What's new

Iranian Air Defense Systems

Are you sure Iran has a tube one with CL and is not S300? Are there some pics?
Well soon or later it would be unveiled .i am more then sure.
The one I was hoping to get involved was the one equivalent to Russian S-400 with round tubes and cold launch and Yes I sure they not S-300. Because we made them and once you see it you notice defences in design .

This was the original Bavar program to make copy of S-300
 
.
Well soon or later it would be unveiled .i am more then sure.
The one I was hoping to get involved was the one equivalent to Russian S-400 with round tubes and cold launch and Yes I sure they not S-300. Because we made them and once you see it you notice defences in design .

This was the original Bavar program to make copy of S-300

This doesn’t make sense. If anything, Iran would just upgrade up Bavar 373 to S-400/S-500 standard over time.

S-400 isn’t great because it has “circular tubes” and “cold launch”. Bavar-373 is a copy of the S-300 greatest technologies. That much is evident. Lack of cold launch has already been discussed and that is because B-373 is a long range system.

Iran avoids the pitfalls of western and eastern armies of trying to JAM everything into one system. (Jack of all trade)
 
.
As things stand before we get more materials tomorrow, this missile structure of the system looks likely:

10x10 Zoljanah has 2,5-3 meter length reserve for a longer canister.
If the canisters are heavier armored against fragments than the S-300 tubes, it would still not justify the additional axis. Footprint is immensely important in Iranian doctrine, going for a easily identifiable 10x10 off-road truck needs good reasons.
Hence it would make best sense to use the additional weight capability of the TEL to carry 6, instead of the 4 missiles of the S-300. Well possible that it would fit, although the gap between the canisters is to small in the photos (with the attachment the used).
The additional lenght could then be used for future "S-200 replacing" missiles that could have a 2,5-3 meter longer canister and a load of 4 or 2, depending on weight.

8x8 Zafar would be a ideal TEL for a Sayyad-3 as the lower range component of the system. Current Sayyad-2/-3 TEL is not off-road capable, but the Bavar system is. Hence Zafar trucks would be ideal for a 3x2 canister configuration for a total of 6 missiles. It would likely also still have a 2-3m length reserve in such a configuration. However as no Zafar based TEL has been seen, it's possible that the Bavar allows non-off-road capable Sayyad-3 Iveco truck for this missile component (unlikely to allow the system to use its all-off-road capability for the smallest missile component).

The final ideal "wartime" system structure would then be: 2 10x10 TEL, 2 8x8 TEL, 2 8x8 trucks for acquisition and enagagment radar. That would result in 12 Sayyad-4 and 12 Sayyad-3 for a total of 24 missiles for which a S-300/-400 would need 6 TELs. A final third missile component would then be a extra large Sayyad variant that would fit in a 2 or 4 canister configuration on the 10x10 TEL.

Soviet doctrine had sometimes were diverging and high requirements: The single S-300P missile needed to be able to intercept CMs, BMs, low-altitude, high altitude, short range and long range targets. Solution was to equip each missile with a TVC system and cold launch.
Iranian solution is spread on several specialized missiles, bringing down cost but also create the problem that one of the components could be exhausted.
However because a SAM system is a layered system under normal conditions, Sayyad-4 would be spent on the attacker first, before Sayyad-3 would be used. If threat situation is low, use of Sayyad-4 could be avoided to use the more economical Sayyad-3.

PS: For a 6 missile, HQ-16-like, Sayyad-3 TEL a 6x6 off-road truck like that which carries the command post, would also be sufficient insted of the 8x8 Zafar.
 
Last edited:
.


Yes Hot launch Sayyad-5
maybe they name it now Bavar-373 which i think it would be most likely out come

for real Bavar 373 I mean S-400 maybe another 4 months

Well soon or later it would be unveiled .i am more then sure.
The one I was hoping to get involved was the one equivalent to Russian S-400 with round tubes and cold launch and Yes I sure they not S-300. Because we made them and once you see it you notice defences in design .

This was the original Bavar program to make copy of S-300

OMID313 from military.ir was saying the same thing :
در تصوير اول ،كادر قرمز سمت چپ

دو كشنده كنار هم

به لانچرها دقت كنيد...

استوانه ايي هستند!!!!!

همونطور كه حدس زده ميشد باور تركيبي از سيستمهاي كلد لانچ (استفاده از موشك صياد 4) و هات لانچ (صياد ٣) و البته كه دومي مختص موشك هاي بالستيك و كروز طراحي شده(خاطرتون كه هست رئيس جمهور زمان رونمايي درخواست ازمايش روي موشك بالستيك رو كردند)



البته ناگفته نماند كه اينا ديگه قديمي شده

از گوشه و كنار حرف از باور بعدي زده ميشه



حالا ما كه خيلي خبر نداريم ولي خاطرتون هست كه قبلا ميگفتن از تركيب چند رادار موفق شدند قابليت كشف رادارگريزها رو پيدا كنن؟؟

اين اواخر شنيدين كه گفتن ميخوان برد صياد ٣ رو افزايش بدن؟؟

http://www.irna.ir/fa/News/83133843



صياد ٤ چطور؟؟

فكر نميكنيد با توجه به تجربه ي ذوالفقار،، رسوندن برد صياد ٤ از ٢٠٠ به ٣٠٠ يا بيشتر غير ممكن نيست؟؟



اگر پنج شش سال ديگه نمونه وطني اس ٤٠٠ رو ديدين هيچ تعجب نكنيد،،

من هم نميكنم .


حالا كه رونمايي باور رو در پيش داريم در ادامه اين پست سال گذشته مواردي رو اصلاح و اضافه ميكنم

به اعتقاد من ما دو سيستم مجزاي ورتيكال لانچ رو توسعه داديم

يكي به صورت پرتاب گرم و ديگري پرتاب سرد



در مورد سامانه اول





در سال 95 و در كوران مذاكرات هسته ايي كه البته نياز به همكاري چين و روسيه وجود داشت رونمايي از سامانه ايي كلد لانچ مشابه سامانه هاي روسي و توانمندي بالاتر از اس 300 كه تا منتها اليه جسم و روح طرف روسي رو مورد عنايت قرار ميداد كار عاقلانه ايي نبود لذا سامانه باور ٢٧٣ رونمايي شد

نكته اول

اين نام سازماني سامانه هست اين اسم رو چند جايي شنيدم والبته ممكنه در اينده با نام ديگه ايي رونمايي بشه اما فعلا همين نام رو بكار ميبرم

نكته دوم

در رونمايي هاي گذشته در حوزه پدافندي هميشه در كنار اينكه موشك سامانه نمايش داده ميشد فيلمي از تست سامانه هم منتشر ميشد اما در اين مورد ما صرفا نمايشي از مجموع سيستم هاي كنار هم قرار گرفته شده رو داشتيم كه ممكن هست برخي از اونها هيچ ارتباطي به هم نداشته باشند صرفا چند عكس يادگاري و ديگر هيچ

لذا خيلي روي سيستم ها مخصوصا رادارهاي باور 273 حساب نكنيد شايد قصد اصلي سردرگم كردن ما بوده باشد(توجه داشته باشيد موشك حضور داشت اما اجازه انتشار تصاوير را ندادند)

نكته سوم

با توجه به اندازه گيري هاي كه دوستان انجام داده بودند طول كنيستر حدود شش ونيم متر براورد ميشود

موشك صياد ٣ نميتواند گزينه ايي مناسب براي اين سامانه باشد از طرفي طولي يك الي يك و نيم متر كمتر از اين لانچر دارد در ثاني قبلا لانچر و سامانه اين موشك مشخص شده و براي پراي پرتاب نيازي به اين لانچر بزرگ ندارد

اما موشك صياد ٤ كه دليل اول ما بر وجود سامانه ثانويه هست

اين موشك اولا بر اساس موشك كلد لانچ 48n6 طراحي شده (با توجه به شباهت دو موشك) در ثاني طولي معادل هفت و نيم متر دارد و اصلا متناسب با كنيستر شش و نيم متري باور ٢٧٣ نيست

پس ما موشكي با ابعاد بين دو موشك ذكر شده داريم كه نه نامش رو شنيديم نه اصلا اون رو ديده ايم البته جز قسمت سر موشك،،

در بنري كه در نمايشگاه سال گذشته رؤيت شد

تصويري از نمونه هاي اوليه سامانه باور ٢٧٣ را نشان ميداد كه از لانچرهاي كوتاهتر از نمونه نهايي و رونمايي شده استفاده ميكرد لذا مقداري از نوك اين موشك شش ونيم متري قابل مشاهده است اين موشك نه صياد ٤ هست نه صياد ٣







اما دو فرضيه در مورد باور ٢٧٣ وجود دارد

سامانه ايي برد بلند براي اهداف هوايي يعني به نوعي برادر بزرگتر پانزده خرداد كه محتملترين فرضيه هست

فرضيه دوم و ضعيف تر اين هست كه هدف نهايي اين سيستم رسيدن به سامانه ايي براي هدف قرار دادن موشكهاي بالستيك در بالاي جو باشد مثل تاد و پيكان ٣ هر چند اين احتمال بعيد هست اما با توجه به تجهيز برخي كشورهاي منطقه مثل پاكستان اسرائيل عربستان و امارات به موشك هاي بالستيك و ديگر كشورها كه دير يا زود اتفاق خواهد افتاد ماهم به همين نسبت دير يا زود بايد به سمت ساخت چنين سامانه ايي گام برداريم



و اما سامانه دوم

برگرديم به تصاوير ماهواره ايي همونطور كه قبلا اشاره كردم در كادر قرمز سمت چپ تصوير لانچرهاي استوانه ايي شكل باور كاملا مشخص هستن و اين دليل دوم ما بر وجود سامانه ثانويه هست اما دليل سوم چيست؟؟

به تصوير ماهواره ايي توجه كنيد شايد نكته جالب اين تصوير نَه كادر قرمز سمت چپ ،، بلكه كادر قرمز سمت راست باشد!!!









در واقع اين تصوير كاميوني هست كاملا متفاوت و متمايز نسبت به تمام كاميونهاي موجود در تصوير ،،به فرم خاص كابين و استتار يكدست تيره توجه كنيد در تصوير ماهواره ايي از رونمايي باور ٢٧٣ هم چيزه مشابهي نميتوان يافت









به اعتقاد من ما يك كاميون ١٠*١٠ ذوالجناح با كابين( به قول دوستان كله مورچه ايي )همراه با لانچر استوانه ايي رو در كادر سمت راست داريم

يعني اين تصوير



01.jpg




كه البته دوستان تصور ميكردند وجود خارجي ندارد

اين هم تصوير فوتوشاپ شده از اين سيستم





11~1.jpg






اگر اين حدس ما درست باشد تازه متوجه ميشويم كه چرا كاميون ذوالجناح با دو كابين مختلف توليد شده يكي براي سامانه باور ٣٧٣ و استتار خاص خودش و ديگري هم براي سامانه باور ٢٧٣







اما در مورد رونمايي پيش رو

با توجه به سياست جالب و ابهام اميزي كه وزارت دفاع در مورد اين سامانه ها در پيش گرفته دست حضرات براي رونمايي كاملا باز هست ميتوانند سيستم كلد لانچ را با نام باور ٣٧٣ رونمايي كنند و رونمايي از سيستم هات لانچ به اينده موكول شود

و هم ميتوانند بر عكس همين اقدام را انجام بدهند يعني سيستم هات لانچ و پرتاب موشك شش و نيم متري سامانه را منتشر كنند و صياد ٤ و سيستم كلد لانچ را فعلا پشت پرده نگه دارند و در زمان مناسبتر با نام مثلا باور ٤٧٣ رونمايي كنند

مورد ضعيف تر اين است كه هردو سامانه با نام باور ٣٧٣ رونمايي شوند
 
.
Some observations and ideas:

1- It is not clear why since the introduction of S-200VE system to Iran, the maximum engagement altitude (service ceiling) for all Iranian made AD systems has been limited to 27 km? Is it only a misleading information for media? Or 27 km is a threshold above which a different technology will be required? Or really there is no demand for an AD system to be designed for higher elevations? Just as a reminder, SR-71 could climb up to 26 ~ 27 km easily; while MiG-25 and A-12 could climb even beyond 27 but for a very short period of time. So, 27 km was a good top-off set point for Vega system.
Any consideration for anti BM missions?

2- S-200 VE still rocks with its magnificent +240 km engagement range! Apparently, Russia has recently delivered Dubna version to Syria (S-200M with +300 km engagement range). Is Bavar-373 also capable of guiding S-200 VE missiles, similar to Tombstone?

3- Almost in all S-300 test videos available on internet, the system is tested for double- fire killing probability; which has not been the case for Iranian AD systems, where always a single missile is fired against a no-maneuvering target. I am not sure if Karrar is a good simulated target for advanced AD systems, or not?

4- To me Zafar 8824 is nothing but a renovated Babr-400 which itself was a renovation of the very old versions of MAZ-537 Iran purchased 100 of them during the Shah era. It is completely different and inferior to MAZ-7910 used by older versions of S-300. Unlike its magnificent semitrailer load, Iranian versions are very limited to heavy flatbed off-road loads especially after Iran messed up with its engine / transmission (Iveco). So, maybe that is the reason they had to use Zoljenah for heavier 48N6E-like missiles. Russian TELs have been also switched from flatbed loaded MAZ-7910 to semitrailer loads for newer and heavier canisters.

And the most important thing:

5- How is a Bavar-373 complex itself protected against air attacks? I do not see any short range AD system in Iran’s doctrine to protect its new long range AD systems such as 15- Khordad or Bavar-373. Even older Iranian S-200 systems are vulnerable to air attacks by cruise missiles and gliding bombs.
 
Last edited:
. .
Well soon or later it would be unveiled .i am more then sure.
The one I was hoping to get involved was the one equivalent to Russian S-400 with round tubes and cold launch and Yes I sure they not S-300. Because we made them and once you see it you notice defences in design .

This was the original Bavar program to make copy of S-300

Interesting. So the "Tubes" we saw at parade 6-7 years ago were part of a real existing development? It would be awesome if we could see it in the next parades.
 
.
It can be said that:
- Bavar with X-band asset can engage non-stealth targets at long ranges. It can also engage BMs.
- Bavar with S-band asset can engage stealth targets at close range
- Bavar with both radars combined and intact can engage stealth targets at long range. It also gets much more robust in terms of ECM and beaming/notching.

Meraj-4 and Nebo are strictly speaking not integral parts of the Bavar system but higher level assets. They support several Bavar batteries.

I have been reading some of your posts from 2017 on the Keypublishing forum regarding using SAGG/TVM missiles in a SAM system to form a bi-static radar arrangement to defeat stealth aircraft. Very interesting stuff and I'm actually still going through it. Some very robust discussion over there it seems.

I have two questions.

1. Could the Bavar's twin radar arrangement also designed to make use of this bi-static concept? If so, how?

2. In bi-static operation, would you agree that having a network of AWACS aircraft over the battlespace would help fight off stealth targets? In your earlier discussions on keypublishing you were talking about how the missile SAGG receivers themselves would form part of the bi-static arrangement. The criticism to this was that missiles have a limited energy and therefore attack vector that they can approach and detect the target at. Modern datalinks mean tactical aircraft can engage targets with their AAMs without using their own radars, just relying on the AWACS. Something like an E-3 (or smaller if the radar can be made more compact) which can cruise at 450 kts at ~40,000 ft, with 10 hours endurance/8000 km range can use their obviously high mobility to get the right angles to avoid the frontal arc and underbelly of something like an F-35 which are the stealthiest parts of that aircraft. A network of 3-5 aircraft like this (depending on how robust it needs to be) defending the entire Persian Gulf coast could overlap and engage an F-35 from different directions, effectively surrounding it and meaning whatever way it turns, there's always a 'vulnerable' side pointing to a radar. And of course these AWACS have the traditional benefits of being able to plug holes in air defences, aiding with offensive operations, detecting low flying aircraft and cruise missiles in Iran's mountainous terrain.

(Those circles are 250 km range circles for engaging stealth aircraft. I concede that these are entirely nominal on account of how powerful AWACS radars are)

upload_2019-8-21_13-3-56.png


upload_2019-8-21_13-4-3.png
 
.
I will give you a more detailed answer on the bi-static effect of the Bavar later, but for now: American stealth PR is also made to mislead adversaries to invest in dead end systems and technologies.
Only sober nations who only follow physics won't fall into such a economical traps.
There are solutions to degrade stealth effects into a region where they loose their relevance.
Russia was the pioneer in this field, but Iran has also developed unique counter techniques.
Today Mersad 2 has been made anti-stealth.
3rd Khordad has been made anit-stealth
Sayyad-2 IRGC was the first anit-stealth system
S-200 Talash-3 is anti stealth to some degree
And Bavar is now the leading anti-stealth system.
 
. . . .
Today Mersad 2 has been made anti-stealth.
3rd Khordad has been made anit-stealth
Sayyad-2 IRGC was the first anit-stealth system
S-200 Talash-3 is anti stealth to some degree
And Bavar is now the leading anti-stealth system.
How ?
 
. .

Assuming he didn't misspoke, there might be an anti ballistic missile designed for B373. Again, why is it so far fetched for this system to have expandability to tackle different layers beyond the norm of S-300/s-400? It has powerful radars which can be linked to other radars/sensors, from its software and capable of hardware to go beyond its current visible package.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom