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom