Iranian Air Defense Systems

[B@KH]

Why don't Pakistan and Iran have good defence relations ?? Now that sanctions lifted Pakistan can offer cheap fighters eg jf 17 , weapons guided bombs tot apcs etc and Iran can offer sam etc they have common problems eg Baluchistan and pipeline on between and cultural links and for Iran this is second largest shia population (if that interests them) then why ? Is it Indian meddling ( just asking) because look in past we helped each other before and after 79 and pak was first to recognize Iran new gov in 79 Pakistan can help them in their aviation missilr heck even nuclear programs then WHY

We can buy sams ships etc from you you can buy manpads ANZA upgraded g3m and g3s sniper , AL Khalid tank which is equivalent to t90 m1a1 , APC TALHA AND SAAD , JF17 fighter as cheap planes to support superior sukhoi Iran will buy mushak propeller trainer and K8 jet trainer , guided munitions etc POF EYE ibms and and loads of other stuff while Pakistan can buy sams and other indigenous Iran stuff if they pass test and provide financing etc

If we had a leader, we would be great. because Leader is always from God for faithful [7:186]

I love this song, though persian but understandable for urdu too.
http://www.telewebion.com/#!/episode/1496783/

we are bridge to Afghanistan for imperialist usa and nato
we can be a bridge to ME, europe usa for communist china.
we too can go for Ghazwa hind under communist china command.
we think our policies are so smart that others get fool but infact we are harming ourselves.
our fools want to help God but God do not need our help.
so this saga will go on....like this.... due to corruption.

 

[Oldman1]

S200 are for HEAVY but easy target, that cannot avoid missils and maneuver, not a reliate SAM against what US has !

Thats why you have other SAM systems to protect something like the S-200 or S-300 or so on.

 

[Fafnir]

It seems you are just trolling. Or maybe you're just really ignorant in this topic.
No matter what people try to tell you, it seems to just go through you. Just because the missile has a duct it does not mean anything nor does it mean much else if the shape of the missile seem to be slightly similar, as I explained earlier these are just coincident. Just like it is a coincident that sayyad-3 has a duct as well. The missile, sayyad-4 has a completely different guidance fin section, next you'll be claiming it is based on PAC-3 just because they have similar fin part. You are just making random claims, like it may have borrowed xyz, I bet even if they showed the inside, and it is 100% different, you'll just find something else to claim. Give it a rest.

I think its rather funny that you prefer to just ignore/dismiss the two very obvious similarities of the sam in favor of the one very minor difference,it sounds to me like you just cant stand the possibility that this systems isnt 100% original,c`mon stop your nationalist cheer leading and think about it for just a second do you really think that iran whos only prior experience with sams has been reverse/reengineering 1960s era legacy systems like the hawk and standard could then go and build from scratch a sam system that would be as good as or as better than the pmu2?,the chinese tried the exact same thing with the hq9 and they werent able to do it.Theres no way that bavar could be technologically based on the pac3 as iran simply did not have access to that system but iran did have access to the s300

 

[Rukarl]

I think its rather funny that you prefer to just ignore/dismiss the two very obvious similarities of the sam in favor of the one very minor difference,it sounds to me like you just cant stand the possibility that this systems isnt 100% original,c`mon stop your nationalist cheer leading and think about it for just a second do you really think that iran whos only prior experience with sams has been reverse/reengineering 1960s era legacy systems like the hawk and standard could then go and build from scratch a sam system that would be as good as or as better than the pmu2?,the chinese tried the exact same thing with the hq9 and they werent able to do it.Theres no way that bavar could be technologically based on the pac3 as iran simply did not have access to that system but iran did have access to the s300

You are talking nonsense that's all. The only person dismissing anything here is you because you seem not have the logical capacity to understand that a duct and some similarities in shape does not mean anything when the major factors such as guidance system are completely different. I said, you'll probably end up claiming sayyad-3 is based on PAC-3 due to similar guidance fins. Here are the missiles in question:

Here is the bavar missile:

How dumb does one have to be to think sayyad-4 is a copy or based on the Russian system? They are completely different and similarities in shape is nothing but coincidence. By your logic, all straight missile must be copied of each other. Many missiles share similarities in their shapes. The main parts i.e guidance section are completely different. How many time do we need to tell you this obvious fact? But then again, you're just a troll. Since the beginning of the thread you've been acting insane and had to bring s-300 into everything. You're just a waste of space here with your 12 year old kid logic.

 

[Rukarl]

Thats why you have other SAM systems to protect something like the S-200 or S-300 or so on.

Either way, s-200 in my opinion should just be converted for anti ship roles. Their usefulness against modern craft is highly questionable.

 

[monitor]

Land Platforms
Iran unveils Bavar-373 long-range air-defence system
Jeremy Binnie, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
24 August 2016
Iran unveiled its locally developed Bavar-373 long-range air-defence system on 21 August, indicating it is continuing the programme even though it is now receiving S-300 systems from Russia.

President Rouhani stands beside the missile launcher from the Bavar-373. (president.ir)

The head of the Iranian air-defence command first announced the Bavar-373 was being developed in September 2011, a little over a year after Russia cancelled a contract to supply Iran with S-300 long-range air-defence systems. Russia reversed that decision in 2015 and delivered the first S-300 components earlier this year.

The announcement that Iran was working on its own long-range air-defence system prompted speculation that S-300-lookalike components seen in the 18 April 2010 Army Day parade may have been for the Bavar-373.

The Bavar-373 target-engagement radar. (president.ir)

That theory has now been categorically disproved as the Bavar-373 displayed on 21 August is clearly a unique Iranian system that appears to reflect extensive investment in its ability to develop phased array radars.

The system's missile launcher, target-acquisition radar, and target-engagement radar were all seen in a series of photographs released by President Hassan Rouhani's office showing him inspecting military technology developments made by the country.

Although the system's Sayyad-3 missile appears to have already been seen in the Army Day parade held earlier this year, this is the first time its launcher has been displayed.


It follows the trend set by the Sayyad-2, unveiled in November 2013, of using a canister with a square-cross section in the style of the US Patriot rather than the round ones seen on Russian long-range air-defence systems.

The launcher appeared to be mounted on a 10x10 Zoljanah heavy equipment transporter and had two missile canisters elevated to a nearly vertical position. The canisters appeared to be approximately 6.5 m in length, which would make the Sayyad-3 shorter than the 7.5 m-long 48N6 missile used with the S-300PMU2.

Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options　ihs.com/contact



To read the full article, Client Login
(318 of 680 words)

 

[Samak]

Either way, s-200 in my opinion should just be converted for anti ship roles. Their usefulness against modern craft is highly questionable.

Let our enemies have one more obstacles (s200 ) in attacking us ....

 

[SOHEIL]

That theory has now been categorically disproved as the Bavar-373 displayed on 21 August is clearly a unique Iranian system that appears to reflect extensive investment in its ability to develop phased array radars.

 

[Draco.IMF]

I hope member yavar will soon say something about Bavar-373

 

[SOHEIL]

I hope member yavar will soon say something about Bavar-373

what exactly ?

 

[The SC]

Let us our enemies have one more obstacles (s200 ) in attacking us ....

Very efficient against B-52 bombers

Land Platforms
Iran unveils Bavar-373 long-range air-defence system
Jeremy Binnie, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
24 August 2016
Iran unveiled its locally developed Bavar-373 long-range air-defence system on 21 August, indicating it is continuing the programme even though it is now receiving S-300 systems from Russia.

President Rouhani stands beside the missile launcher from the Bavar-373. (president.ir)

The head of the Iranian air-defence command first announced the Bavar-373 was being developed in September 2011, a little over a year after Russia cancelled a contract to supply Iran with S-300 long-range air-defence systems. Russia reversed that decision in 2015 and delivered the first S-300 components earlier this year.

The announcement that Iran was working on its own long-range air-defence system prompted speculation that S-300-lookalike components seen in the 18 April 2010 Army Day parade may have been for the Bavar-373.

The Bavar-373 target-engagement radar. (president.ir)

That theory has now been categorically disproved as the Bavar-373 displayed on 21 August is clearly a unique Iranian system that appears to reflect extensive investment in its ability to develop phased array radars.

The system's missile launcher, target-acquisition radar, and target-engagement radar were all seen in a series of photographs released by President Hassan Rouhani's office showing him inspecting military technology developments made by the country.

Although the system's Sayyad-3 missile appears to have already been seen in the Army Day parade held earlier this year, this is the first time its launcher has been displayed.


It follows the trend set by the Sayyad-2, unveiled in November 2013, of using a canister with a square-cross section in the style of the US Patriot rather than the round ones seen on Russian long-range air-defence systems.

The launcher appeared to be mounted on a 10x10 Zoljanah heavy equipment transporter and had two missile canisters elevated to a nearly vertical position. The canisters appeared to be approximately 6.5 m in length, which would make the Sayyad-3 shorter than the 7.5 m-long 48N6 missile used with the S-300PMU2.

Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options　ihs.com/contact



To read the full article, Client Login
(318 of 680 words)

What if the same as in this configuration of Sayyad 2? it does not have to be shorter..

 

[Draco.IMF]

so Sayyad 4 = B373 ?
and the Sayyad family consists of different radars, missiles, range for different tasks?
in iranmilitaryforum yavar wrote that there are different Bavar projects, and B373 is not even the the most powerful one
IMF is down so i cant look after, but he wrote, there are several projects ongoing which outclass B373 (B373 < B... < B... <B...), maybe satellite killers?

 

[Rukarl]

so Sayyad 4 = B373 ?
and the Sayyad family consists of different radars, missiles, range for different tasks?
in iranmilitaryforum yavar wrote that there are different Bavar projects, and B373 is not even the the most powerful one
IMF is down so i cant look after, but he wrote, there are several projects ongoing which outclass B373 (B373 < B... < B... <B...), maybe satellite killers?

Yes, sayyad-4 is one of the missiles for Bavar-373.
As for your other statement, there is no evidence of another Bavar. What we do know however is that IRGC also has their own air defence programs, how they stack up to Bavar, we don't know.

 

[Oldman1]

Either way, s-200 in my opinion should just be converted for anti ship roles. Their usefulness against modern craft is highly questionable.

They already have other systems for anti ship roles.

 

[Rukarl]

They already have other systems for anti ship roles.

I am aware of that, what I meant is that if S-200 outlive their usefulness in air defence role, they should still be highly useful for anti ship role.