Iranian Air Defense Systems

[Philosopher]

Official: Iran Needs to Develop Space-Based Radars

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – An Iranian deputy defense minister called for the development of space-based radars inside the country.

In comments at a conference on radar and monitoring systems on Saturday, Brigadier General Qassem Taqizadeh said Iran will have to employ space-based radars sooner or later.

He called for the development of the space-based radar technology in the country’s scientific centers and preparation of the ground for such technical know-how to prevent a “strategic” surprise.

Hailing Iran’s progress in radar technologies, the general said local experts have manufactured a broad range of phased array passive and active radars and have strengthened the country’s capabilities in the electromagnetic sphere.
“We are trying to thwart the enemy’s electromagnetic onslaught,” Taqizadeh said.
In remarks in October, Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Aerospace Force Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh said Iran is one of the ten best manufacturers of military radars in the world.

He said the new radars, manufactured by the IRGC Aerospace Force, are capable of detecting stealth aircraft within a range of 350 kilometers and all other targets within a distance of above 1,000 km.

Official: Iran Needs to Develop Space-Based Radars - Politics news - Tasnim News Agency

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – An Iranian deputy defense minister called for the development of space-based radars inside the country.

www.tasnimnews.com

 

[Philosopher]

@PeeD What are your thoughts on using a long range "ballistic" type missile against enemy bombers during flight? If we use cluster warheads on this missile, would it viable to send it within the vicinity of the bombers, warheads releases bomblets and destroyed target from above? Bomber are not very manoeuvrable, so I could envisage such cluster systems being used as long as the missile can receive inflight flight update. Could this work kinematically speaking? I know Russians already use relatively bulky 400km range missile against AWACs etc in their S-400, but I am thinking of much longer ranges.

 

[skyshadow]

@PeeD What are your thoughts on using a long range "ballistic" type missile against enemy bombers during flight? If we use cluster warheads on this missile, would it viable to send it within the vicinity of the bombers, warheads releases bomblets and destroyed target from above? Bomber are not very manoeuvrable, so I could envisage such cluster systems being used as long as the missile can receive inflight flight update. Could this work kinematically speaking? I know Russians already use relatively bulky 400km range missile against AWACs etc in their S-400, but I am thinking of much longer ranges.

its highly unlikely the better option is a cruise missile hovering above the air base , ballistic missiles need time to reach its target and we don't have real time track of the bombers on the ground so a missile like 385 would be perfect for the job it has real time tracking and its hard to find and most importantly its waaaaaaay cheaper then ballistic missiles allowing you to deploy them in numbers

 

[Philosopher]

its highly unlikely the better option is a cruise missile hovering above the air base , ballistic missiles need time to reach its target and we don't have real time track of the bombers on the ground so a missile like 385 would be perfect for the job it has real time tracking and its hard to find and most importantly its waaaaaaay cheaper then ballistic missiles

These bombers have a high RCS and thus we should be able to easily detect and track them using long range radars so I do not think real time tracking is the issue. Regarding the cost, these are high value targets and we would not need many long range missiles to deal with them. The issue with the cruise missile strategy is we are considering dealing with the bombers when they are in flight.

 

[PeeD]

@PeeD What are your thoughts on using a long range "ballistic" type missile against enemy bombers during flight? If we use cluster warheads on this missile, would it viable to send it within the vicinity of the bombers, warheads releases bomblets and destroyed target from above? Bomber are not very manoeuvrable, so I could envisage such cluster systems being used as long as the missile can receive inflight flight update. Could this work kinematically speaking? I know Russians already use relatively bulky 400km range missile against AWACs etc in their S-400, but I am thinking of much longer ranges.

Detection and identification at such long ranges are the problems.

One secret weapon the IRGC apparently has since quite long is the Alam ol Hoda. For special "VIP" targets such as tankers, AWACS, JSTARS and B-52.

But 500-600km is the maximum due to earth curvature.

I expect an Alam ol Hoda 2 with 600km range, maybe based on the Raad-500 Zoheir solid motor. Your idea of a cluster warhead is unconventional and interesting but generally these "super SAM" view their very large target with their large ARH seekers from above and jamming intensity of self defense jammers are not sufficient in such a situation. This, plus the lack of evasive maneuvering and large warheads means high PK for the super SAM.

Unfortunately such a special "wonderwaepon/black" asset will not be shown anytime soon.

Once targeting allows for longer ranges, such as via space based radars, your ballistic trajectory idea could become attractive.

 

[skyshadow]

Saeer AA Gun destroying its target in Syria

https://twitter.com/x/status/1331436235412307968

 

[Shawnee]

You guys know this but just another reminder. They can fly back and forth from mainland US.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1337787871550447616

 

[PeeD]

You guys know this but just another reminder. They can fly back and forth from mainland US.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1337787871550447616

That would be a long turn-around time for each strike with a subsonic B-52 in a high intensity conflict. But principally yes.

 

[925boy]

You guys know this but just another reminder. They can fly back and forth from mainland US.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1337787871550447616

I hope this guys also knows that which ever side is contributing ONLY airforce capabilities to a conflict is the ultimate LOSER. Look over the past 20 years, the force with greater air force capability LOSES, and that makes sense...wars are won on the ground, so if you are too afraid ,unable or unmotivated to put boots on the ground, you will end up holding the BIG L in that conflict. Airforce will help you in a war, but airforce wont win the war for you.

 

[foxhoundbis]

You guys know this but just another reminder. They can fly back and forth from mainland US.

There are plenty of figures available that demonstrate the ineffectiveness of these kinds of bombing campaigns. I had these figures but due to crash disks, and uninstall, reinstall, etc...it is hard for me to refind them. However, there are all available on the net.
During the gulf war 1991, when US coalition did several hundred thousand raids against Iraqi targets, on 19 critical targets, just one was totally destroyed -the rest of the nuclear power plant- because... this target was abandoned by Iraqis.

Against Serbia in 1999, during three months, US coalition did around 90.000 raids. At this time US, UK loudly claimed -via their shit of media like CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS etc...- that all Serbian ground forces were wiped out of the map. After international UN inspections, they all realized that Serbian ground forces were intact. The losses of Serbian ground forces were neglectable.

During Lebanon's war in 2006, Israel air forces launched several dozens of airstrikes each day, with the goal to reduce the number of Lebanon's militias' roquets fired against Israel. At the beginning of the war if I recall there were around 100 roquets/day fired against Israel. At the end of the war, August 15, until the last hour there were around 100 roquets that were still fired against Israel's infrastructures.

Recently April 2018 western aggression against Syria, on 108 cruise missiles launched against Syria, in order to wipe out of the map all Syrian air defense, in fact around 70 cruise missiles were intercepted, many others were jammed, and finally, just a handful of cruise missiles reached their target with very limited effectiveness.


In fact, all air weapon as a tool is more than questionable. In 1971 or 72 -I don't recall exactly- President R. Nixon asked why the air bombing are so "Zilch".

Understand why Iran is no longer afraid of the US, and doesn't bet for something that is very expensive, but its effectiveness is at best questionable.

Conclusion
At this stage, whatever the US threats, Westerners can no longer stop Iran on the road to become a new power not only in the Middle East but in the world, because Iran is a powerful industrial country. The only significant threat that the US still have is the use of Nuclear weapons, however, if they use it will be a monstrous suicide. Because Iranians can build immediately nuclear warheads weapons -if it is not already done-, and they can quickly adapt to their new hypersonic ICBM -Haj Qassem- and they will strike back on US infrastructures inside America. This will force most of the countries in the world to have nuclear weapons. For these reasons I don't think the US will dare to use it.
Like or Not, Iran is a new emerging power.

 

[925boy]

There are plenty of figures available that demonstrate the ineffectiveness of these kinds of bombing campaigns. I had these figures but due to crash disks, and uninstall, reinstall, etc...it is hard for me to refind them. However, there are all available on the net.
During the gulf war 1991, when US coalition did several hundred thousand raids against Iraqi targets, on 19 critical targets, just one was totally destroyed -the rest of the nuclear power plant- because... this target was abandoned by Iraqis.

Against Serbia in 1999, during three months, US coalition did around 90.000 raids. At this time US, UK loudly claimed -via their shit of media like CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS etc...- that all Serbian ground forces were wiped out of the map. After international UN inspections, they all realized that Serbian ground forces were intact. The losses of Serbian ground forces were neglectable.

During Lebanon's war in 2006, Israel air forces launched several dozens of airstrikes each day, with the goal to reduce the number of Lebanon's militias' roquets fired against Israel. At the beginning of the war if I recall there were around 100 roquets/day fired against Israel. At the end of the war, August 15, until the last hour there were around 100 roquets that were still fired against Israel's infrastructures.

Recently April 2018 western aggression against Syria, on 108 cruise missiles launched against Syria, in order to wipe out of the map all Syrian air defense, in fact around 70 cruise missiles were intercepted, many others were jammed, and finally, just a handful of cruise missiles reached their target with very limited effectiveness.


In fact, all air weapon as a tool is more than questionable. In 1971 or 72 -I don't recall exactly- President R. Nixon asked why the air bombing are so "Zilch".

Understand why Iran is no longer afraid of the US, and doesn't bet for something that is very expensive, but its effectiveness is at best questionable.

Conclusion
At this stage, whatever the US threats, Westerners can no longer stop Iran on the road to become a new power not only in the Middle East but in the world, because Iran is a powerful industrial country. The only significant threat that the US still have is the use of Nuclear weapons, however, if they use it will be a monstrous suicide. Because Iranians can build immediately nuclear warheads weapons -if it is not already done-, and they can quickly adapt to their new hypersonic ICBM -Haj Qassem- and they will strike back on US infrastructures inside America. This will force most of the countries in the world to have nuclear weapons. For these reasons I don't think the US will dare to use it.
Like or Not, Iran is a new emerging power.

Great post bro and what a nice read! I completely agree about the air dominance NOT WINNING THE WARS...look at Afghanistan too..US has bombed Afghanistan so much already, but the Taliban have never been stronger than they are today, so that in itself is such a contradiction...and this unwillingness to use and commit ground forces is the undoing of ISraeli and US forces..Israel essentially vacated its border with Lebanon and only used some dummies and robots to patrol it now, but this is after Hezbollah only made a threat of attacking the border region...how afraid are those mighty IDF with all their "technology"...military technology cant replace the human aspects of war and conflict..robots wont win wars for us for a while.

 

[sha ah]

Iran has extremely well rounded and potent air defenses. Limited bombing runs with long range bombers won't work. They're big, bulky and slow. Iran will shoot them down and they cost too much to be honest. The US won't go to war with an adversary that can retaliate like Iran. They've been in Afghanistan for 20 years and the Taliban controls 1/3rd of the country as we speak.

Great post bro and what a nice read! I completely agree about the air dominance NOT WINNING THE WARS...look at Afghanistan too..US has bombed Afghanistan so much already, but the Taliban have never been stronger than they are today, so that in itself is such a contradiction...and this unwillingness to use and commit ground forces is the undoing of ISraeli and US forces..Israel essentially vacated its border with Lebanon and only used some dummies and robots to patrol it now, but this is after Hezbollah only made a threat of attacking the border region...how afraid are those mighty IDF with all their "technology"...military technology cant replace the human aspects of war and conflict..robots wont win wars for us for a while.

 

[TheImmortal]

LOL B-52 bombers are a joke. A relic of a forgotten past. One S-200 and that thing is up in smokes.

Any serious person that wants to see the US Airforce go check the target preparedness goal of every aircraft in US airforce, almost all aircraft failed their 70% active target by huge margin.

Meaning = most of US airforce is grounded due to issues at any given time.

Of course Twitter arm chair generals don’t care for such facts and think 2 B-52s send any type of “message” to iran.

 

[foxhoundbis]

LOL B-52 bombers are a joke. A relic of a forgotten past. One S-200 and that thing is up in smokes.
....
Of course Twitter arm chair generals don’t care for such facts and think 2 B-52s send any type of “message” to iran.

Indeed 2 B-52 is just a show, theater, but cannot impact the situation.
During the air war of Vietnam, the most important moment was Linebacker I&II. early May to end October; and December 18–29, 1972. During Linebacker II US had lost at least 30 B-52 and several dozens of other aircraft. Most people forgot and were jammed, mislead by Western propaganda that spread fake news with their so-called "historians", "specialists", "experts", "pundits", in fact, real propagandists.
In fact, the Linebacker air campaign was a total disaster, but in such "shit" like Wikipedia, you are asked to believe it was a success, in spite of the total evidence of the contrary. To summarize, and straight forward US left Vietnam, in such a way as a dog flees with its dick between its legs.

....US has bombed Afghanistan so much already, but the Taliban have never been stronger than they are today, ...

The situation in Afghanistan is somehow more complicated than it would seem. If the Taliban had received weapons from Pakistan, the western coalition might be left Afghanistan for a while. West use Pakistan's territory for its precious logistic.

In the previous post, I forgot to add
- 1991 in spite of several hundreds of thousands of air raids of the US coalition, the Iraqi army was nearly intact too. The US slaughtered Iraqi ground forces in Kuwait only after the foolish Saddam's order to evacuate Kuwait -February 25, 1991- without taking any international guarantees. US profits to massacre an army that was withdrawing. Iraqis did the awful error to deactivate their anti-aircraft defense. It was one of the worst barbaric war crimes in history. But for the US, it is like Joker, U can use it only once, but not twice. In Venezuela, Iran, Syria, China, North Korea, etc...all are already recorded this, and they did not forget, meanwhile West forgot. Notice in 1999, the US did not dare to confront Serbians ground forces.

-It is noteworthy to add, since Russia's intervention in Syria 2015. None western aircraft had dared to penetrate Syria"s air skies. Westerners attacked Syria only by missiles with an efficiency equal to null.

Thus, the era of Western dominance is going toward the end. In this context, a war between the West and Iran could never happen, because the West cannot afford another war with Iran. Your high responsibles said that in the next months they will deploy new hypersonic air defense hardware, like Iranian own Pantsir, and own S-400/500. The sky of Iran will be completely close, then If a war happens US coalition will undergo a defeat worst than the simple Dien Bien Phu, or Khe Sahn.

Consequently, a war between the West and Iran could be unlikely. Let's hope.

 

[sha ah]

I already posted this in the Chill thread but its relevant here as well.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1337817856969502722