Iran unveils Fateh-313 SRBM

[[Bregs]]

seems to be a precision killer, a potent killer

 

[bozorgmehr]

Bro, these missiles are too big to have 6 per truck. You would need one giant truck for that. Maybe in the future they will increase the number to 3. But I rather have 2 missiles on 3 truck than 6 missiles on one truck. Higher survivability and also smaller truck means easier mobility.

Well I was talking about the same truck or the old Mercedes LK series. I don't see any issues in terms 'fitting' them, as in the amount of space available. Keep in mind that the rectangular canisters will obviate the need for the launch rail, which will allow the missiles to sit much closer to the truck bed, making it possible to stack anohter row of canisters on top of the first. The whole thing will be raised and lowered with a hydraulic arm, much like dump truck.

However, I looked up the weight of each missile and at about 3500 kg each, 6 may be about the weight limit this type of truck can carry. But I don't see whey they wouldn't be able to carry 4 a piece.

However, I still don't understand your strategy of preferring fewer missiles per TEL. TELs are usually the bottleneck in a war. In the Iraq war, the US was especially keen to find and take out these TELs, whether they were carrying missilies or not. Because usually, there are far fewer of them than missiles. And without them, the missiles are useless. And they're much easier to find and take out, than stored missiles. So they're sort of the weak link the chain. So why would you want to maximize your risk by forcing them to come out and expose themselves by going for twice as many re-ups for the same number of shots? How is that a more intelligent use of your assets?

 

[Siavash]

Well I was talking about the same truck or the old Mercedes LK series. I don't see any issues in terms 'fitting' them, as in the amount of space available. Keep in mind that the rectangular canisters will obviate the need for the launch rail, which will allow the missiles to sit much closer to the truck bed, making it possible to stack anohter row of canisters on top of the first. The whole thing will be raised and lowered with a hydraulic arm, much like dump truck.

However, I looked up the weight of each missile and at about 3500 kg each, 6 may be about the weight limit this type of truck can carry. But I don't see whey they wouldn't be able to carry 4 a piece.

However, I still don't understand your strategy of preferring fewer missiles per TEL. TELs are usually the bottleneck in a war. In the Iraq war, the US was especially keen to find and take out these TELs, whether they were carrying missilies or not. Because usually, there are far fewer of them than missiles. And without them, the missiles are useless. And they're much easier to find and take out, than stored missiles. So they're sort of the weak link the chain. So why would you want to maximize your risk by forcing them to come out and expose themselves by going for twice as many re-ups for the same number of shots? How is that a more intelligent use of your assets?

They usually have supply trucks following or at near distance. Even Katyusha has an automatic loader which feeds in and follows the truck and usually has at least two sets of rounds. They don't move the well calculated spot or hiding place and take the supply truck to it. Anyway, the fear of being exposed always exists.

 

[The Last of us]

However, I still don't understand your strategy of preferring fewer missiles per TEL. TELs are usually the bottleneck in a war. In the Iraq war, the US was especially keen to find and take out these TELs, whether they were carrying missilies or not. Because usually, there are far fewer of them than missiles. And without them, the missiles are useless. And they're much easier to find and take out, than stored missiles. So they're sort of the weak link the chain. So why would you want to maximize your risk by forcing them to come out and expose themselves by going for twice as many re-ups for the same number of shots? How is that a more intelligent use of your assets?

Bro, I already answered this and you have as well.
Having 2 missiles on 3 trucks is better than 6 missiles per 1 truck because survivability is a one big factor. Would you rather have 6 missiles on one truck and then if that one truck gets destroyed, then what?
These Zolfiqar class trucks seem quite nimble and mobile and probably very cheap for them to produce. From you comment it seems you're assuming having more trucks for firing is increasing the risk. I certainly don't see this. I would think having your 6 missiles on one truck is a big risk because all the enemy has to do is destroy that one truck and 6 missile are gone. But obviously I can't speak Iranian military officials, to really know what they're thinking, one would have to ask them.

 

[Blackmoon]

 

[Siavash]

Bro, I already answered this and you have as well.
Having 2 missiles on 3 trucks is better than 6 missiles per 1 truck because survivability is a one big factor. Would you rather have 6 missiles on one truck and then if that one truck gets destroyed, then what?
These Zolfiqar class trucks seem quite nimble and mobile and probably very cheap for them to produce. From you comment it seems you're assuming having more trucks for firing is increasing the risk. I certainly don't see this. I would think having your 6 missiles on one truck is a big risk because all the enemy has to do is destroy that one truck and 6 missile are gone. But obviously I can't speak Iranian military officials, to really know what they're thinking, one would have to ask them.

In addition to what you said. When you have two on a truck you want to be able to aim them independently. This is possible with two on a truck but having 6 on a truck it is not feasible. For example the Iskandir launcher has a 2 on a truck version with independant launches. Systems that put multiple missiles on a platform usually either are multiple systems (independent aiming) or for killing a target it would require firing multiple at same target, which is not an issue for pin point missiles like this.

The loading is not an issue as it is always accompanied by close supply truck anyway.

With composite skin they would roll these missiles like sandwiches at a very low price. "Give two Fateh 313 with side salad and fries please for our brothers at Saudi Air base" ...

Good Job now please give this to Hamas

No more help to hamas. They eat our Homos and kiss Saudi Ham flavored a_s_s. No more for HamAss. Iran strategy is to defuse palestinian issue and help the two state solution inline with USA, so Israel has no more excuse not helping the process. Mahmoud Abbas would be helped financially and politically to achieve this unless Israel attacks again but it has already paid a dear PR price for last war so I don't think there's a war anytime soon.

 

[Blackmoon]

In addition to what you said. When you have two on a truck you want to be able to aim them independently. This is possible with two on a truck but having 6 on a truck it is not feasible. For example the Iskandir launcher has a 2 on a truck version with independant launches. Systems that put multiple missiles on a platform usually either are multiple systems (independent aiming) or for killing a target it would require firing multiple at same target, which is not an issue for pin point missiles like this.

The loading is not an issue as it is always accompanied by close supply truck anyway.


With composite skin they would roll these missiles like sandwiches at a very low price. "Give two Fateh 313 with side salad and fries please for our brothers at Saudi Air base" ...


No more help to hamas. They eat our Homos and kiss Saudi Ham flavored a_s_s. No more for HamAss. Iran strategy is to defuse palestinian issue and help the two state solution inline with USA, so Israel has no more excuse not helping the process. Mahmoud Abbas would be helped financially and politically to achieve this unless Israel attacks again but it has already paid a dear PR price for last war so I don't think there's a war anytime soon.

Epic comment also naval bases, if could add more 80+ km it can reach Riyadh plus ketchup

 

[The Last of us]

With composite skin they would roll these missiles like sandwiches at a very low price. "Give two Fateh 313 with side salad and fries please for our brothers at Saudi Air base" ...

 

[Surenas]

Israel Keeps Wary Eye on Iranian Missile Buildup

TEL AVIV — Israel is keeping a “very sharp eye” on Iran’s modernized ballistic missile arsenal and will be “ready to respond” should the Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) attempt to export the new Fateh 313 to Lebanon- or Syria-based proxies, a defense official says.

“We assess that Iran has begun to stockpile them,” the official said of the 500-kilometer-range, solid-fueled missile, unveiled in Aug. 22 ceremonies for National Defense Industry Day in the presence of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. “You can be sure we are monitoring any attempt to move these out of the country by air, land or sea.”

He added, in a not-so-cryptic reference to the multiple times weapon shipments have either been seized on the high seas or attacked by air, “Our red lines are very clear to all and we are obliged to act on them.”

Tal Inbar, a missile expert who heads the Space Research Center at the Fisher Institute for Strategic Air & Space Studies, noted that Iran’s ability to extend the range of the Fateh 313 to double that of its predecessor, the Fateh 110, attests to the maturity of its aerospace industry.

“This is not a trivial thing to extend the range to such an extent," Inbar said. "The Iranians say it was achieved by way of a new formula for the solid fuel, but more probable is that they did it by reducing the size of its warhead.”

Regardless of how the Iranians managed to extend the range, and regardless of the likely penalty in warhead weight as compared to the Fateh 110 and its estimated 600-kilogram payload, Inbar said the precision-delivered system would be extremely lethal in the hands of Hezbollah.

“It means that from the farthest point in Lebanon, this missile can accurately hit high-value targets throughout Israel,” he said.

And while Iranian officials have stated that the missile is ready to enter production, Inbar concurred with the defense official who assessed that the Fateh 313 was already in serial production. “It won’t be long until dozens are delivered to the IRGC,” he said.

Uzi Rubin, a prominent missile expert and founding director of the MoD’s Israel Missile Defense Organization, said that as long as the new missile remains in Iran, it poses a direct threat to neighboring Persian Gulf states and considerable swaths of Saudi Arabia.

“The raison d’etre of this system is to deter the gulf states. ,,, And if the gulf states are worried, they have very good reason,” he said.

Like other experts, Rubin surmised that the Fateh 313 has already entered serial production.

“They’re starting to stockpile the system. The Iranians showcased it in a storage area,” said Rubin, who, like Inbar, pored over images and video shown on Iranian state media.

He added that in the hands of Hezbollah or the Iranian-supported regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, “It would be a very effective weapon indeed.”

Israeli experts here noted that in a conference of the Ahl al-Bayt World Assembly in Tehran earlier this month, an organization operating under the supervision of the office of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, clerics and political leaders flagged Iran’s continued commitment to support and arm regional allies.

A paper published by the Tel Aviv-based Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center quoted Rouhani as telling conference participants that Iran “flew the flag” of Islamic renaissance and resistance throughout the world and would continue to do so, despite the July 14 nuclear agreement between Tehran and world powers.

The paper quoted Ali-Akbar Velayati, Khamenei’s adviser for international affairs, from an Aug. 15 interview translated from Iran’s Fars News Agency that “the situation of the resistance front had improved” and that the nuclear agreement “would make it possible to increase Iran’s support for its regional allies.”

The Israeli intelligence center also quoted from an Aug. 9 Fars News Agency report in which Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that Iran intended to preserve its defensive capabilities and send weapons to its regional allies.

“He said that without Iran and the weapons it provided to the countries fighting terrorism, the capital cities of the Middle East would have been occupied by ISIS,” wrote Raz Zimmt, editor of the paper, titled Spotlight on Iran, which was published Aug. 23 by the intelligence center.

Israel Keeps Wary Eye on Iranian Missile Buildup

 

[haman10]

“We assess that Iran has begun to stockpile them,”

no shit !!

your assessment is so F-ing shocking man

S.O.A.P. whats their plan now doctor ? @The Last of us @Daneshmand

RPO ?

 

[The Last of us]

Although not a major difference, the second to last fins of this missile differ from the previous Fateh missiles.

no shit !!

your assessment is so F-ing shocking man

S.O.A.P. whats their plan now doctor ? @The Last of us @Daneshmand

RPO ?

 

[bozorgmehr]

Bro, I already answered this and you have as well.
Having 2 missiles on 3 trucks is better than 6 missiles per 1 truck because survivability is a one big factor. Would you rather have 6 missiles on one truck and then if that one truck gets destroyed, then what?
These Zolfiqar class trucks seem quite nimble and mobile and probably very cheap for them to produce. From you comment it seems you're assuming having more trucks for firing is increasing the risk. I certainly don't see this. I would think having your 6 missiles on one truck is a big risk because all the enemy has to do is destroy that one truck and 6 missile are gone. But obviously I can't speak Iranian military officials, to really know what they're thinking, one would have to ask them.

I see! So you in your analysis, the value of one or two missiles outweighs that of the TEL. Therefore, it's better not to load up the TELs, for fear of losing too many missiles, if one is hit.

Well I couldn't disagree more! The best analogy I can think of to demonstrate my point is the relationship between a bow and arrows. You always have a greater number of arrows than bows. You lose a few arrows, no problem! You lose your bow, you're out of action.

Don't forget, these are not strategic missiles. They're short range tactical weapons. They are meant be used in quantity.

Our future wars will likely be fought either with the US or countries benefiting from US weaponry, tactics and infrastructural support. That implies a short, high intensity war in which we will most likely lose air superiority very quickly. They will look for the weak links in our military supply chain and take them out as high priority targets. You think the problem is solved by sending supply trucks out to the TELs? Well they will just target the supply trucks which will necessarily have to spend the majority of their time on the road, under open skies.

You gotta stop thinking about our future conflicts in terms of Iran-Iraq war, where neither party fully controlled the skies and the intensity was nowhere near what the Iraqi and Yugoslav militaries experienced in the 90s.

So as a military strategist, the question I would be asking myself would be the following: In a high intensity combat environment, would I prefer to have my TELs take two shots at the enemy and then stay out of action, until such time that they're resupplied or destroyed? Or, for the same risk, do I maximize their fire volume to help achieve my objectives as quickly as possible, before my assets are taken out?

 

[The Last of us]

I see! So you in your analysis, the value of one or two missiles outweighs that of the TEL. Therefore, it's better not to load up the TELs, for fear of losing too many missiles, if one is hit.

Well I couldn't disagree more! The best analogy I can think of to demonstrate my point is the relationship between a bow and arrows. You always have a greater number of arrows than bows. You lose a few arrows, no problem! You lose your bow, you're out of action.

Don't forget, these are not strategic missiles. They're short range tactical weapons. They are meant be used in quantity.

Our future wars will likely be fought either with the US or countries benefiting from US weaponry, tactics and infrastructural support. That implies a short, high intensity war in which we will most likely lose air superiority very quickly. They will look for the weak links in our military supply chain and take them out as high priority targets. You think the problem is solved by sending supply trucks out to the TELs? Well they will just target the supply trucks which will necessarily have to spend the majority of their time on the road, under open skies.

You gotta stop thinking about our future conflicts in terms of Iran-Iraq war, where neither party fully controlled the skies and the intensity was nowhere near what the Iraqi and Yugoslav militaries experienced in the 90s.

So as a military strategist, the question I would be asking myself would be the following: In a high intensity combat environment, would I prefer to have my TELs take two shots at the enemy and then stay out of action, until such time that they're resupplied or destroyed? Or, for the same risk, do I maximize their fire volume to help achieve my objectives as quickly as possible, before my assets are taken out?

Bro, don't you think your analogy proves my point? If your bow/truck gets destroyed then you're screwed. Thus, it is better to have more bows at your disposable then. Anyway, I don't consider your analogy an accurate representation because you can't assume you will have more arrows to fire than me overall. Thus, a better representation would be to consider the number of archers. In my case, I would have 3 times more archers each carrying 3 times less arrows. This is what I am saying. Have a higher number of trucks, to increase survivability in war time. Now, regarding supply trucks, I don't know how resupplying would be done so I can't really comment on that. There is no reason to assume resupplying one truck with six missile will necessarily be easier, faster, higher chance of survival etc than 3 truck with two missiles.

I just don't see what benefit having 6 missiles on a truck would have. It's not like in your case you would overall be firing more missiles. if we have total six missiles, you would be firing them all from one truck, and I would be firing the 6 missiles but from 3 different zolfiqar TEL. And of course, in your scenario of enemies having more control over the air, then if they spot one of your trucks and destroyed it then 6 missiles are gone, whereas in my case, the missiles are more spread out so it would naturally be more difficult for them to destroy the same number of missiles. And to reiterate, having six such missile per truck, would require a much bigger truck relative to the zolfiqar. So then we would have consider the survivability of such larger systems.

To sum up, I think Iran's decision to go with a TEL carrying 2 missile is a wise decision. Could they increase to to 3 etc? Yes, but I am not desperate for such a change and don't see it as necessary and evidently, neither do they.

So we just have to agree to disagree

 

[bozorgmehr]

Bro, don't you think your analogy proves my point? If your bow/truck gets destroyed then you're screwed. Thus, it is better to have more bows at your disposable then. Anyway, I don't consider your analogy an accurate representation because you can't assume you will have more arrows to fire than me overall. Thus, a better representation would be to consider the number of archers. In my case, I would have 3 times more archers each carrying 3 times less arrows. This is what I am saying. Have a higher number of trucks, to increase survivability in war time. Now, regarding supply trucks, I don't know how resupplying would be done so I can't really comment on that. There is no reason to assume resupplying one truck with six missile will necessarily be easier, faster, higher chance of survival etc than 3 truck with two missiles.

I just don't see what benefit having 6 missiles on a truck would have. It's not like in your case you would overall be firing more missiles. if we have total six missiles, you would be firing them all from one truck, and I would be firing the 6 missiles but from 3 different zolfiqar TEL. And of course, in your scenario of enemies having more control over the air, then if they spot one of your trucks and destroyed it then 6 missiles are gone, whereas in my case, the missiles are more spread out so it would naturally be more difficult for them to destroy the same number of missiles. And to reiterate, having six such missile per truck, would require a much bigger truck relative to the zolfiqar. So then we would have consider the survivability of such larger systems.

To sum up, I think Iran's decision to go with a TEL carrying 2 missile is a wise decision. Could they increase to to 3 etc? Yes, but I am not desperate for such a change and don't see it as necessary and evidently, neither do they.

So we just have to agree to disagree

Baradar-e man, if you have enough TELs to cover all the missiles in your inventory, then by all means, go for it! That would be the ideal situation! Put one missile per truck and that would provide maximum survivability per missile round.

But I'm sure you understand as well as I do, that the above scenario is fantasy. There's a reason why in all militaries there are always more missiles than TELs. Because for many reasons (The cost of the truck, comm equipment, soldiers' lives, their training, their salaries, etc... ) the TEL is always a lot more valuable than the missile rounds they fire. Therefore, in the choice for resources that all organizations inevitably have to make, they will settle for an optimum balance of TELs vs missiles, which will always include more missiles than TELs. Hence the necessity for resupplying the TELs and the discussion about how to extract the biggest bang out of your investment.

 

[MTN1917]

Comparison of Fateh-313 missile with Fateh-110 missiles.

in addition to tail fins, guidance section is also different and seems larger than Fateh-110 variants guidance section.