Messerschmitt
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2019
- Messages
- 2,662
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
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.
The argument I sometimes see here regarding the speed of Iranian anti-aircraft missiles... too slow!
There is an opinion that The average speed of the 3rd khordad that shot down the RQ-4 was just under Mach 2, and the average speed of the Bavar 373 when it shot down a drone 300km away in an exercise was about Mach 3.
I have seen people who do not believe this and claim Mach 5-7!
If you do the calculations for the Bavar 373 sayyad-4B missile, you will find that Its CdA value (forward projected area A x drag coefficient Cd) is about 0,06,
while the F-35's estimated CdA is about 0.2, a difference of only 3 times.
The F-35's specific impulse at military thrust is about 10 times that of a solid-fuel rocket engine, and its onboard fuel is about 5 times that of the sayyad-4B.
This means that at the same speed, the F-35 can fly about 17 times longer.
If the F-35 flew at full military thrust, the onboard fuel would be empty in about 25-30 minutes. This is a law of physics that cannot be escaped.
So, if the sayyad-4B reaches a speed of Mach 3, the drag coefficient increases by about 30% in this speed range, and the aircraft will experience 6 times more drag than the F-35 flying at Mach 0.8,
and the time until the fuel is empty is 1/300 of the F-35!
If you force the Sayyad-4B to fly at Mach 3 at an altitude of 0 m, its fuel will be empty in just a few seconds, which is nothing to sneeze at!!
So what to do is simple, the missile will fly at high altitude where the air is as thin as possible. The speed of a ballistic missile is high because it travels through space.
At the maximum altitude of 110,000 feet, which is what the sayyad-4B reached during the exercise, the air density drops dramatically to 1/60th of that on the ground!
Long-range anti-aircraft missiles first ascend rapidly, then approach their targets by maintaining as high an altitude as possible before descending.
How much speed can be maintained is almost entirely determined by this flight profile, and fuel improvements are at the margin of error.
Flying at an average of Mach 3 up to 300 km away creates fairly severe route restrictions. The speed performance of sayyad-4b is excellent enough.
And the 3rd khordad went above the clouds just before the hit, not taking a high-altitude advantage profile, probably to avoid being conspicuous.
Mach 2 is good enough without taking a high altitude profile, albeit at 70km range!
So, please, let go of the illusion that an anti-aircraft missile can reach speeds of Mach 5 or 7, and that's limited to far, far above 100,000 feet.
last night, iran's air defenses were reportedly activated near karaj. According to reports and video footage, there were explosions. The target is said to have been a production facility for IR6 centrifuges.
Iran is said to have said that this was an air defense exercise by the Basiji.
Does anyone have more information? I have created a main topic in the thread "Iranian Nuclear Doctrine".
that hybrid fuel announced 2 years ago . i expect it being used for Fateh missile family first but it seems the airdefense system is the first to benefit from it.Iran reveals new air defense missile
>The Sayyad 4B rocket's engine runs on a hybrid solid fuel
Iran has announced the opening of a plant to produce hybrid solid fuel for various missiles in 2021.
Hybrid rockets are still in the testing stage in various countries, but it is said that it is easier to adjust the power output than solid fuel, and specific impulse can be easily improved by adding metallic materials. Hybrid rockets do not use explosives as fuel, which leads to improved safety.
There are reports that Japan has achieved a 10% increase in specific impulse.
Application to missiles is still in the development stage even in the U.S., and there is no information yet of its full-scale commercialization outside of Iran.
Glad to see you have taken such a keen interest on these topics, even if some things are disagreed upon. Nice to see non-Iranians being investigative and researching Iran.Iran reveals new air defense missile
>The Sayyad 4B rocket's engine runs on a hybrid solid fuel
Iran has announced the opening of a plant to produce hybrid solid fuel for various missiles in 2021.
Hybrid rockets are still in the testing stage in various countries, but it is said that it is easier to adjust the power output than solid fuel, and specific impulse can be easily improved by adding metallic materials. Hybrid rockets do not use explosives as fuel, which leads to improved safety.
There are reports that Japan has achieved a 10% increase in specific impulse.
Application to missiles is still in the development stage even in the U.S., and there is no information yet of its full-scale commercialization outside of Iran.
Sayyad4b has max speed of mach 6.1, it's official.The argument I sometimes see here regarding the speed of Iranian anti-aircraft missiles... too slow!
There is an opinion that The average speed of the 3rd khordad that shot down the RQ-4 was just under Mach 2, and the average speed of the Bavar 373 when it shot down a drone 300km away in an exercise was about Mach 3.
I have seen people who do not believe this and claim Mach 5-7!
If you do the calculations for the Bavar 373 sayyad-4B missile, you will find that Its CdA value (forward projected area A x drag coefficient Cd) is about 0,06,
while the F-35's estimated CdA is about 0.2, a difference of only 3 times.
The F-35's specific impulse at military thrust is about 10 times that of a solid-fuel rocket engine, and its onboard fuel is about 5 times that of the sayyad-4B.
This means that at the same speed, the F-35 can fly about 17 times longer.
If the F-35 flew at full military thrust, the onboard fuel would be empty in about 25-30 minutes. This is a law of physics that cannot be escaped.
So, if the sayyad-4B reaches a speed of Mach 3, the drag coefficient increases by about 30% in this speed range, and the aircraft will experience 6 times more drag than the F-35 flying at Mach 0.8,
and the time until the fuel is empty is 1/300 of the F-35!
If you force the Sayyad-4B to fly at Mach 3 at an altitude of 0 m, its fuel will be empty in just a few seconds, which is nothing to sneeze at!!
So what to do is simple, the missile will fly at high altitude where the air is as thin as possible. The speed of a ballistic missile is high because it travels through space.
At the maximum altitude of 110,000 feet, which is what the sayyad-4B reached during the exercise, the air density drops dramatically to 1/60th of that on the ground!
Long-range anti-aircraft missiles first ascend rapidly, then approach their targets by maintaining as high an altitude as possible before descending.
How much speed can be maintained is almost entirely determined by this flight profile, and fuel improvements are at the margin of error.
Flying at an average of Mach 3 up to 300 km away creates fairly severe route restrictions. The speed performance of sayyad-4b is excellent enough.
And the 3rd khordad went above the clouds just before the hit, not taking a high-altitude advantage profile, probably to avoid being conspicuous.
Mach 2 is good enough without taking a high altitude profile, albeit at 70km range!
So, please, let go of the illusion that an anti-aircraft missile can reach speeds of Mach 5 or 7, and that's limited to far, far above 100,000 feet.
What exercise or drill was this? Is their any article with these details?Sayyad4b has max speed of mach 6.1, it's official.
Bavar hit the target at it's maximum range, and so missile had the lowest speed, this engagement was a practice for eliminating big targets eg tankers, bombers and ISR planes (with a drone RCS), not an agile fighter.
Missile predicts the aircraft's path, so F35's maximum cda is irrelevant.
New Recruit
America can Crush Iran easily in a war, the only thing preventing that is that the cowardly effete baby boomers in charge of the US government don't want to see the bloodshed of taking combat casualties and indeed have a weird fetish about combat casualties and collateral damage.
Ask from your boys wetting their pants in Persian Gulf.America can Crush Iran easily in a war, the only thing preventing that is that the cowardly effete baby boomers in charge of the US government don't want to see the bloodshed of taking combat casualties and indeed have a weird fetish about combat casualties and collateral damage.
New Recruit
In the above post I don't mean a air war by say a US and/or israeli air strike campaign against the iranian nuclear infrastructure, in such a scenario Iran would have the obligation and option of ballistic missile strikes against the US middle eastern bases. This is the conventional scenario of a US-Iran war and what most people have in mind when such a possibility is mentioned. The traditional scenario is NOT the war scenario I'm talking about.