Iranian Air Defense Systems

[TheImmortal]

Guess all these fancy radars all over the country are useless because if you can’t even tell a passenger plane taking off RIGHT next to you from an enemy object that lord help Iran in a war.

I think our own F-14s, F-5s, and other jets will be shot down leaving military airfields by our air defense teams located on those SAME airfields.

As the Farsi saying goes “Vaghean turki”
Maybe in this case Iranian air defense crews “shayad lor hastan”.

 

[Arminkh]

Guess all these fancy radars all over the country are useless because if you can’t even tell a passenger plane taking off RIGHT next to you from an enemy object that lord help Iran in a war.

I think our own F-14s, F-5s, and other jets will be shot down leaving military airfields by our air defense teams located on those SAME airfields.

As the Farsi saying goes “Vaghean turki”
Maybe in this case Iranian air defense crews “shayad lor hastan”.

Enough body! No one can claim their radars are so robust that something like this will never happen. That is why US declared NOTAM in the area because they don't trust their systems to be able to tell the difference in war situation. Iran's AD did exactly what it was supposed to do.

They should have grounded all civilian flights and they didn't. That's the problem. And that is a big oversight and negligence.

 

[Sineva]

Guess all these fancy radars all over the country are useless because if you can’t even tell a passenger plane taking off RIGHT next to you from an enemy object that lord help Iran in a war.

I think our own F-14s, F-5s, and other jets will be shot down leaving military airfields by our air defense teams located on those SAME airfields.

As the Farsi saying goes “Vaghean turki”
Maybe in this case Iranian air defense crews “shayad lor hastan”.

Instead of getting emotional maybe do some research on the system in question.....and its limitations,just a thought.
https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K331-Tor.html

 

[sha ah]

It was human error, one operator panicking, perhaps not following protocol, not attempting to communicate with the passenger plane and firing prematurely. The fact of the matter is that all civilian passenger planes should have been grounded for at least 24-48 hrs following the missile strike.

Instead of getting emotional maybe do some research on the system in question.....and its limitations,just a thought.
https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K331-Tor.html

 

[TheImmortal]

Instead of getting emotional maybe do some research on the system in question.....and its limitations,just a thought.
https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K331-Tor.html

Oh let’s now blame the system. Let’s not blame the PERSONEL let’s blame the machine! Grow up!

In 2007 Tor-M1 fired on Civilian airliner
In 2008 a F-14 was targeted and fired upon
Another incident AA engaged Iranian airliner and drone

Go read pentagon report and don’t get “emotional”. There is a track record of incompetence here. It was only a matter of time before that incompetence led to a disaster.

If you look at IRGC that is how they operate, one only needs to google how many “accidents” IRGC has had in various fields since 1990.

I guess US should blame its “destroyer” and it’s “limitations” for shooting an Iranian airliner in 1988

 

[Sineva]

Oh let’s now blame the system. Let’s not blame the PERSONEL let’s blame the machine! Grow up!

Not at all,however ranting about incompetence while failing to acknowledge the limitations of the sam system itself,ie old soviet technology,short raged radar,even shorter ranged interceptor,very little reaction time for the operator to make a shoot/no shoot decision in.
So maybe you should grow up or failing that at least try to keep an open mind.

In 2007 Tor-M1 fired on Civilian airliner
In 2008 a F-14 was targeted and fired upon
Another incident AA engaged Iranian airliner and drone

3 in the last 12 years,certainly not great but not too terrible either and 2 of these events occurred when iran was still in the process of building its new air defence network back in the 2000s so was still having to rely on a lot of older or plain outdated equipment.
The question of course is were these all tor related?,if they were then this points the finger at either the system,its type of deployments,the training of the operators[this includes both the training syllabus itself and the quality of the training] or ALL of these factors combined.
Without knowing ALL of the relevant factors in each of these events its impossible to come to ANY conclusions one way or the other

I guess US should blame its “destroyer” and it’s “limitations” for shooting an Iranian airliner in 1988

No,that was pure criminal negligence on the part of the ships captain followed up by a botched cover up by the us government.

 

[PeeD]

Guys, I don't think this was a Tor M1 system. The launch is inconsistent in my eyes but please provide feedback.

https://www.aparat.com/v/HchVg

@PeeD what do you think?

That looks like a Tor.

Only a Tor is prone to such a mistake: With the later Pantsir, it is the fastest reacting SHORAD system in the world.
It can operate independently on its own.

Design criteria back in the 80's was the capability to reliably intercept HARM type ARM approaching at up to mach 2.

As a system made to protect armored divisions, IFF was also not a very important concern. It kills anything that comes close to it if it looses contact to its command post. It has its own search and track radar to be able to work without command post.

Checking RCS is not part of the normal process of such a system of this vintage, role and computerized signal analysis capabilities. Reaction times are too low. Only a experienced operator may would have been able to classify the intensity of the blimp on the tube and tell a 737 apart from a CM.
This is a last dish system, if something reaches it, upper echelon systems normally have failed.

 

[arashkamangir]

That looks like a Tor.

Only a Tor is prone to such a mistake: With the later Pantsir, it is the fastest reacting SHORAD system in the world.
It can operate independently on its own.

Design criteria back in the 80's was the capability to reliably intercept HARM type ARM approaching at up to mach 2.

As a system made to protect armored divisions, IFF was also not a very important concern. It kills anything that comes close to it if it looses contact to its command post. It has its own search and track radar to be able to work without command post.

Checking RCS is not part of the normal process of such a system of this vintage, role and computerized signal analysis capabilities. Reaction times are too low. Only a experienced operator may would have been able to classify the intensity of the blimp on the tube and tell a 737 apart from a CM.
This is a last dish system, if something reaches it, upper echelon systems normally have failed.

@PeeD in the Aparat video, the security camera footage of the launch, the missile launch mechanism is more similar to a launch at angle. The missile acceleration seems to be lower than what we have seen from Tor M1.

What you are describing about Tor M1 can be more or less be said about systems of similar generation. In my opinion, what else do we have around Tehran that is operated by Sepah that lacks in IFF and advanced signal processing. Could it have been variants of Herz 9? Older SA-6?

 

[TheImmortal]

@PeeD in the Aparat video, the security camera footage of the launch, the missile launch mechanism is more similar to a launch at angle. The missile acceleration seems to be lower than what we have seen from Tor M1.

What you are describing about Tor M1 can be more or less be said about systems of similar generation. In my opinion, what else do we have around Tehran that is operated by Sepah that lacks in IFF and advanced signal processing. Could it have been variants of Herz 9? Older SA-6?

IRGC already said the missile exploded NEAR the plane. It is possible operator fired then realized his mistake and attempted to detonate.

If SA-6 a missile truly hit that plane it would explode in mid air like in Ukraine civil war incident.

Looks like a near aircraft explosion launched shrapnel into the engines causing failure.

 

[Myself]

I think our own F-14s, F-5s, and other jets will be shot down leaving military airfields by our air defense teams located on those SAME airfields.

No need to think, it will surely happen.
In reality the situation was not even close to a real war, and this is the outcome! Just imagine what would happen under the real war circumstances with countries like U.S. or Israeli.
Peed is a respectful and respective member, but with no offense his fake empire of a Capable Iran Air Defense Force collapsed after this sad tragedy on Wednesday.

 

[PeeD]

@PeeD in the Aparat video, the security camera footage of the launch, the missile launch mechanism is more similar to a launch at angle. The missile acceleration seems to be lower than what we have seen from Tor M1.

What you are describing about Tor M1 can be more or less be said about systems of similar generation. In my opinion, what else do we have around Tehran that is operated by Sepah that lacks in IFF and advanced signal processing. Could it have been variants of Herz 9? Older SA-6?

The key issue is that a single Tor vehicle is a complete independend air defense system.
It was ordered to move to that position and cover it.
Well likely that this was outside the 4 system battery layout. This severely reduces your situational awarnes but also let you to send a Tor to a place when needed and get to job done.

A Crotale or Herz-9 for exaple, has normally a Skyguard radar or Sefat to assign a target for it. Skyguard has longer range and is better integrated into Iran's IADS.

Such an accident would be a typical one for a Tor outside it's battery structure.
But then, as said, if a Tor kill-sphere is present all friendly assets must be aware of it.

You mentioned the IRGC-ASF SA-6. This system would also be prone to such a mistake if it is forced to work with it's legacy search radar and without IADS input. If not upgraded the SA-6 would also lack a signal processing analysis system that can classify targets.
However at least the SA-6 radar has much longer range than that of the Tor to allow for plausibility checks and so on.

In any wartime situation, IRGC would tell the IRIAF where it has kill-zones and altitudes which must be avoided.
This approach simplifies the situation and a possible failure of the IFF system.
Lessons must be learned for the Tor based Oghab system.

Tor-M1 is performance wise still a state of the art system with few comparable potent systems existing. But it lacks features that would allow a safe operation in peacetime, especially if a vehicle operates completely independent...

 

[sha ah]

The biggest mistake was not closing off the airspace. After Iran launched the missiles several nations forbid their planes from flying over Iranian and Iraqi airspace. If nothing else, at that point someone at Iran's high command should have realized their mistake and ordered the airspace closed for 24-48 hrs.

The plane was following a typical flight path, heading away from the airport, not towards it. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it true that passenger planes give off a radar signature, like a signal of some sort identifying them as a civilian airliner ? Also wouldn't the direction, speed of the plane, size of the radar signature also be a clear give away that the "target" was actually a civilian plane, not a cruise missile ? I mean honestly if an air defense system cannot differentiate between a cruise missile headed towards the airport and a civilian airliner headed away from the airport, then what good is that system ?

I've also heard rumors that the accident took place as a result of human error ? Aside from not closing off the airspace are they implying that one of the operators panicked and made a mistake ? Don't two operators have to verify before deciding to launch a missile towards a target ? There are so many questions and so few answers.

In my opinion, at the very least, there has to be a thorough, unbiased inquiry where the entire event is dissected and analyzed. Even if this inquiry is not shared with the west or outside world, people with decision making power must punish everyone and anyone who played a role in the negligence and incompetence which led to this disaster. Whether it's demotions, dishonorable discharge or even jail time or in the extreme unlikely case an execution. The latter is unlikely however there has to be a shakeup at the very least.

The Canadian PM and his demands are ridiculous to say the least. Demanding that the people responsible be punished. This when the USA ended up giving medals to the crew of the Vinnecennes who shot down Iran Air Flight 655. In terms of Canadians being involved in the investigation to the point where they can interrogate Iranians, that's not only outrageous but ridiculous. Now on the subject of compensation, yes indeed Iran should compensate the families of those who were killed however the US banking sanctions will make that very difficult. Perhaps Canada could send a private jet and Iran could give them a set amount of currency or metal in exchange for Canada compensating the victims who live in Canada ? I'm not sure how that would work. Canada also ripped off Iran a few years back by selling its embassy properties in Canada and giving them to Jewish victims of Hezbollah ?

The key issue is that a single Tor vehicle is a complete independend air defense system.
It was ordered to move to that position and cover it.
Well likely that this was outside the 4 system battery layout. This severely reduces your situational awarnes but also let you to send a Tor to a place when needed and get to job done.

A Crotale or Herz-9 for exaple, has normally a Skyguard radar or Sefat to assign a target for it. Skyguard has longer range and is better integrated into Iran's IADS.

Such an accident would be a typical one for a Tor outside it's battery structure.
But then, as said, if a Tor kill-sphere is present all friendly assets must be aware of it.

You mentioned the IRGC-ASF SA-6. This system would also be prone to such a mistake if it is forced to work with it's legacy search radar and without IADS input. If not upgraded the SA-6 would also lack a signal processing analysis system that can classify targets.
However at least the SA-6 radar has much longer range than that of the Tor to allow for plausibility checks and so on.

In any wartime situation, IRGC would tell the IRIAF where it has kill-zones and altitudes which must be avoided.
This approach simplifies the situation and a possible failure of the IFF system.
Lessons must be learned for the Tor based Oghab system.

Tor-M1 is performance wise still a state of the art system with few comparable potent systems existing. But it lacks features that would allow a safe operation in peacetime, especially if a vehicle operates completely independent...

 

[PeeD]

@sha ha

As explained in detail, this generation system computer systems don't do signal analysis, at least not in army short range systems that normally never come in such situations.

It's IFF system is Soviet military IFF. Not 2000s civilian IFF.

Again a Tor outside IADS, on it's own, should never be operated outside a no flight zone for civilian and own forces.

 

[sha ah]

Iran purchased the Tor SAMs in the mid 2000's so comparing them to Tor systems from the 70's/80's isn't really fair is it ? I very much doubt if the hardware and software wasn't somewhat up to date to the standards of the time when Iran made the purchase.

Even outside of an IADS, any missile defense system has to be able to tell the difference between a passenger plane leaving an airport and an incoming cruise missile, otherwise that SAM system would be absolutely useless as a weapon.

I mean what are you saying that Iran purchased TORs that were exact copies of what was produced in the 80's ? That's pretty much impossible. I mean any weapons system constantly goes through upgrades. Look at the T-72's Iran purchased in the early 2000's. They're T-72's but you comparing them to T-72's from the mid 80's isn't fair is it ?

Furthermore even missile defense systems from the 70/80's,, whether integrated into a command center or not, seem to be able to differentiate between civilian airliners, friendly jets and enemy targets / incoming cruise missiles. I mean, if you think about it, they have to be able to otherwise we would have seen countless civilian passenger planes getting shot down one after another throughout the last few decades.

Wouldn't the Tor system receive constant upgrades as well ? Wouldn't any weapons system receive some sort of upgrades over time ? Otherwise an iphone 3 cpu would be 1000x more powerful than an 80's Tor CPU. Iran seems to have upgraded their Hawk SAMs if I'm not mistaken and Iran tends to be good at upgrading older gear.

I still don't understand how any SAM system can't differentiate between a civilian airliner, a friendly jet / drone and an enemy jet/ drone /cruise missile. I mean during peace time but especially during war time a SAM would be useless if it couldn't differentiate between friendly and enemy jets/cruise missiles. It just doesn't make sense.

If what you're saying is true then the Tor system stationed near the airport or any Iranian airfield would be shooting down civilian planes, Iranian jets, left and right, all the time. The factg that they don't shoot down planes by mistake all the time proves that there's some identification system or some protocol that prevents mistakes from constantly occurring.

In my opinion, it is extremely likely that the operators were on high alert, expecting an attack, perhaps they were overexcited ? over worked ? over anxious ? and/or they simply panicked ?

In any case I want a full investigation, even if its not made public and I want a shakeup of the higher ups and those responsible. Something has to be done. This should have been avoided but now it has to be prevented and those who were negligent and incompetent have to be demoted, dishonorably discharged or worse.

@sha ha

As explained in detail, this generation system computer systems don't do signal analysis, at least not in army short range systems that normally never come in such situations.

It's IFF system is Soviet military IFF. Not 2000s civilian IFF.

Again a Tor outside IADS, on it's own, should never be operated outside a no flight zone for civilian and own forces.

 

[PeeD]

Iran purchased the Tor SAMs in the mid 2000's so comparing them to Tor systems from the 70's/80's isn't really fair is it ? I very much doubt if the hardware and software wasn't somewhat up to date to the standards of the time when Iran made the purchase.

Even outside of an IADS, any missile defense system has to be able to tell the difference between a passenger plane leaving an airport and an incoming cruise missile, otherwise that SAM system would be absolutely useless as a weapon.

The design is from the mid 80's, still state of the art but lacking computing power to do complex signal analysis, today standard in all Iranian systems.
Under 90% of the conditions it would not need it anyway. Longer range systems and the IADS would do that.
If something enters Tor kill envelope it almost certainly a valid target.
And no Russia would not update the Tor-M1 sold to Iran in the mid 2000's. They like Greek ones are the same: M1 export standard from the late 80's which in turn is a minor modification of the original Tor of the mid-80's.

Tor is made to move with tank divisions protect them and avoid killing aircraft and helicopters with Soviet military IFF system. In no scenario airliners would start close to Tor's envelope. Only in peacetime situations where it is directly under IADS control a safe operation could be established. Unfortunately on that night it had lost contact to IADS and apparently believed a war has started and it needs to protect its assigned objects at all cost. This would be standard practice: for some reason the enemy has been successful to immediately degrade the IADS, hence independent operation in worst case situation starts... only that it was no emergency situation, enemy spoofed and deceived only... and civilian flights were allowed to be done...

I mean what are you saying that Iran purchased TORs that were exact copies of what was produced in the 80's ? That's pretty much impossible. I mean any weapons system constantly goes through upgrades. Look at the T-72's Iran purchased in the early 2000's. They're T-72's but you comparing them to T-72's from the mid 80's isn't fair is it ?

Nice example: Yes mid-90's Iranian T-72S are the same as the mid-80's T-72B, the strongest T-72 variant. Changing a working model is a difficult task, sometimes its not needed. Computerized signal analysis may be even regarded as something unnecessary today for a system with the original role of the Tor.

Wouldn't the Tor system receive constant upgrades as well ? Wouldn't any weapons system receive some sort of upgrades over time ? Otherwise an iphone 3 cpu would be 1000x more powerful than an 80's Tor CPU. Iran seems to have upgraded their Hawk SAMs if I'm not mistaken and Iran tends to be good at upgrading older gear.

No need to upgrade a working system. Only if it is necessary to add a capability to it. Tor-M1 is a great system today for it's role, even 35 years after it was made.

I still don't understand how any SAM system can't differentiate between a civilian airliner, a friendly jet / drone and an enemy jet/ drone /cruise missile. I mean during peace time but especially during war time a SAM would be useless if it couldn't differentiate between friendly and enemy jets/cruise missiles. It just doesn't make sense.

Civilian aircraft normally soon climb outside the altitude envelope of the Tor-M1 into safe and fix corridors.
Pantsir-S1 for example is an Russian airforce system, designed to operate near airports and air bases. Tor-M1 on the other hand is a army system made to move with tank divisions with only Soviet/Russian aircraft and helicopters close to it.
Btw. the alleged Buk kill in Ukraine: Buk is also a army system with Soviet military IFF...

If what you're saying is true then the Tor system stationed near the airport or any Iranian airfield would be shooting down civilian planes, Iranian jets, left and right, all the time. The factg that they don't shoot down planes by mistake all the time proves that there's some identification system or some protocol that prevents mistakes from constantly occurring.

1: Alert 3 normally would have all civilian airports closed at least, or even all air corridors closed
2: Activating Tor-M1 for a given area is a dangerous step given the details of the system
3: Tor-M1 operating on its own, outside IADS will just kill anything that enters its assigned sector in alter 3 conditions.

So this is why things like that didn't happen in the past.