What's new

Iranian Air Defense Systems

.
The IRIADF has a requirement of 20 tactical Bavar-373 batteries.
The IRGC has requirements for ABM systems like the S-500 with overall capabilities above the Bavar-373. Because these are regarded as strategic, we hear very few about them and they don't publish achievements and operational capabilities. The 630mm Sadid SAM was a hint that they work on higher performance SAMs than the Bavar-373.
So there is enough things to work on for the experts of this field.

Kowsar is just the first serial produced Iranian fighter: get the line running, get the personal skilled, set up the PLM system, get the subsystem suppliers producing up to standard... It is twin seat to be put to advanced trainer task in the future where real solutions become available.
Once things are mature, serious stuff will start.
I'm basically against conventional airpower as some know. A F-20 like kinematically uprated Kowsar would still be no solution.
Runway-based airpower needs to be either long ranged to operate from deep, protected nodes such as Esfahan or light and stealthy/low-footprint like maybe the F-313.
A small high performance interceptor fleet to support pressure points of the enemy against the national wide IADS adds needed flexibility to the fundamental SAMs.
The alternative to rely on large, expensive, active-seeker, long range AAM would still be a solution because this is for emergency cases where a point at (a future national wide SAM covered IADS) would start to collapse by a enemy spearhead. In that alternative a low performance fighter could still do the job.

The DM said some interesting things:
- The Kowsar has the goal to use existing infrastructure and equipment to be affordable enough to fit in Irans doctrine.
- The Kowsar will use AAMs that will be based on Irans high missile-tech capability for its air to air role.

So the idea to have just a platform that will transport long range AAMs to the enemy pressure center fast enough, is considered. This is a quite wise approach if a defensive posture is favored. My proposed F-313 would fit into that role.
My F-313 would be a more survivable Kowsar, little slower, longer ranged with two advanced (expensive) LRAAMs.
My F-313 would become a state of the art aircraft in its class.

A high performance fighter on the other hand would add a offensive capability, maybe go head-to-head against enemies, but unable to reach state of the art level for the time being. Here is where cost becomes important: Kowsar/F-313 or large fighter? Is its added offensive capability worth the money?

Are you kidding me????

1st off your putting too much stock on stealth!! I think you missed the part where even Iran has gotten to a point where we can shoot down target drones as small as toy jet RC's whos RCS is smaller than even the canopy of an F-313 let alone the entire aircraft and let alone against a far more technologically advanced country....
Hell the RCS of the Karrar is less than the RCS of the F-313!

F-313 is a horrible design for Air to Air operation for it lacks Speed, Maneuverability, Situational awareness and is built on an extremally fragile and high drag frame that lacks survivability.....
Hell building a twin engine version of the Karrar armed with a better Air to Air Missiles is a far more sound option than something as ridicules as the F-313

Plus if anything Stealth Technology is only useful in Air to Air combat if you have a high speed high maneuvering aircraft to go with it! For example if your radar based missiles can't lock on a stealth fighter detected by your VHF radars you'll need to call in Air Support for a high speed, high maneuvering, highly stealth interceptor to get close enough so it's radar or IRST can detect the enemy!

I can promise you that If they ever build a single flying prototype of the F-313 the Kowsar will fly circles around it and easily achieve kill ratios greater than 5 to 1 and I can also promise you right now Iran's Air Force will NEVER use that absurd Aircraft for Air to Air missions!

F-313 is an absurd aircraft that would be moving Iran's fighter program backwards rather than forwards. And the ONLY thing that Aircraft is suited for is short ranged aerial refueling (Within 100km of the base it takes off from) simply to refuel a single aircraft and come home OR off the Persian Gulf used to fly at very low altitude deploy it's weapons a few hundred kilometers off Iranian costs and come home.....
which makes it a useless platform not worth taking into production

and why not 300!?

Because 8X20= 160
8 Fighter deployed at 20 bases that are located no more than 300-400km apart allowing you to keep as many as 4 in the Air almost every day for a good timespan across 20 bases evenly distributed across the country that can backup Air Defense when necessary....
 
Last edited:
.
This may sound ridiculous but how about this:

Modify a large plane that has a good endurance to carry out advanced radars with large aperture, electro optic sensors and tracking systems. Arm this plane with vast amount of Fakur 90 or something with longer range. This plane, preferably a C-130 would be able to take off and land almost anywhere, carry tons of missiles, and can act as a mobile air based SAM site.


A couple of these would fly and provide support under the protection of our IADS. Such planes could provide suppression, extra firepower and AWACS support.

Advantages:
- large payload of long range air to air missiles such as Fakur -90 with range of 100 nm.
- giant structure removes the need to build smaller fighter scale radars
- giant strutustr also allows for mounting diverse set of sensors with secondary AWACS usage
- C-130 is a reliable plane, can take off and land in many places especially with rocket boosters.

There was a USAF project to do something like that with a Boeing 747 in the 70's I think.
This is the air defense threat and the question is what kind of air based anti-air system is ideal and most effective to support pressure points on the ground based IADS.
C-130 or Tu-154 based large ones, small Kowsar based cheap ones or something like the F-313. The aperture and sensor question is indeed a valid one.
Hence another question is whether to rely on ground based sensors. A emission free F-313 shooting ARH LRAAMs via IADS information or a Tu-154 with a large radar, shining like a flashlight.
The answer to this question is complex and not a easy one.

@VEVAK

We know your opinion on the F-313.
In the context of this thread, the question is whats the ideal method for a fast, flexible support of the IADS front where the enemy tries to break trough.

The future will be a national wide area protected IADS. Currently Iran is doing point defense of important cities.
Once 20 Bavar-373 batteries are positioned all around the country, it will become an national wide IADS a fortress.

The problem with a large fortress is that the enemy can put most of its power on one section to achieve a breakthrough.
This is where an air based fast response air defense becomes useful. The question is only how this would look like. A the moment we have the F-14 fleet that may get sharper teeth with a future Phoenix copy, outraging current treats.
 
. .
Ok some more details about the new missile.

It does not have the 39cm booster of the Sayyad/Taer series but the 34cm booster of the SM-1.
This now makes sense because the Sayyad-2 booster is a dual-pulse motor, something more complex and expensive than the HAWK or SM-1 basic booster. It was probably mastered during the Mehrab project and viewed as ideal replacement for the short HAWK booster.

At 4,4m the missile is shorter than the ~5,1m HAWK and about the same as SM-1 (few cm shorter).
If diameter is taken into account (34cm vs. 37cm), the guidance and other systems have shrinkend by more than 60cm in length and 30cm outer diameter.
The SM-1 was compact too for a SARH missile, but the I-HAWK guidance is more advanced. Cost also plays a role, the SM-1 war certainly more expensive than the HAWK.

It certainly is not a modified SM-1, strake length and cable duct method is different, CoG has totally changed.
 
.
There was a USAF project to do something like that with a Boeing 747 in the 70's I think.
This is the air defense threat and the question is what kind of air based anti-air system is ideal and most effective to support pressure points on the ground based IADS.
C-130 or Tu-154 based large ones, small Kowsar based cheap ones or something like the F-313. The aperture and sensor question is indeed a valid one.
Hence another question is whether to rely on ground based sensors. A emission free F-313 shooting ARH LRAAMs via IADS information or a Tu-154 with a large radar, shining like a flashlight.
The answer to this question is complex and not a easy one.

@VEVAK

We know your opinion on the F-313.
In the context of this thread, the question is whats the ideal method for a fast, flexible support of the IADS front where the enemy tries to break trough.

The future will be a national wide area protected IADS. Currently Iran is doing point defense of important cities.
Once 20 Bavar-373 batteries are positioned all around the country, it will become an national wide IADS a fortress.

The problem with a large fortress is that the enemy can put most of its power on one section to achieve a breakthrough.
This is where an air based fast response air defense becomes useful. The question is only how this would look like. A the moment we have the F-14 fleet that may get sharper teeth with a future Phoenix copy, outraging current treats.


@PeeD as you know already, some benefits of having a giant flashlight (AWACS) in the air are:
- reduced radar blindspot
- agility in mobility with respect ground based radars

In a country such as Iran where mountainous terrain can provide cover for low flying objects such as cruise missiles, stand off weapons as well as fighter jets, a reliable eye in the sky is vital to compliment the IADS.

The plane i proposed (with giant radars and sensors that can carry and fire tonnes of Fakur 90s ) will not be replacement to traditional fighters but merely a low cost solution to help IADS and provide extra air to air support. It will still need the protection of IADS.

I also think we need to utilize stealth. Stealth in A2A combat reduces detection range. This means an stealth fighter or UCAV armed with an LRAAM will have better chance of scoring a kill. Missiles lose kinetic energy and I believe Fakur 90's effect engagement is sub 60 nm launched from a platform that flies close to Mach 1...
 
.
@PeeD as you know already, some benefits of having a giant flashlight (AWACS) in the air are:
- reduced radar blindspot
- agility in mobility with respect ground based radars

In a country such as Iran where mountainous terrain can provide cover for low flying objects such as cruise missiles, stand off weapons as well as fighter jets, a reliable eye in the sky is vital to compliment the IADS.

The plane i proposed (with giant radars and sensors that can carry and fire tonnes of Fakur 90s ) will not be replacement to traditional fighters but merely a low cost solution to help IADS and provide extra air to air support. It will still need the protection of IADS.

I also think we need to utilize stealth. Stealth in A2A combat reduces detection range. This means an stealth fighter or UCAV armed with an LRAAM will have better chance of scoring a kill. Missiles lose kinetic energy and I believe Fakur 90's effect engagement is sub 60 nm launched from a platform that flies close to Mach 1...

I'm not strictly against the idea, I just have concerns about its survivability against enemy airpower. It could be a good idea if done properly.
Either that or another assymetrical solution.
 
.
There was a USAF project to do something like that with a Boeing 747 in the 70's I think.
This is the air defense threat and the question is what kind of air based anti-air system is ideal and most effective to support pressure points on the ground based IADS.
C-130 or Tu-154 based large ones, small Kowsar based cheap ones or something like the F-313. The aperture and sensor question is indeed a valid one.
Hence another question is whether to rely on ground based sensors. A emission free F-313 shooting ARH LRAAMs via IADS information or a Tu-154 with a large radar, shining like a flashlight.
The answer to this question is complex and not a easy one.

@VEVAK

We know your opinion on the F-313.
In the context of this thread, the question is whats the ideal method for a fast, flexible support of the IADS front where the enemy tries to break trough.

The future will be a national wide area protected IADS. Currently Iran is doing point defense of important cities.
Once 20 Bavar-373 batteries are positioned all around the country, it will become an national wide IADS a fortress.

The problem with a large fortress is that the enemy can put most of its power on one section to achieve a breakthrough.
This is where an air based fast response air defense becomes useful. The question is only how this would look like. A the moment we have the F-14 fleet that may get sharper teeth with a future Phoenix copy, outraging current treats.

Do you know how Old Iranian F-14's are? And how small that fleet is? Iran most defiantly got it's money's worth out of them and it's time they be replaced with an IRANIAN Platforms.

And I am NOT against IADS even if Iran tomorrow build a fighter more advanced than the F-22 we would still need 20 deployed Bavar's spread across the country and that's just the ones deployed....
No smart country or major power choses one over the other U.S., France, Germany, Russia, Japan,... Hell even tiny Israel.... They don't say to themselves let just pick one over the other! Because it's ABSURD!

So unlike you I don't think one is sufficient or that Iran should be picking one over the other for me both are necessary and both are required just as much as Iran's Missile program is an absolute requirement and can't be traded off with anything EVER!

Iran's plan for the coming decades should be to increase Airbases to 20 evenly distributed bases that IRIAF, IADS and IRGC-AF jointly operate out of where Bavar systems are deployed covering the entire country.

Also 6th Gen fighter will likely start being deployed within the next 15 years that at the very least will be equipped with laser countermeasures (Might even be sooner because of what happened to U.S. F-22's). Hell Russia plans on deploying it's Mach 4 MiG-31 replacement within the next 10 years while your suggest we make even slower fighters!

And the best way to do short takeoff is with TVC's, frontal canards on a platform with greater than 1 thrust to weight ratio rather than a absurd high drag fighter platform and if the IRGC was able to put TVC on a Missile like Qiam then they can most defiantly work towards building a TVC around a fighter engine hell even if they are one directional it would sufficient for one direction is really all you need and that's to point your thrust upwards. As for short landing, like on a carrier there are far better means of landing on 300 meter long runway when necessary than coming up an absurd high drag design. If an F-14 can land on a moving carrier then putting traps for short runway on land shouldn't be a problem.


BUT MOST OF ALL Iran's Military Industry needs to be used as a tool to spearhead science, technology and industrial growth in Iran and fighter platforms and powerplants Iran choses to produce need to be such that they push the country to develop it's industrial infrastructure!
And Iranian leadership needs to comprehend that almost everything required in producing high end military gear will allow for the production of better civilian products moving Iran one step closer from removing our reliance on Oil Exports!
Tell me again how many Billions of Dollars were we planning to give away to buy civilian passenger Aircrafts from Boing and Airbus? And they want us to beg so they would agree to sell us their products that costs 10's of BILLIONS of dollars! Hell if half of that money in the past 10 years had gone towards the infrastructure to produce a real 5th generation fighter airframe and engine today with the other half Iran could have produced the Aircrafts ordered it's self to meet the needs of the country for Airliners and in the process created 100's of thousands of high end jobs for Iranians and increased our GDP with potential for export

And these are the type of things that make the Q-313 an utter absurd program when it comes to production for it does not push the country toward developing anything of worth. And yes it was a good job as a concept and a good practice for the airframe designers to practice designing but nothing more
 
.
Russia plans on deploying it's Mach 4 MiG-31 replacement within the next 10 years while your suggest we make even slower fighters!

LOL Sure Russia is, that’ll be the day.

First of all Russia couldn’t even develop its own 5th gen fighter BY ITSELF. It had to have India finance part of it. Last I checked how is that project going btw? Oh that’s right terribly!

If you bothered to do a little digging you wound know that MIG is struggling. There is lack of clients in buying their fighter planes and they are losing orders to Sukhoi.

But now MIG is going to make a super duper Mach 4 plane? Yeah let’s see how long it takes them to work out the bugs. Then let’s see if Russia can even afford to buy any planes or if they settle for a “token” amount like they did with SU-57.

Russia is not a powerhouse in cutting edge arms production anymore, China is catching up.

Wether you like it or not Iran will not engage in a technology based arms race. It simply doesn’t have the budget for it. Even Russia can not afford it anymore. Only China can.

Iran has a 6th gen design in Sofreh Mahi (which look similar to US 6th gen concept designs). Iran is also proficient in the use of lasers (they used a laser to blind a US spy satellite several years ago). However, iran still lacks next gen engine technology, next gen air borne radar technology, next gen avionics, next gen electronic warfare, list goes on and on.

Building a 5th or 6th gen airframe is just the first step. But if the “insides” of the plane is filled with 80’s and 90’s era technology then what’s the point? It’s like building an Supercar and sticking a V6 engine inside and the dashboard of a Peykan.

What Iran really needs is a extremely fast and agile fighter that can temporarily break through enemy air defenses unleash a long range payload and leave the battlefield all in matter of seconds. It needs to be cheap, affordable, and easy to maintain.

For air superiority the same concepts apply except that it would need to be able to carry a significant number of next gen air to air missiles.

For Iran that will be mean cutting corners on certain “luxury” non essential technology.

If Iran cannot get it’s hands on AL-31 or US engine technology or even chinese engine technology then it needs to try to reverse engineer the F-14 engine and miniaturize it and seek some improvements around it. That engine could not only power a next gen Iranian air superiority fighter, but next gen Iranian long range flying wing bomber as well.
 
.
Russia is not a powerhouse in cutting edge arms production anymore, China is catching up

besides China still buying russian engines and decades behind them

- Avangard (first hypersonic missile, Mach 20)
- SARMAT ICBM
- Poseidon (underwater nuclear torpedo)
- Dagger (hypersonic missile)
- Burevestnik (nuclear powered cruise misisle)
- peresvet (laser weapon)

+ things we even cant imagine bcz not unveiled
+ i dont even mention russia jamming capabilities

russia no cutting edge technology? u jocking?
Russia could carry the US back into stone age without going nuclear, if necessary, and it has a budget 10 times smaller
 
. . .
LOL Sure Russia is, that’ll be the day.

First of all Russia couldn’t even develop its own 5th gen fighter BY ITSELF. It had to have India finance part of it. Last I checked how is that project going btw? Oh that’s right terribly!

If you bothered to do a little digging you wound know that MIG is struggling. There is lack of clients in buying their fighter planes and they are losing orders to Sukhoi.

But now MIG is going to make a super duper Mach 4 plane? Yeah let’s see how long it takes them to work out the bugs. Then let’s see if Russia can even afford to buy any planes or if they settle for a “token” amount like they did with SU-57.

Russia is not a powerhouse in cutting edge arms production anymore, China is catching up.

Wether you like it or not Iran will not engage in a technology based arms race. It simply doesn’t have the budget for it. Even Russia can not afford it anymore. Only China can.

Iran has a 6th gen design in Sofreh Mahi (which look similar to US 6th gen concept designs). Iran is also proficient in the use of lasers (they used a laser to blind a US spy satellite several years ago). However, iran still lacks next gen engine technology, next gen air borne radar technology, next gen avionics, next gen electronic warfare, list goes on and on.

Building a 5th or 6th gen airframe is just the first step. But if the “insides” of the plane is filled with 80’s and 90’s era technology then what’s the point? It’s like building an Supercar and sticking a V6 engine inside and the dashboard of a Peykan.

What Iran really needs is a extremely fast and agile fighter that can temporarily break through enemy air defenses unleash a long range payload and leave the battlefield all in matter of seconds. It needs to be cheap, affordable, and easy to maintain.

For air superiority the same concepts apply except that it would need to be able to carry a significant number of next gen air to air missiles.

For Iran that will be mean cutting corners on certain “luxury” non essential technology.

If Iran cannot get it’s hands on AL-31 or US engine technology or even chinese engine technology then it needs to try to reverse engineer the F-14 engine and miniaturize it and seek some improvements around it. That engine could not only power a next gen Iranian air superiority fighter, but next gen Iranian long range flying wing bomber as well.

The point is having a viable Platform (Airframe & Engine) that will last a you a long time that you can upgrade over the years just like the F-15 & Su-27 has been upgraded over the years....

The development of a 70's era engine like the F100 engines adding minor design changes, a few sensors, a few material upgrades using nanotech and maybe even a 1 directional TVC will be sufficient for Iran! And the development of all the industries that go behind it will allow Iran to build better civilian engines for airliners....

In terms of Airframe, If you plan on building a strong viable airframe then designing it with reduced or no vertical surfaces, S shaped air intakes, Internal Weapons bay, pointy edged panels, and maybe even a more aerodynamically stable design because you have TVC.... to reduce it's RCS and drag is simple logic so is making it big enough to handle laser countermeasures in the future
And what makes the F-22 Airframe expensive is NOT it's design but rather the modern methods used in the construction of the Airframe using Ti casting
And again the development of all the infrastructure that goes behind it will allow Iran to develop better civilian passenger planes and various other civilian products

As for Sensor upgrades that is something that will naturally happen though time and from the looks of it Iran is heading towards that direction anyways.....

As for the Russian Su-Pak the easement in Russia is the need to develop a 6th gen fighters because they are confident in their current modern fighters ability to combat F-35's using their modern sensors & weapons and Americans don't have enough F-22's to pose much of a threat to Russia outside their own boarders and it's not like the Russians aren't constantly adding fighters to their fleet on a yearly bases (Feel free to take a good look at how many fighter they've actually added since 2008)
Also as soon as the Russians started building viable flying prototypes of the Su-Pak the Americans started the competition of their 6th Generation fighters so there is clear logic behind why they haven't pushed for the Mass production of the Su-Pak (Also the Su-Pak is a joint projects and joint projects take longer and just as the U.S. doesn't hand it's most advanced tech's to other countries the Russian's don't either)


Scientist don't stop thinking and conducting R&D not in America not in Europe or Russia or China or Iran! The main difference is that those countries have developed the infrastructure needed so when a good enough R&D project is ready for the next level they can push it through while we in Iran still haven't built that infrastructure and pushing for the development of an viable Airframe and Powerplant pushes Iran to develop that infrastructure and that infrastructure is far more important and far more valuable to the country than a particular fighter platform.

And the top 10 most technologically advanced countries in the world are also the same countries that have the top 10 best funded domestic defense industries in the world and they are also the same countries that have the top exports in the world & produce the best high tech civilian products because they know that advancements made in the defense industries trickles down to the civilian sector
upload_2018-11-9_13-17-16.png


And the only country on that list who is NOT an advanced country is Saudi Arabia who doesn't have a viable defense industry and they are simply the largest importer of foreign weapons.

And if Iran want's to move away from it's dependency on Oil exports the BEST way to do that and produce better civilian products is by having a properly funded defense industry so the right infrastructure is built around it.

So properly funding your defense industry has NOTHING to do with an arms race!
 
.
besides China still buying russian engines and decades behind them

- Avangard (first hypersonic missile, Mach 20)
- SARMAT ICBM
- Poseidon (underwater nuclear torpedo)
- Dagger (hypersonic missile)
- Burevestnik (nuclear powered cruise misisle)
- peresvet (laser weapon)

+ things we even cant imagine bcz not unveiled
+ i dont even mention russia jamming capabilities

russia no cutting edge technology? u jocking?
Russia could carry the US back into stone age without going nuclear, if necessary, and it has a budget 10 times smaller

You basically made my point for me.

Like Iran, Russia cannot compete with US/China on a technological arms race and is thus resorting to nuclear missile based deterrence doctrine.

It’s new ICBM is to upgrade its DECADES old ICBM technology thus is simply part of a modernization effort.

Notice 90% of what you mentioned is MISSILE based technology which is relatively cheaper than say upgrading an entire Navy or airforce.

Russia is being backed into a corner by NATO/US and is thus relying on Hypersonic and advanced missile technology for nuclear deterrence.

It’s Navy? Still Needs major modernization

It’s 5th gen fighter project? In shambles and a token order was placed for some fighters. India got burned by Russian tactics just like Iran did with shafagh project.

It’s UAV based technology? Russia lacked a major consistent MALE UAV and had to buy technology From Israel and Iran to catch up.

While China is still behind US/Russia in engine technology, the massive jump it has made is simply incredible. China is the first country to devlop a next gen UAV fighter jet. It has two 5th gen fighters and will have domestic engines to power them in the future.

China is on a upward trajectory and russia is on a downward trajectory. Putin won’t be in power forever and Russia reliance on oil/gas primarily for income is a weakness.

The problems from russia go beyond just military, they have no true allies left in the world because of their policy of backstabbing everyone for their own gain.

In major war, unless Iran or China intervene on russia’s behalf it will be alone to face the full force of the West.

While we like to think of an a russia-Iran-China axis, the truth is they are too selfish for their own interests to truly be an alliance. Maybe that changes in the future.

“Russia could carry the US back into stone age without going nuclear”

Lol you been watching to much Hollywood movies. Russia is no match for the US on toe to toe effort. It simply doesn’t have the war chest for that type of confrontation. It might be able to give NATO a good fight, but not both.

Hence why you see Russia say they will use tactical/battlefield nuclear weapons if needed, because that’s their only equalizer or card to play in military confrontation.
 
.
Video on Russian Nebo-M radar complex. This gives a idea where Iran is, what it means and where Russians are. Very relevant as Iran uses similar radar technologies.


We are still way off from producing our own advanced processors, solid state storage devices, high end transistors, supercapacitors,.... leading to more advanced transponders and receivers...

So we have some way's to go to catch up! Although the tech developed so far shows great progress at an astonishing growth rate that is unbelievable but for how long Iran will be able to keep that growth rate would depend on how much we invest in the infrastructure needed to produce components because you can only go so far using imported off the shelf components.....

Iran's advancements in nanotech with the proper investment in the infrastructure and tools could potentially lead to the development of advanced processors and other electronics that could allow Iran to catch up and compete 1st domestically and later globally

Right now whichever country that develops a mass production method for Graphene or something similar and keeps it's mass production method as a closely guarded secret will likely become one of the richest countries on the planet because that's the type of tech that will revolutionize everything from the type of Cars we drive to airplanes, computers, cellphones, weapons, satellites, batteries.... And if Iran develops it we can not only build the most advanced revolutionary products in the world but most of the major companies on the planet will line up to coproduce products with us because of it or trade the most sophisticated technologies on the planet for it!
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom