Iranian Air Defense Systems

[PeeD]

@AmirPatriot

The Pantsir destroyed in Syria was most likely by Spike NLOS, not drones.

I'm talking about the mass attack by cheap drones that forced Russians to develop a miniature missile to counter such threats.
I say use 76mm AHEAD rounds instead a miniature missile.

The Spike NLOS attack is another case: Such slow missiles could have been engaged by the 76mm AHEAD round instead spending missiles on it.

And that only uses 23 mm guns. No way is a 76 mm fitting on the same vehicle as the missiles + radar.

Everything is possible, maybe too difficult for Iran at this point but this would be the best possible approach.

Iranians are smart and know that this is the best solution, not high fire rate guns, they proved this by going for the 100mm KS-19 with large time fused round a decade ago.

I can only hope that they at least tried the same for the Pantsir(s) project and not going for outdated concept of a high fire rate gun. In reality they probably will be forced attach two machine guns at each side to to space restrictions but lets hope.

 

[un4given.1991]

@AmirPatriot


I say use 76mm AHEAD rounds instead a miniature missile.

The Spike NLOS attack is another case: Such slow missiles could have been engaged by the 76mm AHEAD round instead spending missiles on it.

.

u mean something like this?
Otomatic
76-mm self-propelled anti-aircraft gun

 

[Sineva]

Anyone got any info on this rather interesting looking system?
It looks to be a remotely operated mounting for a multi-shot manpad based sam.
Also could someone provide a translation for the caption please.

I found it along with some other interesting stuff below:
https://www.pintaram.com/u/iranian_defensive_power?uid=2016887485

 

[PeeD]

Baraks azizam since we have a large stock and 300 or more launcher then we would need to build more launchers and spread them within 100km of Boarder and Coastal area's spread across better hidden locations and spread on the outside of specific cities like Tahran, Esfahan, Shiraz....
And one of the plus side of it being command guided is that with a few simple light weight upgrades they can be modified to go after ground targets especially since they carry a relatively large payload for a SAM & big enough wings to give it good glide capability so worst comes to worst if they prove ineffective against modern fighters they will at least be good for something

From high altitude, fighters can drop relatively low cost GBU-39's or if forced too (due to GPS jamming) GBU-53's from at least 70km out if not more (Wiki has it at 110km) so they wouldn't even need to get within 25km & if we were to believe WiKI even cheaper JDAM's can be dropped from 28km out hell even Iran's Qassed-2 can be dropped from 50km out
View attachment 499014

And if even we can drop 2000lb Qassed-1's glide bombs that are out dated by our own standards from 35km out then why would a modern Air Force even try to get within 50km of Tehran's Air Space before all Air Defense equipment are dealt with?

So in my opinion any type of SAM system with a range of under 60km needs to be spread +30km outside of cities and the main systems you would need at Air Bases are +70km SAM's & a vast number of short range systems capable of intercepting anything from projectiles to fighters and cruise missiles

As for the Sayyad-1 unless you can either upgrade them to a point where they can intercept either Ballistic Missiles or intercept low altitude fighters from as least 20km out then I don't really see the point of keeping any more than 2 launchers "inside Air Bases" unless in fortified bunkers capable of taking a hit from a SDB light bunker buster that can be towed out relatively quickly

And another thing I don't understand is why Iran keeps such a large portion of it's helo force un bunkered

As you realized correctly initially no aircraft will enter Tehran airspace, only their stand-off weapons. Unpowered stand-off weapons like the bombs you mentioned will initially only be able to hit periphery targets, the high altitude release necessary for them would bring the carrying aircraft right into the envelope of S-200/-300,Bavar-373 and Sayyad-3.

So the pool of targets for Sayyad-1 would be very small single digit percentage. But you want that small envelope to be cost effectively covered and don't be forced to use more useful SAMs of the IADS.

The ideal envelope for the Sayyad-1 would be as already said the 10km altitude plus and very fast target one.
However it remains useful for other low priority targets in mid to very high altitude such as decoy drones that can't be declared as decoys by the IADS with sufficient confidence (something that starts to happen after sufficient IADS degradation). In such cases the old arsenal of HQ-2/SA-2/Sayyad-1 can be used without wasting state of the art resources.
Having a system with virtually infinite altitude capability in the IADS is always welcome. I agree that it won't eventually shot down B-52 doing high altitude bombing of Tehran at the end of a conflict, but they will fill the niche described.

One 8 channel super-site with 48 launchers or two 4 channel 24 launcher super-sites east and west of Tehran to better cover the periphery. The point is that this is a old obsolete system and if you want to use it, better have just one or two units that are proficient on it and can maintain, salvaging and keep it working.

The BM capability is of course already built into the system, plus the Tondar-68 arsenal.

 

[PeeD]

u mean something like this?
Otomatic
76-mm self-propelled anti-aircraft gun

That system is from a era where no AHEAD like system was existing.
It need 4-6 76mm rounds to create a sufficiently dense fragmentation cloud to assure a kill at extended range (non-maneuvering target).

Irans automatic KS-19 100mm AAA has a larger caliber round and probably will do the job with 4x1 round from a battery of 4 guns.

The Chinese SA2 with the AHEAD system on the other hand has such a precise timing for "fragmentation" release, that 1-2 rounds could assure a kill. A reasonable number should be a equivalent of 3-4 35mm (expensive) AHEAD rounds for the price of a single larger 76mm round.

However the true future potential of this system are guided rounds. A 76mm round can be designed with a steering system, the Russian 57mm too, but already a 40mm Bofors would be to small to be cost effective. What is needed is a single round that has sufficient fragments to kill anything up to a bomber. The 76mm round in a guided AHEAD variant can do it efficiently with a single round, the 40mm Bofors and anything below NOT.

 

[VEVAK]

As you realized correctly initially no aircraft will enter Tehran airspace, only their stand-off weapons. Unpowered stand-off weapons like the bombs you mentioned will initially only be able to hit periphery targets, the high altitude release necessary for them would bring the carrying aircraft right into the envelope of S-200/-300,Bavar-373 and Sayyad-3.

So the pool of targets for Sayyad-1 would be very small single digit percentage. But you want that small envelope to be cost effectively covered and don't be forced to use more useful SAMs of the IADS.

The ideal envelope for the Sayyad-1 would be as already said the 10km altitude plus and very fast target one.
However it remains useful for other low priority targets in mid to very high altitude such as decoy drones that can't be declared as decoys by the IADS with sufficient confidence (something that starts to happen after sufficient IADS degradation). In such cases the old arsenal of HQ-2/SA-2/Sayyad-1 can be used without wasting state of the art resources.
Having a system with virtually infinite altitude capability in the IADS is always welcome. I agree that it won't eventually shot down B-52 doing high altitude bombing of Tehran at the end of a conflict, but they will fill the niche described.

One 8 channel super-site with 48 launchers or two 4 channel 24 launcher super-sites east and west of Tehran to better cover the periphery. The point is that this is a old obsolete system and if you want to use it, better have just one or two units that are proficient on it and can maintain, salvaging and keep it working.

The BM capability is of course already built into the system, plus the Tondar-68 arsenal.

If your sure of the command guidance capability of the systems with various redundancies and you have the manpower then why 2 super site?
If you cluster them together they become a prime target location and if un-bunkered they become a prime location to use advanced cluster munitions and if just 1 fighter or UCAV gets through and drops 2 CBU-97, CBU-105 or some other advanced cluster munition then it's all over

For large fix sites on the outskirts Tehran, Esfahan, Shiraz, Tabriz, Mashad,.... we should have 5 large sites (+10sq km) with each site no more than 50km from each other and each site equipped with 20 Sayyad-1 Launchers that come out of bunkers dug into hills and mountains and station themselves at a fix location automatically when commanded + Sayyad 2 missiles & Shahin or HAWK Missiles + various short ranged systems per site from AAA to Ya Zahra that can protect against subsonic projectiles

But even in the Iran-Iraq war at the start of the war our Air Defense Systems proved ineffective until we started moving them around so using our early warning systems it would be preferable to be able to move a vast stock of highly mobile systems especially due to our lack of Air Power

 

[AmirPatriot]

The Pantsir destroyed in Syria was most likely by Spike NLOS, not drones.

I'm talking about the mass attack by cheap drones that forced Russians to develop a miniature missile to counter such threats.
I say use 76mm AHEAD rounds instead a miniature missile.

The Spike NLOS attack is another case: Such slow missiles could have been engaged by the 76mm AHEAD round instead spending missiles on it.

It is thought the Syrian Pantsir was actually destroyed by a Delilah cruise missile.

And you keep mentioning AHEAD ammo... I'm telling you the 35 mm can also pack AHEAD ammo. It just has to fire a few more rounds. Which is ok because they're far less of a logistical issue than a 76

Finally, Iran's threats from Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia aren't these:

They're these:

A pair of Pantsirs are more than capable of protecting a long range air defence system from those. The SDB and JSOW aren't much smaller. Besides, glide bombs would only be released at low altitude (otherwise long range air defence would destroy them), for which they'd have to be very close to the target. A proper air force would help out a lot in stopping these low altitude approaches... anyway.

Iranians are smart and know that this is the best solution, not high fire rate guns

Seeing the "Otomatic" convinces me a bit more but I still think it's unpractical and as you said Iran will probably use the higher fire rate guns.

 

[PeeD]

If your sure of the command guidance capability of the systems with various redundancies and you have the manpower then why 2 super site?
If you cluster them together they become a prime target location and if un-bunkered they become a prime location to use advanced cluster munitions and if just 1 fighter or UCAV gets through and drops 2 CBU-97, CBU-105 or some other advanced cluster munition then it's all over

For large fix sites on the outskirts Tehran, Esfahan, Shiraz, Tabriz, Mashad,.... we should have 5 large sites (+10sq km) with each site no more than 50km from each other and each site equipped with 20 Sayyad-1 Launchers that come out of bunkers dug into hills and mountains and station themselves at a fix location automatically when commanded + Sayyad 2 missiles & Shahin or HAWK Missiles + various short ranged systems per site from AAA to Ya Zahra that can protect against subsonic projectiles
View attachment 499210


But even in the Iran-Iraq war at the start of the war our Air Defense Systems proved ineffective until we started moving them around so using our early warning systems it would be preferable to be able to move a vast stock of highly mobile systems especially due to our lack of Air Power

The idea is not to spend anymore resources. No bunkers, no heavy modifications and not many units with their own support equipment. Keep it cheap: the replaced system is gathered at one or two units/locations and kept working. No need to train many people on this complicated liquid fueled system and enough old equipment for cannibalizing parts and salvaging.

Regarding the command guidance: I missed to mention that even S-300PMU2 and S-400, Patriot and others work with a data-link via their SAAG/TVM guidance system. Jamming this is very difficult. High resolution sensors of the IADS would provide necessary precise coordinates, so that there is even no need to use the Fan song X-band engagement radar, just the data link. This is the main reason why I propose this at all.

As you said: Mobile units are the way forward, the Sayyad-1 is just a extra, a limited useful relic that should not be mothballed.

@AmirPatriot

In airdefense cost is a ultimate factor. How much do you think 6 35mm AHEAD round cost compared to one 76mm one? How much do you think the production of several guns instead of a single one costs?
I'm and was a big fan of the Mesbah-8, it is great to protect a point target, a HVT. But already back then it was clear that producing 8 ZSU-23 guns is costly.
Plus a CWIS role is nice but a area protection capability is better.
Plus twice the engagement range means targets that would otherwise require a missile can be attacked by AAA early on.
Plus future guided round capability needs larger rounds for the systems.
Plus saturation will become more and more important to counter Pantsir like systems. Saving missiles for difficult targets will become more often the case and not wasting them on SDB-like targets by attacking those with cheap AAA will become the goal. NLOS missiles, cheap drones, professional quad-copters. As these get more numerous, the ideas from the 70's cold war, where the Pantsir ancestor, the Tunguska appeared, will at least get cost-ineffective. Cost, cost, cost, I can't repeat it other enough.

So I say, go for something with future potential for a new system of 2020.

 

[AmirPatriot]

In airdefense cost is a ultimate factor. How much do you think 6 35mm AHEAD round cost compared to one 76mm one?

I'd say good practice would be to fire at least 2 shots with the 76, just like SAMs are fired in 2s to ensure destruction. And you cite guided rounds as the main benefit of the 76, and guided rounds are MUCH more expensive than AHEAD. AHEAD is just a shotgun-airburst on a time fuse. Not complicated. These rounds aren't going to be fired in the millions.

How much do you think the production of several guns instead of a single one costs?

The 76 is by far more complex, expensive and demanding, both to manufacture and keep running (logistics). You know one Oto Malera (the gun by itself) weighs 7.5 tons without ammo? The twin gun Oerlikon GDF with 280 rounds weights 6.7 tons. And that includes the towed chassis.

Plus twice the engagement range means targets that would otherwise require a missile can be attacked by AAA early on.

We're dealing with glide bombs and UAVs here. Engagement time is not an issue.

NLOS missiles, cheap drones, professional quad-copters

In what sort of conflict would Saudi Arabia, Israel or the US use them? This isn't Syria.

Plus saturation will become more and more important to counter Pantsir like systems

So just have them in pairs. Considering the targets they have to protect, it's not a big deal.

 

[PeeD]

I'd say good practice would be to fire at least 2 shots with the 76, just like SAMs are fired in 2s to ensure destruction. And you cite guided rounds as the main benefit of the 76, and guided rounds are MUCH more expensive than AHEAD. AHEAD is just a shotgun-airburst on a time fuse. Not complicated. These rounds aren't going to be fired in the millions.

It is complex enough to be relatively expensive. 6 35mm AHEAD round will be at least times as expensive than a 76mm AHEAD round. That is basically a death penalty, you go for the system that has half the munition cost for the same bang.

Guided rounds will still be cheaper than missiles and allow high PK engagements at longer ranges. Plus they can be used against maneuvering targets with high PK.
Guided rounds are a must if you want to engage targets at extended ranges and will always stay cheaper than missiles.

The 76 is by far more complex, expensive and demanding, both to manufacture and keep running (logistics). You know one Oto Malera (the gun by itself) weighs 7.5 tons without ammo? The twin gun Oerlikon GDF with 280 rounds weights 6.7 tons. And that includes the towed chassis.

We're dealing with glide bombs and UAVs here. Engagement time is not an issue.

The naval version is something different. The point is not that the 76mm gun is more complex or not. The point is how many other guns you need to create a similar killing power.

A scenario:
3 F-15 launch each 20 SDB against a Talash-2/Sayyad-2 site protected by a Pantsir: 12 of the 60 SDB will be taken out at 10km by the missiles --> system waits till the 48 others come withing 3,5km. At 500km/h avarage speed each SDB will fly 138m per second or better said: all SDB will hit in 25 seconds. If we count 1 second for engaging and another for a burst of ~50 rounds you can engage 12 of the SDBs before being killed by 36 SDB.

Now the 76mm scenario:
3 F-15 launch each 20 SDB against a Talash-2/Sayyad-2 site protected by a 76mm AHEAD "Pantsir".
Missiles spend early as in the first example. Then the 76mm gun starts to engage at 6,5km. You do the calculation.

SDB is one thing, a mass drone attack to soften the job and saturate the system early on another.
This is how killing power is measured. Back in the 70's when the Tunguska was designed, such saturation scenarios were no threat at all.
I hope it's clear now.

In what sort of conflict would Saudi Arabia, Israel or the US use them? This isn't Syria.

Harpy drone is one such example. Future drone swarms another... You prepare now for the future.
A Pantsir with 57mm or 76mm AHEAD gun has the capacity to be upgraded with a guided round. If the upgrade is done 2025, the range of both previously AHEAD equipped guns will increase to 8km and 10km at least. Now imagine you start killing your attackers from 10km with a high PK... you are able to engage roughly 3 times more than the 12 described for the Pantsir. Performance wise a 200% increase in killing power is regraded as groundbreaking for such systems.

So just have them in pairs. Considering the targets they have to protect, it's not a big deal.

If I say that a 76mm AHEAD Pantsir with guided rounds will cost 1,3 times a Pantsir and have 2 times the killing performance than 2 Pantsir, the choice is clear.
Cost is everything in air defense game as said.

 

[Draco.IMF]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1042927736954601472

Still unknown if its a S-300 or a S-300 "equivalent" (B-373, 3rd Khordad....)

My personal opinion, Iran only has 4 S-300 PMU-2 systems, and every single one is indispensable, even for its most important allies, so I think it will be a "equivalent".

If this report is true, IDF will do its best to eliminate this system in Syria, so Iran should be very cautious (Hide it underground, change location on a daily basis...)

 

[T-72B]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1042927736954601472

Still unknown if its a S-300 or a S-300 "equivalent" (B-373, 3rd Khordad....)

My personal opinion, Iran only has 4 S-300 PMU-2 systems, and every single one is indispensable, even for its most important allies, so I think it will be a "equivalent".

If this report is true, IDF will do its best to eliminate this system in Syria, so Iran should be very cautious (Hide it underground, change location on a daily basis...)

It will be 3rd Khordad because Iran wouldn't be risking it's S-300PMU-2 to Syria that system is to valuable for Iran and it's job is protecting Bushehr,Tehran and Bandar Abbas and B-373 is will be entered services at 2019 and you already know the word of "at the end of current Iranian year"

Speaking of 3rd Khordad, do you know the exact range of this system, it is true that it has range of 100km?

 

[mohsen]

I say use 76mm AHEAD rounds instead a miniature missile.

I hop your assets are not anywhere near civilization!

 

[skyshadow]

https://qz.com/1387960/irans-ayatol...urface-to-air-missile-with-him-on-long-trips/

 

[T-72B]

How many Iranian S-300PMu-2 missile launchers that Iran has btw?