What's new

Iranian Air Defense Systems

Turkey and Saudis are getting S-400 Systems.
Iran should call Putin and order also some S-400 batteries.
And please dont tell me Iran dont need them, because they are working on B-373.
S-400 is noticeable ahead + it has Anti Balistic capabilities.
Integrate them into the existing S-300 PMU-2/B-373/Sayyad... systems
Carry on with domestical systems as always, especially with SHORAD (short range AD) systems, they are way more important...
Maybe purchase newst Buk-M3 + Pantsir S2 system also..

Turkey I don't care about, they aren't even our enemy.

Saudi isn't confirmed that it will get the S-400. And if it was, we don't need S-400 as a response to their S-400. It isn't a dick measuring contest.

Saudi doesn't have any significant BM capabilities.

We don't need the Buk when we have our own significant medium range systems.

We don't need the S-400 when we have a very capable B-373 on par with/more capable than the S-300. That money is far better spent improving our own air defence systems.
 
.
Moragheb 3D tactical radar:
80307_orig.jpg

vlcsnap-2015-08-29-13h34m30s609.jpg


Now after two years and still no information!
radar2.jpg
 
.
YLC-2A based Iranized lower S-band or upper L-band early warning radar. Maybe, like the Bashir, it has been modified to a linear AESA array (not full element AESA). But more likely is that this is the case for the higher power IRIADF, Bavar-373, Meraj-4 and the IRIADF Moragheb is a more cost effective PESA.

Still another example of how Iran completely modifies designs sold by the Chinese, to something fully Iranian and of higher capability.
 
. .
Unknown. For the mass of Iranian AESA radars, Silicon and GaA based S-band TRMs are sufficient and more cost effective.

The single known X-band AESA would benefit from GaN but due to the large array, GaA also get the job done.
It's a cost issue. Until Iran is not needing an AESA that fits in a small fighter nose, GaNs would be just a expensive extra not worth the cost.
However we have seen a presentation with small elements shown that could be tile GaNs as such small tile GaAs would be of very low power.
 
. .
@PeeD @eagle2007 in the linked article, Tom Cooper says Iran chose direct fed, solid state modules in the Meraj radar, unlike the S-300/400 and MIM-104 Patriot's "horn fed" radars. What's the difference in technology, operation and effectiveness?

https://warisboring.com/iran-is-building-air-defenses-against-stealth-aircraft-2/

After I read the first part of the link you posted, It is either luck or an American blunder that they did not attack when the Air defenses were in such a disarray. He mentioned Air tankers were in the air for 2 hours before being noticed, civilian air craft ect..

I hope that today they can at least put a formidable defense and not just hot air propaganda.
 
.
@PeeD @eagle2007 in the linked article, Tom Cooper says Iran chose direct fed, solid state modules in the Meraj radar, unlike the S-300/400 and MIM-104 Patriot's "horn fed" radars. What's the difference in technology, operation and effectiveness?

https://warisboring.com/iran-is-building-air-defenses-against-stealth-aircraft-2/

A very interesting claim he makes is that unlike Sayyad-3 & 4, Sayyad-2 is simply refurbished RIM-66 and thus, it will be deployed in few numbers. I don't think this is a very credible article and that includes the part about solid state modules.
 
.
Also the article is claiming that till mid 2000´s enemies planes flew deep inside iran air without risk? cant believe that. Iran had back then operational S-200 AD systems..
 
.
@AmirPatriot

The Meraj-4 seems to be a line-element AESA. This is the simplest form of a AESA where a number of line feed elements are feed by one or stacked T/R modules. If the Meraj has let say 60 line arrays, it would be a AESA with 60 elements instead of full AESAs with hundert to thousands of elements. First U.S EW AESAs where also like that.

Space feed PESA has many benefits on its own but its weak point is that it is feed by one or several tube based RF generating electronics. Solid state elements of Meraj-4 and other such Iranian radars have higher MTBF are more efficient and in case that one of the 60 elements fails, 59 others are available. Hence they are effective for 24/7 operation.

Then there are other benefits which AESAs have, even if space feed PESA have a similar range performance due to their high power.

Irans Meraj-4 takes the position of the S-300/400 Bigbird, just that it is a modern and power/cost/MBTF effective modern radar instead of a brute force PESA (a very good one in that).

The Najm-802 on the other hand seems to be the more sophisticated full-element-AESA EW asset and Moragheb, the lower end PESA line array (non-solid state).
 
.
A very interesting claim he makes is that unlike Sayyad-3 & 4, Sayyad-2 is simply refurbished RIM-66 and thus, it will be deployed in few numbers. I don't think this is a very credible article and that includes the part about solid state modules.

The thing is, we know the Sayyad series stuff to be wrong as a fact, but the solid state one is not so well known. Furthermore, there is an implication that solid state radars are better.

Also the article is claiming that till mid 2000´s enemies planes flew deep inside iran air without risk? cant believe that. Iran had back then operational S-200 AD systems..

S-200 was useless against tactical size targets even in the 1980s with Libya... It's only use today is against large aircraft like AWACS, IFR and B-52, though even in those situations it is easily jammed.

Space feed PESA has many benefits on its own

Apologies if I've asked this before, but what are these benefits?

Solid state elements of Meraj-4 and other such Iranian radars have higher MTBF are more efficient and in case that one of the 60 elements fails, 59 others are available. Hence they are effective for 24/7 operation.

So the Meraj-4 would be less vulnerable to system failures (though not necessarily more reliable, at least conceptually), and probably easier to repair/maintain.

Irans Meraj-4 takes the position of the S-300/400 Bigbird

As a long range battle management radar. I seem to remember it being given a 450 km range. I'm not sure if steps have been taken to apply this in future, but I guess in this context it could be used to assist a revitalised IRIAF with (hopefully, datalinked) targeting and/or situational awareness capabilities without the aircraft switching on their own radars.
 
.
S-200 was useless against tactical size targets even in the 1980s with Libya... It's only use today is against large aircraft like AWACS, IFR and B-52, though even in those situations it is easily jammed.

The S-200 is dead-effective is used in the right way with the right supporting asset and not just the untouched export monkey model.

For Libyans it was just sufficient to dive below the LOS of the illumination radar to evade the S-200 and the same would be the case today even with the S-400.
The S-200 is a high class asset developed for an advanced IADS that can make use of it. Not Libyan or Syrian air defense.
Iran on the other hand can make very good use of it, using it only for a slim band of engagement situations.

Apologies if I've asked this before, but what are these benefits?

Most importantly they can be much cheaper. They can easily produce circular waveforms and handle very high power levels. However now in 2017 the most important cost benefit factor could have been reduced compared to solid state AESA. However building a S-300 like 10.000 element X-band AESA would still be much more expensive than a space feed PESA, certainly not worth the cost.
 
.
After I read the first part of the link you posted, It is either luck or an American blunder that they did not attack when the Air defenses were in such a disarray. He mentioned Air tankers were in the air for 2 hours before being noticed, civilian air craft ect..

I hope that today they can at least put a formidable defense and not just hot air propaganda.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that our air defences were in such poor state in the early 2000's. We got lucky we didnt get attacked to be honest. Even our offensive missiles (No zolfiqar, no emad) were in poor state. Luckly with the hard work of young talented minds, both these sectors have improved massively, mostly offensive missiles, which helps in defensive missiles as well. But we need just a little more time for development and production, and to lock up our air defenses with more modern systems like Bavar-373.
 
. .
I generally hear about long range missiles like S200,300 and upcoming Bavar373. In Syria scene we have seen many cruise missile attacks with very low rate of interception. What is Irans answer as a shorad against cruise missiles to protect airbases and radar sites . Buk-Raad and Hawk-Shaheen can be used to some degree even against supersonic cruise missiles. There was also the purchased Tor system. Are there any recent developments? A variant of pantsyr maybe or similar shorad for subsonic more stealthy cruise missiles
 
.
Back
Top Bottom