Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

[Bahram Esfandiari]

There is one problem with that idea: the seeker sensor is most certainly a uncooled one and has thus only a effective detection range of 2-4km.
For a long range shot, a data-link for lock-on after launch is needed.
What is also necessary is a a sight system that can support identification of targets at 8km, a potent cooled sensor.

IRIAA is already equipping some of its Bell 214s with FLIR systems that can potentially detect targets at 8-10km.

 

[skyshadow]

There is one problem with that idea: the seeker sensor is most certainly a uncooled one and has thus only a effective detection range of 2-4km.
For a long range shot, a data-link for lock-on after launch is needed.
What is also necessary is a a sight system that can support identification of targets at 8km, a potent cooled sensor.

i think in one of the IRGC war games they said our UCAVs selected targets from 8 km away he just said that and moved on.

 

[VEVAK]

@Mithridates

I think in the first step they equipped the Crotale missile with a seeker for A-G capability and now they have modified the control surfaces for improved A-G role performance. The Sidewinder is thinner.

I suspect that the old batch FM-80 from China are now deemed too low quality for use as short range SAM. High-G maneuver would put them at risk of destruction.
Hence they were selected as long range missiles for A-G role, instead of scrapping. A perfect low cost SSJ project and same as IRGC Sidewinders-to-AGM project.



Sure, the Heydar mock-up looks very early in development. But there is a credible need for a high penetration power Maverick-like tandem HEAT ATGM for use against things like Abrams.
8km is sufficient, optics and detection systems can't go much beyond that on the Cobras.

The GBH missile at 10km range is for a similar scenario as performed by Apaches against Iraq at the start of the Gulf war: Raiding high value assets behind enemy lines and take them out from long distance.
Iran is lucky that its optics are now capable to support such long range missiles at day and night, a key enabler.
Now the non-TOW Corbas must be upgraded first with the Kornet, GBH and later Heydar if ready.

Of course depending on the altitude of your Helo's, day vs night operations, the type, size & location of your target,... your line of sight fire and forget capability is not going to be any more than ~15km in the best of conditions but cobra's have co-pilots that can pilot a missile using a secure datalink and they can reach a targeted area at twice the speed of what it would take for their Helo to to get to it's targeted location with enough fuel (on the missile) to search for a target and lock on using the missiles own optics plus the sensor data going back to your helo will increase your situational awareness that will further help increase the survivability of our Helo's in high threat areas

At least in my opinion this is the type of unconventional approach Iran needs to think about adding. Especially in the Artesh Iran needs to move away from normal standards and be far more innovative using the tech we have accessible to us.

Now a bit off topic I have to say if it was up to me and if I had any control over budgeting and command I would have started a production line of 5 different classes of low cost land attack cruise missile by now with production facilities large enough to have a combined max output of 100 missiles per day and I would have also planed for and carried out an overnight attack against the UAE with 10,000 Cruise Missiles on the 1st day (under 250lb warheads) lasting no more than a few hours and targeting UAE Military, Ports, Oil and Gas industry & communications then I would have demanded $100 Billion USD to be paid as restitution for their attempts to meddle in Iran's economy, the arrest of certain individuals in the UAE & transfer of their assets to Iran and if they didn't capitulate within 6 hours I would have fired 1000 cruise missiles a day until they did but this time I would target UAE infrastructure, government, depots, water supplies, financial institutions,.... and if they still didn't capitulate by day 3 I would have targeted their Cities with Ballistic Missiles....

The UAE has gone out of it's way to turn it's self into a target and I believe sooner or later Iran will need to teach them a lesson that they won't soon forget and Iran needs to make a good example of them so their friends in Saudi Arabia truly realize what could happen if they keep messing around with a lions tail!

 

[PeeD]

@VEVAK

If we create degrees of "tactical", then the Cobra fleet is at a small degree. It means it is useful for immediate battlefield operation, high pace and short ranges.
The concept you lay out was done by the Israelis in the 80's, when there was no UAV revolution.

Any operation that requires the recon- and planning efforts to target something 10km+ away is today best performed by S-191 like UAV assets. Since data-links are always fragile to EW, even lock-on after launch weapons may not be robust enough against advanced adversaries. In such situations, operations of S-191 or long range man-in-the-loop AGMs may not be possible and only a Cobras with Kornets or LOBL Sadids are a effective and efficient option.
Hence I would not try to get too long-ranged with the helicopter fleet, it may be too fragile (data-link) or better options are available (S-191).

As for UAE... sadly an almost ally, North Korea, sold them SCUDs. Irans oil and gas industry can be heavily hit by them.
As for cruise missiles let me say this: I would wish cruise missiles like their Storm shadows would have been sold to them instead of ballistic missiles. Hence the decision for Iran to go for ballistic missiles instead of cruise missiles was and is the right one.
Those SCUDs cause heavy problems for Iran, S-300 like assets are necessary to counter them. S-171/S-191 like assets are needed to neutralize them before launch. A great headache CM's would not have caused, getting intercepted by 3rd Khordad like assets to 95%. Neutralizing the UAE SCUD threat is only possible to maybe 80% and requires much more capable assets.
This is the huge benefit even primitive BMs offer against area targets such as oil refineries and way Iran went for it instead of CMs.
We have the same headache with Saudi DF-21 and -3, just that for those even higher counter assets are necessary.
UAE basically purchased a insurance from North Korea with those SCUDs. It will be eventually countered by Iran but huge effort is necessary.

Building a CM turbofan is quite expensive. Irans BM path has given it sufficient precision for pin-pint attacks today. The only benefit that a CM offers Iran today is forcing enemies to invest in a different (to ABM) counter-technology and the variable attack-path to avoid restricted airspaces for political reasons or to alter the attack vector.

In total the UAE is in a proxy situation. Attacking them is like attacking Saudi Arabia. At the moment both of them can cause too much damage but Iran is working towards neutralizing those capabilities.

 

[aryobarzan]

Of course depending on the altitude of your Helo's, day vs night operations, the type, size & location of your target,... your line of sight fire and forget capability is not going to be any more than ~15km in the best of conditions but cobra's have co-pilots that can pilot a missile using a secure datalink and they can reach a targeted area at twice the speed of what it would take for their Helo to to get to it's targeted location with enough fuel (on the missile) to search for a target and lock on using the missiles own optics plus the sensor data going back to your helo will increase your situational awareness that will further help increase the survivability of our Helo's in high threat areas

At least in my opinion this is the type of unconventional approach Iran needs to think about adding. Especially in the Artesh Iran needs to move away from normal standards and be far more innovative using the tech we have accessible to us.

Now a bit off topic I have to say if it was up to me and if I had any control over budgeting and command I would have started a production line of 5 different classes of low cost land attack cruise missile by now with production facilities large enough to have a combined max output of 100 missiles per day and I would have also planed for and carried out an overnight attack against the UAE with 10,000 Cruise Missiles on the 1st day (under 250lb warheads) lasting no more than a few hours and targeting UAE Military, Ports, Oil and Gas industry & communications then I would have demanded $100 Billion USD to be paid as restitution for their attempts to meddle in Iran's economy, the arrest of certain individuals in the UAE & transfer of their assets to Iran and if they didn't capitulate within 6 hours I would have fired 1000 cruise missiles a day until they did but this time I would target UAE infrastructure, government, depots, water supplies, financial institutions,.... and if they still didn't capitulate by day 3 I would have targeted their Cities with Ballistic Missiles....

The UAE has gone out of it's way to turn it's self into a target and I believe sooner or later Iran will need to teach them a lesson that they won't soon forget and Iran needs to make a good example of them so their friends in Saudi Arabia truly realize what could happen if they keep messing around with a lions tail!

Finally a man with some balls to tackle these khaliji arabs....lol...you should run for president...had enough of pussy Rohani.
p.s. I bet after receiving the first batch of CMs they be all running towards SA. Remember kuwaits entire army fled seeing the Iraqis.

 

[Mithridates]

Of course depending on the altitude of your Helo's, day vs night operations, the type, size & location of your target,... your line of sight fire and forget capability is not going to be any more than ~15km in the best of conditions but cobra's have co-pilots that can pilot a missile using a secure datalink and they can reach a targeted area at twice the speed of what it would take for their Helo to to get to it's targeted location with enough fuel (on the missile) to search for a target and lock on using the missiles own optics plus the sensor data going back to your helo will increase your situational awareness that will further help increase the survivability of our Helo's in high threat areas

At least in my opinion this is the type of unconventional approach Iran needs to think about adding. Especially in the Artesh Iran needs to move away from normal standards and be far more innovative using the tech we have accessible to us.

Now a bit off topic I have to say if it was up to me and if I had any control over budgeting and command I would have started a production line of 5 different classes of low cost land attack cruise missile by now with production facilities large enough to have a combined max output of 100 missiles per day and I would have also planed for and carried out an overnight attack against the UAE with 10,000 Cruise Missiles on the 1st day (under 250lb warheads) lasting no more than a few hours and targeting UAE Military, Ports, Oil and Gas industry & communications then I would have demanded $100 Billion USD to be paid as restitution for their attempts to meddle in Iran's economy, the arrest of certain individuals in the UAE & transfer of their assets to Iran and if they didn't capitulate within 6 hours I would have fired 1000 cruise missiles a day until they did but this time I would target UAE infrastructure, government, depots, water supplies, financial institutions,.... and if they still didn't capitulate by day 3 I would have targeted their Cities with Ballistic Missiles....

The UAE has gone out of it's way to turn it's self into a target and I believe sooner or later Iran will need to teach them a lesson that they won't soon forget and Iran needs to make a good example of them so their friends in Saudi Arabia truly realize what could happen if they keep messing around with a lions tail!

actually i had the same idea with stealthy cruise missiles, i'm wondering why we are not building them?? the latest variant of tomahawk has an RCS of 0.1 sqm it means a patriot system can detect it from 60 km, now imagine if we make something like US JASSM or turkish SOM with an RCS of 0.01 sqm and 900 km/h speed. the patriot system won't see it until it reaches their 35 km. and to increase the damage further we can fly half an squadron of our su-24 loaded with kh-58 anti radiation missiles so even if they turn on their patriots we destroy their air defences in the disguise of cruise missiles swarm.

 

[TheImmortal]

SCUDs are quite possibly the easiest BMs to intercept and even Patriot missile systems have high success against them as demonstrated by Persian Gulf War I. Furthermore, Houthi’s routinely launching BMs into SA during the war and the success rate of interception by SA has been satisfactory. That plus their poor accuracy makes surviving easy.

DF’s are more robust and pose a challenge.

Nonetheless, I think Bavar should be able to handle SCUDs and DFs.

 

[VEVAK]

@VEVAK

If we create degrees of "tactical", then the Cobra fleet is at a small degree. It means it is useful for immediate battlefield operation, high pace and short ranges.
The concept you lay out was done by the Israelis in the 80's, when there was no UAV revolution.

Any operation that requires the recon- and planning efforts to target something 10km+ away is today best performed by S-191 like UAV assets. Since data-links are always fragile to EW, even lock-on after launch weapons may not be robust enough against advanced adversaries. In such situations, operations of S-191 or long range man-in-the-loop AGMs may not be possible and only a Cobras with Kornets or LOBL Sadids are a effective and efficient option.
Hence I would not try to get too long-ranged with the helicopter fleet, it may be too fragile (data-link) or better options are available (S-191).

As for UAE... sadly an almost ally, North Korea, sold them SCUDs. Irans oil and gas industry can be heavily hit by them.
As for cruise missiles let me say this: I would wish cruise missiles like their Storm shadows would have been sold to them instead of ballistic missiles. Hence the decision for Iran to go for ballistic missiles instead of cruise missiles was and is the right one.
Those SCUDs cause heavy problems for Iran, S-300 like assets are necessary to counter them. S-171/S-191 like assets are needed to neutralize them before launch. A great headache CM's would not have caused, getting intercepted by 3rd Khordad like assets to 95%. Neutralizing the UAE SCUD threat is only possible to maybe 80% and requires much more capable assets.
This is the huge benefit even primitive BMs offer against area targets such as oil refineries and way Iran went for it instead of CMs.
We have the same headache with Saudi DF-21 and -3, just that for those even higher counter assets are necessary.
UAE basically purchased a insurance from North Korea with those SCUDs. It will be eventually countered by Iran but huge effort is necessary.

Building a CM turbofan is quite expensive. Irans BM path has given it sufficient precision for pin-pint attacks today. The only benefit that a CM offers Iran today is forcing enemies to invest in a different (to ABM) counter-technology and the variable attack-path to avoid restricted airspaces for political reasons or to alter the attack vector.

In total the UAE is in a proxy situation. Attacking them is like attacking Saudi Arabia. At the moment both of them can cause too much damage but Iran is working towards neutralizing those capabilities.

The reason I would have used Low cost cruise missiles against UAE is not because I think LaCM are better than BM but because
1. I truly believe that if produced properly and in sufficient numbers Iran could produce low cost versions for up to 700km range at a fraction of the cost of BM and at a fraction of what it would cost to store, fuel, transport & launch them compared to BM
2. UAE is not worth wasting large number of our BM stockpile on.

Clearly a few Fateh and Zolfagars missiles would have to be used for specific targets and to make a point but for most of the barrage I would use LOW COST CM.

And for a target like the UAE Turbofan would be unnecessary (Unless we can build a low cost one powered by a separate low cost BLDC Fan....) and that why I would keep payloads ~100-250lb so a lower cost turbojet would be sufficient.

I would also make it clear to the UAE that if they respond we will switch to BM and quickly widen the type of targets at a much faster pace

As for UAE SCUDS those missile will take time to setup and launch and we would have to have enough UCAV's, UAV's & CM deployed to go after them before they are launched and if the UAE hits any targets with them we will have to make them pay in $$$

 

[PeeD]

@VEVAK

Ok so you think a Hoveyzieh-like turbojet LACM would be cheaper then a Zolfaghar, Qiam or Dezful BM and thats why they should be used for that operation.
I'm not so sure about that.

If those BM's use GPS for point strikes, then CMs with much more robust TERCOM guidance would make sense. But if their pin-point level guidance is not dependent on GPS-like systems, you basically force the enemy to pay for countering systems at least at Patriot level.
Saudi Arabia can protect a oil facility with a single Crotale battery against a CM attack, but they need at least a Patriot even against unguided Zelzal-2. Hence the choice of BMs requires a costly to counter by the enemy.

Therefore the strategy to create mach-3+ targets (BMs) for the enemy may pay off an extra cost.
Certainly you are aware that Iran would first try to cripple their ABM systems by a BM DEAD campaign. Once it is degraded, a cost efficient UCAV would follow. So you use high performance high velocity weapons to degrade their defense and once it is below a certain level you start to use cost efficient weapons (even more efficient than IRIAF fighters...).

In the mix of high performance land attack weapons systems, CMs should make just 10% of the mix with 90% being BMs.

As for SCUDs: It is easier said than done to find and destroy them before launch. This requires huge sensor and strike capabilities. The entire allied force in 1991 was not able to do that effectively against Iraqi SCUDs.
Iran will try to get there with its UAV program, more so to counter Saudi Arabian BM threats. But a robust capability is still away.

The whole Bavar-373, its predecessors and its future variants were/are primary made to counter enemy BMs.

SCUDs are quite possibly the easiest BMs to intercept and even Patriot missile systems have high success against them as demonstrated by Persian Gulf War I. Furthermore, Houthi’s routinely launching BMs into SA during the war and the success rate of interception by SA has been satisfactory. That plus their poor accuracy makes surviving easy.

DF’s are more robust and pose a challenge.

Nonetheless, I think Bavar should be able to handle SCUDs and DFs.

It's never easy and Patriots able to do that are extremely expensive and complex systems. That 1950's vintage system effectively overcame the quite new Patriot in 1991. This just tells us what kind of challenge that is.
Houthi Qiam variants already defeated 2000's updated PAC-3 Patriots, forcing them to launch 6-9 interceptors against that single Qiam (with each single interceptor being significantly more expansive than a Qiam...).
Hence even if you have a effective ABM system, you may soon loose on the economic, quantity side...

Bavar is a huge endeavor and a key technological system. Will it be sufficiency cost efficient to counter enemy BMs? Can sufficient numbers be acquired to protect key areas and counter potential numbers of enemy BMs?
A SCUD system is no F-16 with Storm shadow. You can't cripple the airbase and runway to stop its useage.

Iran would try to neutralize SCUD related targets in the first seconds and use its drones to detect and destroy them at later stage. But even 10 SCUDs launched against the Bandar Abbas oil refinery and not intercepted by B-373 would create a massive loss of money.

The Patriot can't effectively handle the DF-21 even right now. So B-373 to countering them effectively may give you a feeling of what huge technological task this represents.
The DF-21 and Jericho threat is a huge issue for Iran. The IRGC made huge efforts in the 2000's to protect Tehran against those threats. A friction of that effort was done to counter CMs, by creating just 4 automated ZSU-23-2 in front of important objects...
Imagine how difficult it is to create a ABM system which can launch 2 interceptors against a DF-21 for a 80%+ combined PK while still being significantly less expensive than that DF-21. These are the kind of goals such systems must achieve.

 

[Sineva]

actually i had the same idea with stealthy cruise missiles, i'm wondering why we are not building them?? the latest variant of tomahawk has an RCS of 0.1 sqm it means a patriot system can detect it from 60 km, now imagine if we make something like US JASSM or turkish SOM with an RCS of 0.01 sqm and 900 km/h speed. the patriot system won't see it until it reaches their 35 km. and to increase the damage further we can fly half an squadron of our su-24 loaded with kh-58 anti radiation missiles so even if they turn on their patriots we destroy their air defences in the disguise of cruise missiles swarm.

Agreed,the first step in this should be the eventual redesign of the soumar/hoveyzeh cruise missile to incorporate a "beluga" syle chined nose along with the relocation of the engine into the airframe with a flush recessed air intake.It would be possible just to incorporate a chined nose and radar inlet blocker into the current soumar/hoveyzeh design as a first step.

You can see the chined "beluga" nose and flush mounted recessed intake in the latest tomahawk variant.
The advantage of this sort of improvements is that they potentially could be retrofitted to irans antiship cruise missile force as well.

Ultimately tho iran will need to go for a more modern lo observable type of airframe design,at least for its long range land attack cruise missiles and their multi service variants.These will probably want to look something like the agm-129,agm-158,taurus kepd 350,storm shadow or at least incorporate many of their features.

 

[AmirPatriot]

@VEVAK

If we create degrees of "tactical", then the Cobra fleet is at a small degree. It means it is useful for immediate battlefield operation, high pace and short ranges.
The concept you lay out was done by the Israelis in the 80's, when there was no UAV revolution.

Any operation that requires the recon- and planning efforts to target something 10km+ away is today best performed by S-191 like UAV assets. Since data-links are always fragile to EW, even lock-on after launch weapons may not be robust enough against advanced adversaries. In such situations, operations of S-191 or long range man-in-the-loop AGMs may not be possible and only a Cobras with Kornets or LOBL Sadids are a effective and efficient option.
Hence I would not try to get too long-ranged with the helicopter fleet, it may be too fragile (data-link) or better options are available (S-191).

As for UAE... sadly an almost ally, North Korea, sold them SCUDs. Irans oil and gas industry can be heavily hit by them.
As for cruise missiles let me say this: I would wish cruise missiles like their Storm shadows would have been sold to them instead of ballistic missiles. Hence the decision for Iran to go for ballistic missiles instead of cruise missiles was and is the right one.
Those SCUDs cause heavy problems for Iran, S-300 like assets are necessary to counter them. S-171/S-191 like assets are needed to neutralize them before launch. A great headache CM's would not have caused, getting intercepted by 3rd Khordad like assets to 95%. Neutralizing the UAE SCUD threat is only possible to maybe 80% and requires much more capable assets.
This is the huge benefit even primitive BMs offer against area targets such as oil refineries and way Iran went for it instead of CMs.
We have the same headache with Saudi DF-21 and -3, just that for those even higher counter assets are necessary.
UAE basically purchased a insurance from North Korea with those SCUDs. It will be eventually countered by Iran but huge effort is necessary.

Building a CM turbofan is quite expensive. Irans BM path has given it sufficient precision for pin-pint attacks today. The only benefit that a CM offers Iran today is forcing enemies to invest in a different (to ABM) counter-technology and the variable attack-path to avoid restricted airspaces for political reasons or to alter the attack vector.

In total the UAE is in a proxy situation. Attacking them is like attacking Saudi Arabia. At the moment both of them can cause too much damage but Iran is working towards neutralizing those capabilities.

Luckily the UAE can't target our main oil facilities in Khuzestan or Kharg island. You mentioned Bandar Abbas - for sure the refinery there is of huge importance, but I would think they would be focusing more on the naval base, which is harder to hit with Scuds. But you're right that we have to protect Bandar Abbas better. Presently it lacks an S-300 battery.

Unfortunately it seems to me that Iran hasn't put as much importance as it needs to on our oil facilities - Khuzestan has no high-level air defences. As far as I can see, it's just a single Hawk battery.

@VEVAK

Ok so you think a Hoveyzieh-like turbojet LACM would be cheaper then a Zolfaghar, Qiam or Dezful BM and thats why they should be used for that operation.
I'm not so sure about that.

If those BM's use GPS for point strikes, then CMs with much more robust TERCOM guidance would make sense. But if their pin-point level guidance is not dependent on GPS-like systems, you basically force the enemy to pay for countering systems at least at Patriot level.
Saudi Arabia can protect a oil facility with a single Crotale battery against a CM attack, but they need at least a Patriot even against unguided Zelzal-2. Hence the choice of BMs requires a costly to counter by the enemy.

Therefore the strategy to create mach-3+ targets (BMs) for the enemy may pay off an extra cost.
Certainly you are aware that Iran would first try to cripple their ABM systems by a BM DEAD campaign. Once it is degraded, a cost efficient UCAV would follow. So you use high performance high velocity weapons to degrade their defense and once it is below a certain level you start to use cost efficient weapons (even more efficient than IRIAF fighters...).

In the mix of high performance land attack weapons systems, CMs should make just 10% of the mix with 90% being BMs.

As for SCUDs: It is easier said than done to find and destroy them before launch. This requires huge sensor and strike capabilities. The entire allied force in 1991 was not able to do that effectively against Iraqi SCUDs.
Iran will try to get there with its UAV program, more so to counter Saudi Arabian BM threats. But a robust capability is still away.

The whole Bavar-373, its predecessors and its future variants were/are primary made to counter enemy BMs.



It's never easy and Patriots able to do that are extremely expensive and complex systems. That 1950's vintage system effectively overcame the quite new Patriot in 1991. This just tells us what kind of challenge that is.
Houthi Qiam variants already defeated 2000's updated PAC-3 Patriots, forcing them to launch 6-9 interceptors against that single Qiam (with each single interceptor being significantly more expansive than a Qiam...).
Hence even if you have a effective ABM system, you may soon loose on the economic, quantity side...

Bavar is a huge endeavor and a key technological system. Will it be sufficiency cost efficient to counter enemy BMs? Can sufficient numbers be acquired to protect key areas and counter potential numbers of enemy BMs?
A SCUD system is no F-16 with Storm shadow. You can't cripple the airbase and runway to stop its useage.

Iran would try to neutralize SCUD related targets in the first seconds and use its drones to detect and destroy them at later stage. But even 10 SCUDs launched against the Bandar Abbas oil refinery and not intercepted by B-373 would create a massive loss of money.

The Patriot can't effectively handle the DF-21 even right now. So B-373 to countering them effectively may give you a feeling of what huge technological task this represents.
The DF-21 and Jericho threat is a huge issue for Iran. The IRGC made huge efforts in the 2000's to protect Tehran against those threats. A friction of that effort was done to counter CMs, by creating just 4 automated ZSU-23-2 in front of important objects...
Imagine how difficult it is to create a ABM system which can launch 2 interceptors against a DF-21 for a 80%+ combined PK while still being significantly less expensive than that DF-21. These are the kind of goals such systems must achieve.

Unfortunately we are in a situation where trying to win by forcing the enemy to *pay for* high-level systems is futile. The Saudis have a bottomless pit of oil money that they are very willing to spend on everything from Patriots (both PAC-2 and PAC-3) up to the THAAD. We have to win with technology, (beating their countermeasures) and numbers (overwhelming their countermeasures). This is why a short, sharp war favours Iran - in a war of attrition, the Saudis could be resupplied by the US much the same way Saddam was resupplied.

I would say you shoudn't dismiss LACMs so easily. While the UAE has some Pantsirs, the best the Saudis have is a very limited number of Crotales, with not enough capability and nowhere near enough numbers to cover all their strategic sites. Of course, they could strength this in future, but you should note that even advanced systems like the Pantsir can be thwarted. We need a mix to force them to stretch their defences thin. Probably more than just 10%, considering that LACMs are quite cheap and can be used in numbers.

As for the Saudi and Israeli MRBMs - we can't do much against the Jerichos... only 1 needs to get through. But for the Saudis, we definitely need to invest in S-300VM in the future.

 

[Mithridates]

guys what if we make a mach 5 cruise missile out of fakour missile??

 

[aryobarzan]

you guys are using too much brain power on what these savages can do....Hit their water desalination plants in the first few hours and they be all running around with empty water tanks in their white skirts...
On the serious side..I saw interview of an Arab TV channel with a saudi military officer and he said it himself ..."If Iranians destroy our water desalination plants the conflict is over"..so I leave it there.

 

[PeeD]

Luckily the UAE can't target our main oil facilities in Khuzestan or Kharg island. You mentioned Bandar Abbas - for sure the refinery there is of huge importance, but I would think they would be focusing more on the naval base, which is harder to hit with Scuds. But you're right that we have to protect Bandar Abbas better. Presently it lacks an S-300 battery.

In a counter value scenario you basically hold enemy high value targets at risk. NK made SCUDs of UAE hold Persian gulf star refinery at risk. It is a concentrated area target in which almost any hit of SCUD-B precision would cause massive financial and infrastructural loss. Hence don't expect UAE to use their limited amount on a naval base hoping to hit something.

Unfortunately it seems to me that Iran hasn't put as much importance as it needs to on our oil facilities - Khuzestan has no high-level air defences. As far as I can see, it's just a single Hawk battery.

Don't expect to find many future static SAM sites except for a system like B-373. One can imagine the presence of up to date mobile system in this high risk border regions, most importantly the 3rd Khordad.

Unfortunately we are in a situation where trying to win by forcing the enemy to *pay for* high-level systems is futile. The Saudis have a bottomless pit of oil money that they are very willing to spend on everything from Patriots (both PAC-2 and PAC-3) up to the THAAD. We have to win with technology, (beating their countermeasures) and numbers (overwhelming their countermeasures). This is why a short, sharp war favours Iran - in a war of attrition, the Saudis could be resupplied by the US much the same way Saddam was resupplied.

Correct, that's why I just want those 10% CMs to stretch their resources. Any pressure as small as it may be adds to the overall.

We need a mix to force them to stretch their defences thin. Probably more than just 10%, considering that LACMs are quite cheap and can be used in numbers.

I'm confident that the price of the Fateh family is quite low. If I would have to select between a Toloue turbojet Hoveyzieh and a Zolfaghar, I would certainly take the Zolfaghar.
The point is that overall system quality control for a 700km range CM is still high (= high costs), a different league than for the Noor/Ghadir AshM. I doubt that a Hoveyzieh could be produced much cheaper than a Zolfaghar.

I'm certainly no friend of CMs in days of precission strike BMs as explained above. They still play a important role due to the INF treaty. Otherwise Russians and Americans would have gone for BMs.

@Mithridates

Too high dynamic pressure and propulsion is not sustained.

 

[Mithridates]

Too high dynamic pressure and propulsion is not sustained.

but if we manage to do so that would be a hell of a weapon. can't we use solid metals in the nose of missile and enlarge it to overcome pressure strikes and instability?? i'm sure we can modify the fakour flight profile and make a deadly cruise missile of it just matter of several years of R&D or even less. to me it worth it to try.