SOHEIL
ELITE MEMBER
![](/styles/default/xenforo/ranks/airchiefmarshal.jpg)
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2011
- Messages
- 15,796
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
![logo.png](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fmod.gov.ir%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Flogo.png&hash=72c19295c9ba2e4f3761dc8f8dde86d2)
Pictures and videos coming soon ...
http://mod.gov.ir/news/افتتاح-خط-تو...يي-برد-بلند-صياد-3گزارش-تصویری-تا-لحظاتی-دیگر
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So how could Iran develop a 120km SAM (Sayyad-3) from a roughly 32km SAM (SM-1)?
~300% performance increase for roughly the same dimensions doesn't sound very credible.
I try to I explain how I think it is possible:
Sayyad-2 with 50km range compared to 32km RIM-66A: improved booster, probably slightly increased booster dimensions, lighter and improved P-nav due to IMU and autopilot.
Sayyad-2C with 70km compared to 50km Sayyad-2: good INS which enables energy optimized trajectory but with decreased PK/P-hit due to lower kinematic reserves at that range. Depending on targets a highly maneuverable fighter might be engaged at lower range.
Sayyad-3 with 120km compared to 70km Sayyad-2C: Low drag design, probably with slightly improved booster, lighter, might use a more complex almost ballistic trajectory in which it becomes unguided in the exo-atmospheric phase. This performance is also achieved by the lastest American SM-2 variants (non-booster assisted), hence this can be taken as message that Iran is now on pair with them in this field.
If it uses a almost ballistic trajectory to achieve this range, then the PK/P-hit could be better than the Sayyad-2C and on pair with the Sayyad-2. This is because of the high speeds it regains from the terminal steep dive.
More details to come.