Iranian long range anti ship ballistic missile in development

[Hack-Hook]

So, Iran's most advanced 750km guided ballistic missile costs $500,000 to produce? What is that price quote based on? For comparison:

ATACMS "on 20 December 2010, Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract for $916 million for 226 'tactical missiles' and 24 launcher modification kits for the UAE and Taiwan."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-140_ATACMS#Current_operators
That's a good $4 million per missile.

Back in the 1980s: "The average unit cost of a Pershing II missile is $3.8 million."
http://www.miamisburg.org/pershing_missile_56th_field_artillery_command.htm

"Short range missiles, such as SCUD-B's, cost as little as $1 million to produce. At the other extreme is the Saudi purchase of DF-3 missiles from China, which reportedly cost $2 billion for 30 to 50 missiles and their associated launchers. Even if the missiles in this purchase accounted for only half of the total cost, they would still cost over $20 million apiece. Together with launchers, this begins to approach the unit cost of acquiring advanced strike aircraft"
https://books.google.nl/books?id=B4zSFd8DRWYC&pg=PA228&lpg=PA228&dq=scud+"unit+cost"&source=bl&ots=RJgXUIa0G1&sig=ku87ajOUV5sHZgc63QLtLAGlfAA&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9l4DIuazPAhVH2hoKHRpkB5wQ6AEIWDAH#v=onepage&q=scud "unit cost"&f=false (1993 prices)

"After signing a contract for the licensed production of the Chinese WS-1A and WS-1B rockets under the name of Kasırga in 1997, a similar contract was signed with CPMIEC (Chinese Precision Machinery Import and Export Corporation) for the Chinese B-611 SRBM system in 1998, covering the licensed production of a battery of B-611 with more than 200 missiles, at a reported cost of USD 300,000,000.
The J-600T design is based on the B-611 SRBM developed by CASIC (China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation) as a low cost tactical missile system, with a range of up to 250 km in improved versions such as the B-611M, and as a replacement for the M-11 (CSS-7 and DF-11) missiles in Chinese inventory. CPMIEC officials have confirmed at the IDEF 2007 military fair in Ankara that B-611M, the improved version of B-611, was not a part of the Sino-Turkish cooperation program."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-600T_Yıldırım
(Like SCUD, this is a comparatively simple missile. Even so, if you allocate only half the $300 million to missiles and devide by 200, unit cost is $750,000 for a straight forward licence production [as opposed to much more expensive indigenous development])

As for generic F-35 unit cost in procurement, it averages thusfar to about $116 million
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Procurement_costs

Let's be generous and make that a round $150 million. Assuming for now that the 'at least $300 million' you quote is correct, are you suggesting the other 'at least $150 million' is operating cost for one year? What's the ínformational basis for that claim?

"One area where the F-35 is still expensive? The cost per hour to fly, which over the lifetime of the plane can amount to more than the plane itself. The F-35A still costs a whopping $42,169 per hour to fly. Assuming a plane flies 120 hours a year, over 20 years that comes out to $100 million. The Super Hornet costs about $17,000 an hour to fly, which comes out to $40 million."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21776/f-35-cheaper/
Let's assume it costs $50,000 per hour to fly an F-35 (if you research it, you find figures much lower, more like $30-35k, as compared to 20-25k for the F-16). Then those 'at least $150 million' operating cost for a year represent 'at least 3000 flying hours'.

"As built, Block 40 and 50 F-16s have an 8,000 flight-hour fatigue life. At normal usage of around 300 hours per year, that amounts to 24 years"
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...6-fighter-jet-could-fly-92-years-theory-14290
See also http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-16-life.htm

IMHO at least 3000 hours for a year is at least a factor of 10 off.

So, what else has been dumped into that "over $300 million" figure for the F-35?

$116 million + (300h*$35000) = $126.5 million for 1 year. Now, $1.2 billion gets you 9-10 F-35. And that amount may not get you 2400 missiles but rather 300.

Of course, this is all silly accounting, because no one gets a jet for just 1 year, and so procurement cost is spread over the life time. As shown, if $150m gets you an F-35 and $150m gets you 3000 flight hours, you are actually talking a 10 year period under normal (US) number of annual flight hours (while the F-35 would likely last 9000, seeing as how F-16 originally project service life of 8000 hours got extended to 12000). Assuming a missile has a similar shelf life of 10 years, since you can only fire a missile once, you would need multiple missile to a single figher jet for comparable mission capability and flexibility.

I think its not wise to compare how expensive country a make a missile and based on that decide how much it'll be for country b yo build a comparable one . there is just two many variable to mess with your calculation.

 

[Penguin]

I think its not wise to compare how expensive country a make a missile and based on that decide how much it'll be for country b yo build a comparable one . there is just two many variable to mess with your calculation.

SCUD is 1950s Soviet equipment. It hardly qualifies as coming from an expensive country. In 1993, it went for about $1 million. Today, it would be even cheaper.

How much does a Shahab 1 or 2 (SCUD-B equivalent, based on the North Korean Hwasong-6.) cost to produce? Shahab 3 is an offspring of the North Korean R/Nodong-1, which is a scaled up version of SCUD B/C. Is North Korea an expensive country by your standards?

J-600T Yıldırım and B-611 are of Turkey and China respectively, which also hardly qualify as expensive countries.

Emad is comparable to the 1980s US Pershing II in terms of range and precision. Fair comparison, using 1980s prices.

In short, I take it you support the Vevak's claim that a Zolfaghar missile costs Iran $500,000 USD to produce and I don't see produce anything to support that claim either. So, to me, it remains a claim, and IMHO an unsubstantiated one, for which there are good reasons to doubt the accuracy.

 

[Hassan Guy]

Can Iranian missiles bypass the US air defence systems in Israel and the gulf?

 

[Arminkh]

Can Iranian missiles bypass the US air defence systems in Israel and the gulf?

Well I think the first question is how effective those air defense systems are. We know that each intercepting missile has a limited chance of hitting a missile which is usually around 80% - 90% so usually 2 should be fired for each incoming missile to make sure with possibility above 95% that it sill be eliminated.

Considering that, Iran will rely on swarm Technics. Firing salvos of missiles at the same time which will overwhelm the enemy's intercepting capacity.

A similar technique was used recently by Syria when it shoot down an Israeli F-16 above Golan heights. They first fired two cheap missiles towards it. F-16 jamming system got busy with the 2 incoming missile and then they fired a S-300 system missile that hit the fighter without difficulty.

Any system can be defeated with this method. Ballistic missiles travel at speed well above Mach 4. If you look at the clip below, the missile hardly even registers in the camera: (it is coming from right hand side) It is not easy to hit one let alone dealing with 10 or 20 coming at once:

 

[Penguin]

It depends also on when you attempt to intercept. If you can hit a missile while it is still ascending, you kill all warheads it carries in one stroke. If you wait untill reentry, you will have to deal with multiple individual warheads. So, it is far more effective to kill the missiles early (e.g. in flight), possible while still on launcher or in storage.

Compare

 

[Muhammed45]

It depends also on when you attempt to intercept. If you can hit a missile while it is still ascending, you kill all warheads it carries in one stroke. If you wait untill reentry, you will have to deal with multiple individual warheads. So, it is far more effective to kill the missiles early (e.g. in flight), possible while still on launcher or in storage.

Compare

WTF are you talking about penguin brain?
Why should EU defend itself against us while we have no problem with those countries especially the Eastern-EU countries? Are you a part of USA's BS propaganda?!

 

[Hassan Guy]

WTF are you talking about penguin brain?
Why should EU defend itself against us while we have no problem with those countries especially the Eastern-EU countries? Are you a part of USA's BS propaganda?!

It's from when Iran was developing nukes

 

[Muhammed45]

It's from when Iran was developing nukes

Developing NUKEs?
Are you fkin kiddin me?
I thought the nuclear deal was an end to these BS rumors. You should be so stupid to believe what the terrorist state of USA claims. Our leader has banned developing and manufacturing NUKEs coz it's against human beings.
Why should we NUKE EU? Give us a fkin reason!. Eastern-EU countries are our best oil customers for example Greece , Romania and etc.
Would you give us a fkin reason coz we have no reason.

 

[Hassan Guy]

Developing NUKEs?
Are you fkin kiddin me?
I thought the nuclear deal was an end to these BS rumors. You should be so stupid to believe what the terrorist state of USA claims. Our leader has banned developing and manufacturing NUKEs coz it's against human beings.
Why should we NUKE EU? Give us a fkin reason!. Eastern-EU countries are our best oil customers for example Greece , Romania and etc.
Would you give us a fkin reason coz we have no reason.

It's propaganda, it's an excuse so NATO can invade and turn Iran into another Iraq or libya cuz they wan't your Oil reserves.

 

[Muhammed45]

It's propaganda, it's an excuse so NATO can invade and turn Iran into another Iraq or libya cuz they wan't your Oil reserves.

Yes bro that's true. But we will be honest to EU nations and they are slowly understanding what is happening and who is warmongering. Whole the world is going to ignore USA. Russia and Iran already are in action.

 

[Hassan Guy]

Yes bro that's true. But we will be honest to EU nations and they are slowly understanding what is happening and who is warmongering. Whole the world is going to ignore USA. Russia and Iran already are in action.

Has the EU lifted it's arms embargo on Iran?

 

[Muhammed45]

Has the EU lifted it's arms embargo on Iran?

Based on the agreement , after 5-10 years whole arms sanctions will be lifted ONLY IF USA IS NOT GOING TO BEGIN AN OTHER GAME.

 

[raptor22]

It depends also on when you attempt to intercept. If you can hit a missile while it is still ascending, you kill all warheads it carries in one stroke. If you wait untill reentry, you will have to deal with multiple individual warheads. So, it is far more effective to kill the missiles early (e.g. in flight), possible while still on launcher or in storage.

Compare

I think Yal-1 could be used for hitting a ballistic missile during its ascending phase ... is that operational?

 

[Penguin]

WTF are you talking about penguin brain?
Why should EU defend itself against us while we have no problem with those countries especially the Eastern-EU countries? Are you a part of USA's BS propaganda?!

Uhm, what are you talking about? I just post something to illustrate where in the firing cycle one can intercept what. Nothing more, nothing less. What is YOUR problem? Who'se BS propaganda are YOU part of?

I think Yal-1 could be used for hitting a ballistic missile during its ascending phase ... is that operational?

It made its final flight on February 14, 2012 and was subsequently scrapped in September 2014 after all usable parts were removed.

The requirement of 10 - 20 of these modified Boeing 747s, at $1.5bn apiece, and $100m investment a year had made the maintenance of the ABL YAL 1A not operationally viable, forcing the US Air Force to stop funding for the laser. Through February 2011, the US Government spent approximately $5.2bn on the ABL YAL 1A project.

Apparently, with the advancements in - much smaller - solid-state lasers, and with development programs that are seeking to mount them on everything from AC-130 gunships to fighter aircraft, the Pentagon is looking at procuring a new airborne laser, unmanned and flying at much higher altitudes.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-airborne-laser-may-rise-again-but-it-will-look-very-1724892313

See also http://www.defensetech.org/2015/07/13/pentagon-eyes-airborne-lasers-for-missile-defense/

DLWS

And also http://www.dmitryshulgin.com/tag/tlwm/ and http://spendergast.blogspot.nl/2015/04/darpa-to-test-fire-hellads-150-kilowatt.html

Tactical Laser Weapon Module + HELLADS Predator C Mounting Concept

 

[Arminkh]

Uhm, what are you talking about? I just post something to illustrate where in the firing cycle one can intercept what. Nothing more, nothing less. What is YOUR problem? Who'se BS propaganda are YOU part of?


It made its final flight on February 14, 2012 and was subsequently scrapped in September 2014 after all usable parts were removed.

The requirement of 10 - 20 of these modified Boeing 747s, at $1.5bn apiece, and $100m investment a year had made the maintenance of the ABL YAL 1A not operationally viable, forcing the US Air Force to stop funding for the laser. Through February 2011, the US Government spent approximately $5.2bn on the ABL YAL 1A project.

Apparently, with the advancements in - much smaller - solid-state lasers, and with development programs that are seeking to mount them on everything from AC-130 gunships to fighter aircraft, the Pentagon is looking at procuring a new airborne laser, unmanned and flying at much higher altitudes.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-airborne-laser-may-rise-again-but-it-will-look-very-1724892313

See also http://www.defensetech.org/2015/07/13/pentagon-eyes-airborne-lasers-for-missile-defense/

DLWS

And also http://www.dmitryshulgin.com/tag/tlwm/ and http://spendergast.blogspot.nl/2015/04/darpa-to-test-fire-hellads-150-kilowatt.html

Tactical Laser Weapon Module + HELLADS Predator C Mounting Concept

Anything below 1 MW power is useless against fast moving targets like ballistic missiles. The main problem is the power generator that these weapons need not the laser itself.

I can see them eventually being deployed on large naval vessels or fixed site ground units but we still don't have a 1 MW power plant that is light and mobile enough to be carried by a bomber, let alone a drone.

Here is a calculation I did in another thread about the current lasers being used:

While 100-150 kW may seem a lot,here are some calculations to show you why even that is not enough:

150 kW=128,977 kCal/hour = 36 kCal/second

Lets assume you want to melt through the warhead of an incoming missile and let's say for the sake of the argument it is made of aluminum. The thermal capacity of Aluminum is 0.22 Kcal/kg C, meaning it takes 0.22 Kcal to increase the temperature of 1 kg of Aluminum by one degree. Melting point of Aluminum is 663 degrees. Again for the sake of argument let's say the warhead is already heated up to 200 degrees due to friction at Mach 5. You need to increase its temperature by 463 degrees for it to start to melt.

So you need 463/0.22=2104 kCal of energy to be delivered. At 150 Kw and assuming that you can deliver all that power to a point 10 km away (which is absolutely false) you need 2104/36 = 58 seconds to melt 1kg of aluminum.

Now lets say you don't necessarily need to melt 1kg of aluminum to punch a hole in the body of the missile but only punching a hole can not destroy the missile you need to get to the guidance or explosive materials to do that so you need to melt at least 0.1 kg of Aluminum. That still requires 5.8 seconds.

Now let's see how long an ASBM can go at Mach 5 in 5.8 seconds? 9.5 km. Now according to below, the samples at work have an effective range of only 1.6 Km. An ASBM can fly that distance in less than a second.

Laser Weapon System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now I know there are even 300 Kw lasers to be made but remember all my calculations are based on the assumption that the warheads are made of Aluminum. Use steel and you need triple the time to punch a hole. Use ceramic coating and you should forget about doing any damage with laser.