Iranian long range anti ship ballistic missile in development

[Penguin]

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:

Your quoted explanation talks of using a laser to get warheads. This is not the case. The laser would be targeted at the missile carrying the warheads. The missile body carries fuel and oxidizer to power a liquid fuel rocket motor.

Or they use a solid fuel rocket motor

Either way, you just need to burn a small hole in thin outer skin, possible fuel tanks, to explode rocket fuel (whether solid or liquid)

At Lockheed Martin Corp a 30-kilowatt fiber laser (prototype ground-based laser weapon called the Advanced Test High Energy Asset or ATHENA) was used to burn through the engine manifold of a small truck in a matter of seconds from more than a mile away.
Lockheed Martin Laser and Sensor Systems is developing a 60-kilowatt fiber laser module for a truck-mounted laser weapon system intended to shoot down enemy unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), rockets, artillery rounds, and mortars as part of the U.S. Army High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL MD) project.
Lockheed Martin Space Systems is demonstrating prototype high-energy laser tail gun intended to protect combat aircraft from attacks from the rear as part of the Aero-Adaptive/Aero-Optic Beam Control (ABC) program of the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in Arlington, Va. The project seeks to give 360-degree coverage for high-energy laser weapons operating on military aircraft.
Through a technique called spectral beam combining, several fiber laser modules form one powerful, high-quality beam that provides greater efficiency and lethality
http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2015/03/high-energy-laser.html

Not quite there yet, in terms or range, but coming to the air soon. It is only a matter of time before sufficient range is achieved. And then there is spaced based laser ;-)

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...tm+&cd=3&hl=nl&ct=clnk&gl=nl&client=firefox-b

 

[Arminkh]

Your quoted explanation talks of using a laser to get warheads. This is not the case. The laser would be targeted at the missile carrying the warheads. The missile body carries fuel and oxidizer to power a liquid fuel rocket motor.

Or they use a solid fuel rocket motor

Either way, you just need to burn a small hole in thin outer skin, possible fuel tanks, to explode rocket fuel (whether solid or liquid)

At Lockheed Martin Corp a 30-kilowatt fiber laser (prototype ground-based laser weapon called the Advanced Test High Energy Asset or ATHENA) was used to burn through the engine manifold of a small truck in a matter of seconds from more than a mile away.
Lockheed Martin Laser and Sensor Systems is developing a 60-kilowatt fiber laser module for a truck-mounted laser weapon system intended to shoot down enemy unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), rockets, artillery rounds, and mortars as part of the U.S. Army High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL MD) project.
Lockheed Martin Space Systems is demonstrating prototype high-energy laser tail gun intended to protect combat aircraft from attacks from the rear as part of the Aero-Adaptive/Aero-Optic Beam Control (ABC) program of the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in Arlington, Va. The project seeks to give 360-degree coverage for high-energy laser weapons operating on military aircraft.
Through a technique called spectral beam combining, several fiber laser modules form one powerful, high-quality beam that provides greater efficiency and lethality
http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2015/03/high-energy-laser.html

Not quite there yet, in terms or range, but coming to the air soon. It is only a matter of time before sufficient range is achieved. And then there is spaced based laser ;-)

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...tm+&cd=3&hl=nl&ct=clnk&gl=nl&client=firefox-b

Well in that case, they are still useless for point defense as if they want to hit an incoming missile coming at them, they can't target its body as missile comes towards them head first.

In case they want to hit a missile from sides, then it means they have to keep their laser steady at a certain point on missile body to be able to melt it. Even at Mach 2, a missile moves 680 m/s. Give it two seconds and it is more than 1 Km away from where it was. So they need to be in the perfect position to keep the distance between the weapon and the missile almost constant. And then, what if the missile spins around its longitudinal axis?

I agree they can shoot down drones or even sub-sonic cruise missiles, but I would doubt they could do anything about the ballistic missiles with this sort of power.

 

[Penguin]

Well in that case, they are still useless for point defense as if they want to hit an incoming missile coming at them, they can't target its body as missile comes towards them head first.

In case they want to hit a missile from sides, then it means they have to keep their laser steady at a certain point on missile body to be able to melt it. Even at Mach 2, a missile moves 680 m/s. Give it two seconds and it is more than 1 Km away from where it was. So they need to be in the perfect position to keep the distance between the weapon and the missile almost constant. And then, what if the missile spins around its longitudinal axis?

I agree they can shoot down drones or even sub-sonic cruise missiles, but I would doubt they could do anything about the ballistic missiles with this sort of power.

I think you misread my posts. I have not claimed there currently are operational laser weapons capable of doing this. Personally, I would be more inclined to bomb the crap out of launch vehicles and hardened launch positions. But that is just me ;-)

March 04, 2015
US could ramp up military lasers by ten times to 300 kilowatts by 2018

In three years the US military could have a prototype 300 kilowatt laser weapon. This would be ten times the power of the 30 kilowatt laser being tested on the USS Ponce. Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. of Breaking Defense reports this from a Lockheed engineer.

The Army’s High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator(HEL MD) will improve to a 60 kw system late in 2016. This is up from the current 10 kilowatt laser. Today's technology will enable fiber lasers to scale to 300 kw. Near term improvement to the underlying technology will enable well beyond 500 kw lasers.

Solid state slab lasers (being developed by the Navy and Northrop) should be able to scale to a total power of 300 kW. This will not require any technological breakthroughs. Supporters of slab SSLs such as Maritime Laser Demonstration (MLD) believe they could eventually be scaled up further, to perhaps 600 kW. Slab SSLs are not generally viewed as easily scalable to megawatt power levels.

At 30 to 35 percent efficiency — the current cutting edge with fiber-optic lasers — 300 kw of output would require just under a megawatt of electrical power.

The Navy’s LaWs simply sticks together six commercial cutting lasers and points them all at the same target. Lockheed’s technology goes further and combines all the lasers into a single, coherent beam, which allows much sharper focus at long ranges.

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2015/03/us-could-ramp-up-miliary-lasers-by-ten.html

 

[Arminkh]

I think you misread my posts. I have not claimed there currently are operational laser weapons capable of doing this. Personally, I would be more inclined to bomb the crap out of launch vehicles and hardened launch positions. But that is just me ;-)

March 04, 2015
US could ramp up military lasers by ten times to 300 kilowatts by 2018

In three years the US military could have a prototype 300 kilowatt laser weapon. This would be ten times the power of the 30 kilowatt laser being tested on the USS Ponce. Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. of Breaking Defense reports this from a Lockheed engineer.

The Army’s High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator(HEL MD) will improve to a 60 kw system late in 2016. This is up from the current 10 kilowatt laser. Today's technology will enable fiber lasers to scale to 300 kw. Near term improvement to the underlying technology will enable well beyond 500 kw lasers.

Solid state slab lasers (being developed by the Navy and Northrop) should be able to scale to a total power of 300 kW. This will not require any technological breakthroughs. Supporters of slab SSLs such as Maritime Laser Demonstration (MLD) believe they could eventually be scaled up further, to perhaps 600 kW. Slab SSLs are not generally viewed as easily scalable to megawatt power levels.

At 30 to 35 percent efficiency — the current cutting edge with fiber-optic lasers — 300 kw of output would require just under a megawatt of electrical power.

The Navy’s LaWs simply sticks together six commercial cutting lasers and points them all at the same target. Lockheed’s technology goes further and combines all the lasers into a single, coherent beam, which allows much sharper focus at long ranges.

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2015/03/us-could-ramp-up-miliary-lasers-by-ten.html

No, I understood your point. I'm just saying, I can't see it being used as an effective weapon any time soon due to power generation limits.

 

[AmirPatriot]

If there was an engagement between just Iran and Saudi Arabia (assuming that is the intended target) its quite unlikely in my opinion that they could do anything against our ballistic missile force.

They can't bomb the launchers because even the US had total aerial supremacy over Iraq, and was trying to hunt liquid fueled scuds that need hours to fuel up. The RSAF lacks the air supremacy (due to the IRIADF), or the readiness to attack a mobile truck that probably takes <10 minutes to launch a solid fueled missile like the Zolfaqar. And 10 minutes is being generous to the Saudis...

They can't intercept in the boost phase simply because there is no Saudi air defence missile in service or on order that has that range.

I doubt they can intercept in the terminal phase because the Zolfaqar probaly has a top speed of something around Mach 5 (Fateh-110 could go a maximum of 3.7 Mach so I'm guessing the increase in range brings increase in speed), also because the warhead is maneuverable, what do you think @Penguin?

 

[Penguin]

If there was an engagement between just Iran and Saudi Arabia (assuming that is the intended target) its quite unlikely in my opinion that they could do anything against our ballistic missile force.

They can't bomb the launchers because even the US had total aerial supremacy over Iraq, and was trying to hunt liquid fueled scuds that need hours to fuel up. The RSAF lacks the air supremacy (due to the IRIADF), or the readiness to attack a mobile truck that probably takes <10 minutes to launch a solid fueled missile like the Zolfaqar. And 10 minutes is being generous to the Saudis...

They can't intercept in the boost phase simply because there is no Saudi air defence missile in service or on order that has that range.

I doubt they can intercept in the terminal phase because the Zolfaqar probaly has a top speed of something around Mach 5 (Fateh-110 could go a maximum of 3.7 Mach so I'm guessing the increase in range brings increase in speed), also because the warhead is maneuverable, what do you think @Penguin?

Raytheon Network Centric Airborne Defense Element (NCADE)

Its an an anti-ballistic missile system being developed by Raytheon for the Missile Defense Agency. The NCADE system is a boost phase interceptor based heavily on the AIM-120 AMRAAM, with the AMRAAM fragmentation warhead replaced by a hit-to-kill vehicle powered by a hydroxylammonium nitrate monopropellant rocket motor from Aerojet. The intended launch vehicle would be a Boeing F-15C Golden Eagle with an AESA radar.
http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1080
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Centric_Airborne_Defense_Element

Note this says "Launch platform: fighter aircraft or Reaper"

So, with this, it could be or become possible to intercept at boost phase.

Zolfaqar missile has a solid fuel rocket motor, unlike the SCUD/Shahab which is liquid fueled. So, there is no need to fuel up the missile. Just the TEL.
Iraq dispersed and hid its SCUDs and practices shoot-n-scoot tactics. The infrared and radar signatures of the Iraqi TELSs were almost impossible to distinguish from ordinary trucks and from the surrounding electromagnetic clutter, for F-15E and A-10. While patrolling, these strike aircraft managed to sight their targets on 42 occasions, but they were only able to acquire them long enough to release their ordnance three times. Fueling the missile had little to do with it. The launch sequence of the SCUD that usually took 90 minutes was reduced to half an hour.

As for IRIAF v RSAF

20 MiG-29
17 Chengdu F-7
25 Northrop F-5E/HESA Saeqeh
42 F-4 Phantom II fighter-bomber D/E/RF (16 configured for reconnaissance)
24 Grumman F-14 United States fighter / interceptor
9 Mirage F1 France fighter F1EQ
--
137

(Su-24 is a strike aircraft, with 2 SR AAM for self defence only)
(Even if 40 F14, it is still just 153)

Versus

70 F15E, with 84 more on order
86 F15C/D
64 Eurofighter Typhoon, with 12 more to be delivered, possibly another 72 to be ordered
80 Panavia Tornado IDS
---
220, excluding Tornado, with 96 more on order

Based on available equipment and training hours, odds favor RSAF. Launcher bombing might well be possible.

Saudi Arabia employs Patriot. Patriot PAC-3, GEM, and GEM+ missiles both had a very high success rate, intercepting Al-Samoud 2 and Ababil-100 tactical ballistic missiles in 2003. On 6 June 2015, Houthi rebels fired a Scud missile into Saudi Arabia, the King Khalid Air Base being the suspected target, in response to the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen, which was intercepted by a Saudi Patriot battery. Another Scud was fired at an electricity station in Jizan province and intercepted by a Saudi Patriot on 26 August 2015.

 

[Penguin]

A Manoeuvrable RV in this case means it can shift target in flight. That may help elude ABM missiles, but is not to be taken as 'ducking and weaving' to avoid being hit. It means unexpectedly going left instead of straight ahead as expected on the basis of ballistic trajectory.

 

[AmirPatriot]

So, with this, it could be or become possible to intercept at boost phase.

Very possibly, but Raytheon would need to finish developing the NCADE, produce it, Saudi would actually need to buy the it, then they'd need air superiority, which brings me to my next point.

As for IRIAF v RSAF

I said IRIADF. That means the Saudis go up against the latest S-300PMU2, as well a wide range of Iranian short, medium and long range air defences, all upgraded with modern electronics. This willb soon include the Bavar-373.

I doubt they can get the level of operational freedom required to hit the launchers.

As for interception, I don't think a Scud C and scaled down scuds (180km range!) can be compared with a modern 750 km missile. They are in a different class.

You just don't have the IQ to get into a real discussion with me!

Calm down...

 

[Penguin]

Very possibly, but Raytheon would need to finish developing the NCADE, produce it, Saudi would actually need to buy the it, then they'd need air superiority, which brings me to my next point.

Just showing possibility.

I said IRIADF. That means the Saudis go up against the latest S-300PMU2, as well a wide range of Iranian short, medium and long range air defences, all upgraded with modern electronics. This will soon include the Bavar-373. I doubt they can get the level of operational freedom required to hit the launchers.

Ah, correct, I misread that. A few points to consider:

The US purchased S-300P from Belarus in 1994 and also acquired S-300V. I'm sure they've learned a thing or two about those systems and applied it to their SEAD approach.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=IiedBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA362&lpg=PA362&dq=S-300V+"united+states"&source=bl&ots=LEtFyv5w_y&sig=UhSzJoX38cfioxk3pX9oewgyykQ&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFs_2llq_PAhUEbBoKHRnyBpkQ6AEIWzAH#v=onepage&q=S-300V "united states"&f=false

I'm also sure RSAF will have learned the US SEAD approach and has acquired 'at least some' SEAD related payload for their F-15s and Tyhoons e.g 600 AGM-88B HARM Missiles, 169 ALQ-239 Digital Electronic Warfare Systems.
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/saudi-arabia-f-15sa-aircraft

The Panavia Tornado IDS's of RSAF use ALARM missiles and BAE Sky Shadow electronic jamming pods. RSAF also has several dedicated electronic warfare aircraft in service and more on order (Raytheon King Air 350, Boeing RE-3A, Antonov AN-132 EW) . RSAF also employs a variety of stand-off missiles and/or area denial weapons that are suitable for SEAD.

As for interception, I don't think a Scud C and scaled down scuds (180km range!) can be compared with a modern 750 km missile. They are in a different class.

A missile is a missile.

Besides, I believe you attempt to downplay the SCUD and variations. The R-11M (SCUD A) had a maximum range of 270 kilometres, but when carrying a nuclear warhead, this was reduced to 150 kilometres. R-17 Elbrus (SCUD B) is credited with 300km. SCUD-C range was brought up to 500–600 km, but at the cost of a greatly reduced accuracy and warhead size.

Shahab 1 is based on NK Hwasong-5 and equivalent to SCUD B. Shahab 2 is a 750km missile, based on NK Hwasong-6 ("Scud Mod. C" or "Scud-C"), which in turn is based on Hwasong-5 (SCUD B) . Shahab 3 is based on NK Nodong 1. That is a larger variant of the Scud-B, scaled up so its cross-sectional area is about double that of the Scud B. Shahab 3 has a 1280/1930 km range (depending version).

How would 'a modern 750km' ballistic missile differ from an oldie, e.g. during the launch phase? And during other phases? And how would that improve their survivability?

Calm down...

I'll show my PhD if he shows his.

what load of nonsense . no hard feeling but have done an investigation to any of your none sase claims on Saudi Yemen missile and Patriot ??

Does one succesfull hit in one place rule out a succesfull interception in another? No. Besides, one can hit a missile/warhead succesfully (causing it to e.g. break up) and still be on the receiving end of falling debris. Finally, even if you find fault with one part of a post of mine, that doesn't automatically invalidate all of that post.

 

[yavar]

Raytheon Network Centric Airborne Defense Element (NCADE)

Its an an anti-ballistic missile system being developed by Raytheon for the Missile Defense Agency. The NCADE system is a boost phase interceptor based heavily on the AIM-120 AMRAAM, with the AMRAAM fragmentation warhead replaced by a hit-to-kill vehicle powered by a hydroxylammonium nitrate monopropellant rocket motor from Aerojet. The intended launch vehicle would be a Boeing F-15C Golden Eagle with an AESA radar.
http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1080
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Centric_Airborne_Defense_Element

Note this says "Launch platform: fighter aircraft or Reaper"

So, with this, it could be or become possible to intercept at boost phase.

Zolfaqar missile has a solid fuel rocket motor, unlike the SCUD/Shahab which is liquid fueled. So, there is no need to fuel up the missile. Just the TEL.
Iraq dispersed and hid its SCUDs and practices shoot-n-scoot tactics. The infrared and radar signatures of the Iraqi TELSs were almost impossible to distinguish from ordinary trucks and from the surrounding electromagnetic clutter, for F-15E and A-10. While patrolling, these strike aircraft managed to sight their targets on 42 occasions, but they were only able to acquire them long enough to release their ordnance three times. Fueling the missile had little to do with it. The launch sequence of the SCUD that usually took 90 minutes was reduced to half an hour.

As for IRIAF v RSAF

20 MiG-29
17 Chengdu F-7
25 Northrop F-5E/HESA Saeqeh
42 F-4 Phantom II fighter-bomber D/E/RF (16 configured for reconnaissance)
24 Grumman F-14 United States fighter / interceptor
9 Mirage F1 France fighter F1EQ
--
137

(Su-24 is a strike aircraft, with 2 SR AAM for self defence only)
(Even if 40 F14, it is still just 153)

Versus

70 F15E, with 84 more on order
86 F15C/D
64 Eurofighter Typhoon, with 12 more to be delivered, possibly another 72 to be ordered
80 Panavia Tornado IDS
---
220, excluding Tornado, with 96 more on order

Based on available equipment and training hours, odds favor RSAF. Launcher bombing might well be possible.

Saudi Arabia employs Patriot. Patriot PAC-3, GEM, and GEM+ missiles both had a very high success rate, intercepting Al-Samoud 2 and Ababil-100 tactical ballistic missiles in 2003. On 6 June 2015, Houthi rebels fired a Scud missile into Saudi Arabia, the King Khalid Air Base being the suspected target, in response to the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen, which was intercepted by a Saudi Patriot battery. Another Scud was fired at an electricity station in Jizan province and intercepted by a Saudi Patriot on 26 August 2015.

what load of nonsense . no hard feeling, but have you ever done an investigation to any of your none sase claims on Saudi Yemen missile and Patriot ??

all these videos are been took by mobile phones and posted on Twitter and facebook NOT showing by any media

this direct hit on air Khamis Mushayt base and the King Khalid Air Base

Saudi Arabia Najran Aramco Oil Company in fire after Yemeni Missileشرکت آرامکو نجران بعد اصابت موشک

Patriot has even deployed in so called coalition ( American officers and Saudis and Emiratis ) camp to liberate Yemen in Marib province and it is proven ineffective spicaily against Tochka OTR-21

Does one succesfull hit in one place rule out a succesfull interception in another? .

Tochka OTR-21 so far had 98% succes if you did not know

 

[Penguin]

Tochka OTR-21 so far had 98% succes if you did not know

Interesting. How many were fired in Yemen against Saudi's? I'm asking because I have a hard time arriving at 98% success rate on the basis of 5 reported single missile firings:

• On 20 August 2015 during the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen, Yemeni Republican Guard loyal to Ali Abdullah Saleh fired an OTR-21 targeting a Saudi base.
• On 4 September 2015 Yemeni Republican Guard fired a Tochka at Safir base in Marib killing over 100 Saudi-led coalition personnel
• On 14 December 2015 Yemeni Republican Guard fired a Tochka at Bab Al Mandab base killing over 150 of the Saudi-led coalition personnel
• On 16 January 2016 Yemeni Republican Guard fired a Tochka at Al Bairaq base in Marib killing dozens of Saudi-led coalition personnel
• On 31 January 2016 Yemeni Republican Guard fired a Tochka at Al Anad base in Lahj killing over 140 Saudi-led coalition personnel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTR-21_Tochka#Use_in_combat

A 98% succes rate implies a minimum of 50 missiles fired, out of which 1 doesn't make the mark.

 

[yavar]

 

[Penguin]

"Although all of Yemen's Transporter Erector Launchers (TEL) used for launching ballistic missiles were thought to have been destroyed along with the existing stock of R-17 Elbrus, Hwasŏng-5/6 and Tochka missiles at the site housing the Group of Missile Forces of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Yemen, footage coming out of Yemen's 'Amran Governorate on the 17th of May 2015 showed a battered but intact MAZ-543 TEL transported towards the Saudi border in broad daylight. This confirmed the rumours that some TELs were hidden away from the ballistic missile site in order to escape destruction by Coalition airstrikes.

Despite the fact that the TEL missed two of its wheels, it apparently succeeded in launching two missiles against Saudi territory. Both of the missiles were succesfully intercepted by Patriot batteries of the Royal Saudi Air Defense however, resulting in the destruction of both missiles before hitting their intended targets. The single MAZ-543 TEL was then said to have been destroyed by Coalition airstrikes,

sources claimed that no less than twenty ballistic missiles were fired at Saudi territory, only 40 percent of which intercepted by the Royal Saudi Air Defense Patriot batteries. These additional launches have not taken place however, and the official might have been confused by counting 122mm BM-21, 220mm BM-27 and DIY al-Najim al-Thaqib rocket strikes as ballistic missile strikes."
http://spioenkop.blogspot.nl/2015/08/houthis-continue-to-fire-ballistic.html

2 out of 2 makes 100% score for Patriot in one case of firing. For a 98% Tochka success rate, a total of 100 missile now needs to have been fired. Is that the case?

40% intercepted ballistic missiles from a total of at least 20 fired means at least 8 shot down. If all those shot down were Tochka's (which isn't necessarily the case) then a 98% Tochka succes rate implies 400 fired.

So, if the question is whether 98% succes for Tochka in Yemen is correct, then between 50 and 400 need to have been fired, with between 1 and 8 failing to hit .

There is some unclarity about how many Tochka's there are in Yemen.

This source suggests 4 Tels delivered, together with 24 missiles
http://militaryedge.org/armaments/ss-21/

This source suggest 10 Tels were delivered (and if you apply the same Missile/Tel ratio as above, then these would come with 60 missiles)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/255745865/OTR-21-Tochka-Missile

Sipri's General Trade Register shows a total 115 missiles delivered to North Yemen in 1988, which - using the same missile/TEL ratio suggest some 19 TELs. South Yemen got 40 R-17 Elbrus/Scud-B delivered during 1979-1981. These are the only ballistic missile deliveries recorded 1970 - 2015, for Yemen, North Yemen and South Yemen.
http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/trade_register.php

OTR-21 units are usually managed in a brigade structure. There are 18 launchers in a brigade; each launcher is provided with 2 or 3 missiles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTR-21_Tochka#Description

So, while 36 TELs for 115 missiles is possible 3 missiles per TEL but seems a bit short on missile supply, the logical conclusion is that most likely a brigade worth of Tochka TELs and missiles was acquired, with two sets of three missiles (or 3 of 2) per TEL.

Some of the 115 Tochka missiles delivered were used up when the Yemeni government used Tochka missiles against southern forces during the 1994 Yemen civil war.

A reported, only "some TELs" out of 18 or 19 (or max 36) total apparently survived destruction by Coalition airstrikes. I don't expect a very large portion of missile supply to have survived. And as indicated a 98% succes rate means a minimum of 50 fired, with 1 not hitting. Out of a total of <= 115. Not very plausible IMHO.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Shahab 1 is based on NK Hwasong-5 and equivalent to SCUD B. Shahab 2 is a 750km missile, based on NK Hwasong-6 ("Scud Mod. C" or "Scud-C"), which in turn is based on Hwasong-5 (SCUD B) . Shahab 3 is based on NK Nodong 1. That is a larger variant of the Scud-B, scaled up so its cross-sectional area is about double that of the Scud B. Shahab 3 has a 1280/1930 km range (depending version).

Ummm... okay? I never claimed the Shahab 2 or 3 are cutting edge tech. They were built in the '90s.

How would 'a modern 750km' ballistic missile differ from an oldie, e.g. during the launch phase?

The Zolfaqar is solid fueled and hence very fast in the launch phase. You can see for yourself on YouTube how fast that missile launche, giving less time for interception. It is also manoeuvrable, so it could fool missile defence systems by making it's trajectory more unpredictable. It's smaller and has been described as having low RCS. If it does truly have those MIRV warheads, it would be even more difficult to destroy.

Add to all these factors that Iran can launch a swarm of these, and the target is very vulnerable.

The US purchased S-300P from Belarus in 1994 and also acquired S-300V. I'm sure they've learned a thing or two about those systems and applied it to their SEAD approach.

That may be so, but both those systems are exceedingly old and don't have the capability of the PMU2 in all sectors. In this case, defence against ARMs and jamming is especially important. Furthermore, a very large part of Iran's systems are domestic, including the Bavar-373. No-one has any samples of those.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Well I don't think the body of shahab 2 and zolfaghar missile cost too different or even their fuel cost. The difference maybe is in guidance system and I doubt that system today's in digital age worth anything near millions of dollars.
When for example China or Russia or USA sell missile A for x $ and Missile B for 10x $ it wont mean missile B production cost 10 time more . its just they are business and well they can charge a lot more for something that is a little more advance . look for example at a company like nVIDIA kook at their chips you see they sell a chip for different prices while it cost them the exact same money. They just put it in different card gp104 can be found in gtx1070 GTX-1080 and quadro P5000 and GPU Accelerator P4 and their price can be more than 10x.

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.