@AmirPatriot
A less complex but also probably less robust solution and more expensive is to use a simple ARH seeker equipped SAM with one search-only radar, like the the Aster and others. The Iranian solution would be a good one if it works that way, all systems which would be designed to counter stealth opponents would be more complex.
Two different radars on two trucks looks complex but another point is that we have a problem in practice with my described solution:
The Bavars SAM seeker would almost certainly be in X-band. But AESA technology for X-band is still very new, expansive and hard to master. In my description above both Bavar battery radars would have to be X-band AESAs to work that way. Iran has displayed AESA systems up to S-band, with the Hafez for example.
So it would be a more likely theory that the acquisition and engagement radar is in fact a S-band system with no actual "engagement" capability, means the ability to illuminate a target. It could be a AESA beamforming radar like the Hafez, used for emergency battery search capability, missile up-link communication and missile tracking during engagement. It could additionally be optimized to form a high energy pencil beam to track a distant or stealth target, but with no illumination capability to guide the Bavars SARH SAM seeker autonomously. In emergency it could work alone by using the Bavars missile up-link to guide it in a much less robust and accurate command guidance mode.
The necessary engagement radar able to illuminate a target would be the "engagement radar" of the Bavar. It looks like a AESA system, but due to the reasons mentioned above it would be a quite huge achievement to build a rather large X-band AESA for tracking and illumination. Rather high power levels are necessary and Iran is not known to possess such state of the art semi conductor capabilities. A X-band system explains the smaller aperture size of it and a AESA solution with lower power than a S-300 like PESA could archive a comparably high illumination power by more precise pencil beam forming.
We could dismiss it being a AESA and just looking like one from the outside, a high power direct feed PESA would be muh easier to build. Could it be a reduced AESA with no receiving capability as explained in the previous post, in order to make it easier to build? No such system is known and I'm not sure if this would be technically feasible, but I dont exclude the possibility that only by taking out the receiver function they were able to create a high power AESA Illuminator.
One question would be why using two trucks if both radars could be mounted on a single one judging from the size. Its for system redundancy and because both radars work in different S- and X-bands.
So why do these radars look like AESAs?
-A horn or lens feed system is missing (like on Patriot, Big bird, Tombstone PESAs)
-A waveguide is missing on the front (the horizontal channels on the aperture face, like on Meraj-4 and Bashir)
-The clean face of the radar aperture continuous 100% of surface area and shape in total depth of the aperture and the total depth of the aperture is not rather thin compared to PESA designs but thick.
The Bavars radars have all those traits, hence they are almost certainly AESAs even if there is a slim possibility of a just unusual looking PESA.
Some might ask what the main advantage of a AESA would be in this context.
Lets take the Meraj-4, Matla ol Fajr-3 and Najam 802 as example. These 3 could form something like a Iranian Nebo-M system, even if lacking a third L-band component.
As PESAs the Meraj-4 and Matla ol Fajr-3 would make use of their large emitting power and aperture size to do continuous volume search in VHF and S-band. Signal analysis of the two would make it possible to determine whether its a stealth target or a conventional one. In a stealth case the Meraj-4 would see nothing but the Matla ol Fajr-3 would. Here is where a advanced AESA like the Najam 802 could do following: Its aperture size and emitting power is smaller than its S-band colleague the Meraj-4, hence it would normally have no chance to see the stealth target. It would use its AESA given precise beam forming capabilities to do a tight sector search in which a small pencil beam scans the airspace portion where the Matla-ol-Fajr-3 has detected a potential stealth target. Hence even if operating in the less stealth effective S-band, it could pick up the target visible by the Matla-ol-Fajr-3 and do the necessary target analyzing and more importantly provide much more accurate S-band grade target coordinate data to Bavar batteries. Signal analysis in such a case could even classify the target, whether its a missile, decoy, fighter and so on. Additionally it would be able to keep track of the target in case of heavy jamming, where volume search PESAs Meraj-4 and Matla ol Fajr-3 would already be jammed.
