Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

[Philosopher]

Why do you think so? I think the explosive that is needed for shooting the projectile far must have a lot of energy in it and energy is always expensive. Then there's the issue of its physical characteristics versus a missile. I mean things like speed, impact on the target, etc.
I think the main issue here is to study the feasibility of this economic wise.

I can't give a figure with regards to the cost of the propellant, that information has not been made openly available (as far as I can see). But I cannot imagine it would be anywhere near enough to push the long term cost of these systems to the level of missiles. I am considering these long range cannon as a low tier system for Iran so it can economically do the jobs that we would normally perhaps use the more expensive missile alternative. But obviously all this is hypothetical.

 

[Mithridates]

who needs accuracy?? it's not a replacement for ballistic missiles but older artillery pieces. even with a CEP of 2 km... it worth it.

 

[Philosopher]

Well, there are other options like GLONASS and BeiDou.
If we can build a canon like this in a cost effective way, we might even be able to launch satellites into the LEO more often. If we launch like 20 satellites into the LEO orbit, soon we will have a satellite positioning system of our own.

Agreed, but generally I am very reluctant with the idea of relying on satellite navigation during war. It's still something I'd like to see employed, but as far as relying on it? No.

You think this is a case where the initial buy in cost is somewhat high and any other costs after are retrospectively menial?

100%. Once you purchased the actual cannons, then I don't see the ongoing cost of the shells+propellant being uneconomical. And of course as you mass produce, cost goes even lower. This is not even considering the relative ease at which Iran could mass produce 1000's of these. Guidance system will be the major headache, but even that can be done eventually.

 

[Blue In Green]

Agreed, but generally I am very reluctant with the idea of relying on satellite navigation during war. It's still something I'd like to see employed, but as far as relying on it? No.



100%. Once you purchased the actual cannons, then I don't see the ongoing cost of the shells+propellant being uneconomical. And of course as you mass produce, cost goes even lower. This is not even considering the relative ease at which Iran could mass produce 1000's of these. Guidance system will be the major headache, but even that can be done eventually.

I'm down with that, sounds like a really good idea honestly.

 

[QWECXZ]

I can't give a figure with regards to the cost of the propellant, that information has not been made openly available (as far as I can see). But I cannot imagine it would be anywhere near enough to push the long term cost of these systems to the level of missiles. I am considering these long range cannon as a low tier system for Iran so it can economically do the jobs that we would normally perhaps use the more expensive missile alternative. But obviously all this is hypothetical.

A more rational option is that the projectile should have two phases: it is first launched by a cannon, it travels a significant distance and then in its final phase its small thruster activates.

Something like the US Excalibur. But boosted by a small cost-effective thruster to increase its range.

 

[Philosopher]

who needs accuracy?? it's not a replacement for ballistic missiles but older artillery pieces. even with a CEP of 2 km... it worth it.

If you can create a system like this with a low CEP, this will give you a serious military weapon. Projectiles with very high CEPs are more of a psychological ("terror)" weapon than a true military one. The moment you can pinpoint strike 100's/1000's of KM away with even such shells, this is a capability that will give sleepless nights to our adversaries.

A more rational option is that the projectile should have two phases: it is first launched by a cannon, it travels a significant distance and then in its final phase its small thruster activates. If it's supposed to be guided, it has to have a thruster, otherwise how can it change its course?

I think this is the sort of ingenuity we can expect from IRGC.

Ramjet shells are being developed by the USA too:

"Nammo claims its ramjet howitzer shell will reach a distance of 60 miles, compared to 15 miles for standard howitzer shells."


https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a29490080/ramjet-engine-missiles/

Edit: It is 60 miles not 400km.

 

[QWECXZ]

If you can create a system like this with a low CEP, this will give you a serious military weapon. Projectiles with very high CEPs are more of a psychological ("terror)" weapon than a true military one. The moment you can pinpoint strike 100's/1000's of KM away with even such shells, this is a capability that will give sleepless nights to our adversaries.

I think this is the sort of ingenuity we can expect from IRGC. Ramjet shells are being developed by the USA too with ranges being talked about of around 400km:

"Existing rocket motor-powered ESSMs have a range of 50 kilometers (31 miles). With a ramjet engine, the company believes an upgraded ESSM would have a range of over 400 kilometers (248 miles)."


https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a29490080/ramjet-engine-missiles/

Yeah. I'm down for it. Even if our cannon takes care of only half of the path, it can be cost-effective and very reasonable to build.

 

[Philosopher]

Yeah. I'm down for it. Even if our cannon takes care of only half of the path, it can be cost-effective and very reasonable to build.

Many new technologies are on their way in the missile/rocket/artillery world. Not only are they potent, but seemingly economical too. I am hoping the IRGC is keeping a very close eye on these novel developments and will not fall too behind or behind at all.

 

[PeeD]

How would the prices for such long-ranged shells compare against traditional Iranian precision guided ballistic-missiles?

Of course it would be magnitudes cheaper if no novel 350g rated guidance system is used.
Irans missile force is designed to be cost effective but it is still a high priority target system. Foremost used to suppress operation of enemy airpower, you cant use BMs cost effectively at lower tactical levels. The idea is: once enemy airpower is suppressed even vulnerable drones and CMs can kill the tactical targets freely.

So would these be used to help identify TEL launch locations by firing a volley, then satellites pick up on the TELs heat-signature respectively leading to the shells (which are still in flight) being up-dated with information on the TELs current position then just heading there?

I'm not aware of guidance systems that survive 350 g.
Basically of U.S early warning sats pick up heat signature of a missile launch, they immediately tell the battery which shoots a salvo to that location hoping to kill the TEL fast enough.

In total the argument in Irans case to stay with missiles is the accuracy: To suppress airbase operations you need to hit runways etc. , Irans BMs do that. A cannon may need many shells to achieve that.
Sure it creates terror at the base and can ultimately annihilate it if enough time and shells are spend but missiles hit all critical parts of the airbase immediately and open the gates for cost effective lower-end target weapons such as drones.
Should a guided round be possible, things would change in favor for the cannon.
Should cluster warheads be used, things may also change in favor for the cannon.
That would be the brute force approach.

 

[Mithridates]

actually you can't put any guidance in the projectile other than possibly a simple radar. project HARP projectile was able to reach it's top speed of 2000 m/s after travelling 37 meter of it's barrel length. calculate the acceleration. after that divide the number to 10 so you can compare it with ordinary gravity...
do not do it it's almost 100000 m/s^2=10000 g lol it means your small 2 grams guidance IC will weight 20 kg. it will not survive.

 

[Blue In Green]

Of course it would be magnitudes cheaper if no novel 350g rated guidance system is used.
Irans missile force is designed to be cost effective but it is still a high priority target system. Foremost used to suppress operation of enemy airpower, you cant use BMs cost effectively at lower tactical levels. The idea is: once enemy airpower is suppressed even vulnerable drones and CMs can kill the tactical targets freely.



I'm not aware of guidance systems that survive 350 g.
Basically of U.S early warning sats pick up heat signature of a missile launch, they immediately tell the battery which shoots a salvo to that location hoping to kill the TEL fast enough.

In total the argument in Irans case to stay with missiles is the accuracy: To suppress airbase operations you need to hit runways etc. , Irans BMs do that. A cannon may need many shells to achieve that.
Sure it creates terror at the base and can ultimately annihilate it if enough time and shells are spend but missiles hit all critical parts of the airbase immediately and open the gates for cost effective lower-end target weapons such as drones.
Should a guided round be possible, things would change in favor for the cannon.
Should cluster warheads be used, things may also change in favor for the cannon.
That would be the brute force approach.

Given that then, Iran wouldn't really need to create a super-precise guided shell. Just a long-ranged cannon (built in significant numbers) that can fire munitions with a CEP small enough to create widespread damage via large cluster warheads or huge volleys of cannon fire.

It sounds worth it to be honest, another weapons system that would be able to deliver heavy amounts of firepower at extremely long-ranges (for an artillery cannon) and be used against lower level tactical threats that are larger in size (Barracks, airbases, fuel-depots, sea-ports).

 

[QWECXZ]

Something like Krasnopol with an extended range of 300 kilometers can be of high tactical value against any neighboring country or US asset in the region.

So, we basically have to increase the range 10 times. lol

 

[PeeD]

Other than there is no proof such a compact system is feasible, I guess Irans reasoning would be "shell cant be guided due to high g loads, so forget about it for now"

It sounds attractive as a brute force terror weapon, yes. But maybe capturing an airbase is a more attractive objective than annihilating it WWI style.

 

[TheImmortal]

Cannons are stupid WW2 technology.

The Nazi’s built massive cannon inside the ground and the Allies managed to still locate it without satellites and destroy it in the era of fly over inaccurate dummy bombs.

So massive long range distance cannons are stupid. Didn’t work in 1945 wouldn’t work in 2020.

What Iran needs is cheap supersonic high altitude skipping drones that can drop stand off payloads.

If a cost effective engine can be built (either disposable one time use engines or multi use), the drones would overwhelm any air defense system as they would launch and stay in upper atmosphere much like Blackbird and modern HGV safely out of range of most ABMs.

It would then “dip down” to release its stand off payload and then dip up into the upper atmosphere to escape ABMs. The payload would strike the target at a very high rate speed making it difficult to intercept.

Now take that drone and release it in a swarm of 3 or 6 drones. Even if they can only release one 750lb internal bay payload....6 drones would do the work of up to 5 BMs. Imagine the cost savings and survivability factor.

That is how you make a future Iranian bomber force.

 

[Blue In Green]

Cannons are stupid WW2 technology.

The Nazi’s built massive cannon inside the ground and the Allies managed to still locate it without satellites and destroy it in the era of fly over inaccurate dummy bombs.

So massive long range distance cannons are stupid. Didn’t work in 1945 wouldn’t work in 2020.

What Iran needs is cheap supersonic high altitude skipping drones that can drop stand off payloads.

If a cost effective engine can be built (either disposable one time use engines or multi use), the drones would overwhelm any air defense system as they would launch and stay in upper atmosphere much like Blackbird and modern HGV safely out of range of most ABMs.

It would then “dip down” to release its stand off payload and then dip up into the upper atmosphere to escape ABMs. The payload would strike the target at a very high rate speed making it difficult to intercept.

Now take that drone and release it in a swarm of 3 or 6 drones. Even if they can only release one 750lb internal bay payload....6 drones would do the work of up to 5 BMs. Imagine the cost savings and survivability factor.

That is how you make a future Iranian bomber force.

Hell, why not both man lol.