Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

[PeeD]

The new North Korean MRBM/SLBM is impressive as it combines Tochka missile design with advanced booster technology. The North Koreans copied the Tochka but this was as 120km, at best 160km range TBM, they simply jumped to a 1,5m diameter booster without steps like Zelzal/Fateh. So how did they get such advanced booster technology?

However they might got it: The product is a much shorter solid fuel missile than the Sejil but with similar range/payload performance. Hands down the Bukkeukseong-2 is better at miniaturization.

The Sejil missile technology is more similar to the Chinese approach in terms of TVC system and subsystems like the boost termination system. Overall one would think that the Iranian missile design is more advanced than a Tochka based design. Iran had also access to the Tochka design via Syria before the Sejil was designed. Hence I would be very surprised if the Khorramshahr would be a Bukkeukseong based system or vice versa.

The Sejil, in the IRGC-ASF force structure, has a role of a rapid response missile, fired until the liquids are ready. The massive numbers of Iranian missiles (conventional use), plus the dry climate and tunnel basing would rise the question why a more costly containerized missile would be used? For cold launch capability to have less prepared launching ground and less wear of the TEL? As tech. demonstrator for a very high thrust/hot ICBM class missile? Because it looks more fancy?

This all has not been the rather sober Iranian design principles. If the Khorrmshahr is a solid fueled containerized, cold launch missile system then I highly doubt that it's a miniaturized Sejil class missile in the form of the Bukkeukseong. Such a system would only make sense from Iranian design perspective, if a high thrust missile is employed that would otherwise damage the TEL and require a prepared launching ground. Why such a high thrust missile if Irans ranges are restricted to 2000-2500km? Because it would have a very high weight payload, a 3 tonne submunition warhead or even a MRV/MIRV. This benefit would justify a containerized, cold launch missile system and easily bring back the investment because it would do the job of 3 Shahab-3s.
Of course this all would change and easily justify a containerized, cold launch missile system if a limited number of nuclear warheads were to be delivered... there the small benefits would be worth it, as cost plays no role.

 

[yavar]

 

[arashkamangir]

yup, I was trying to find this footage earlier in your channel but couldn't. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[Draco.IMF]

this missile was seen firstly in a video from 2013, nearly 4 years ago.
dont know why Iran did not unveil it yet....enough time passed...

 

[yavar]

dont know why Iran did not unveil it yet....enough time passed...

easy look at warhead of the North Korean missile .
this missile can not be used for conventional warhead or even chemical warhead .
so if such thing was unveiled then question will come up ............

 

[AmirPatriot]

Hands down the Bukkeukseong-2 is better at miniaturization.

Possibly, but it is worth mentioning that the 18 metre tall Sejjil 2 has a 1.25 metre diameter, but the Bukkeukseong-2 (that name...) has an estimated 1.5 metre diameter and 14 metre high. So their sizes are similar.

 

[PeeD]

@AmirPatriot

The technical challenge with solid fuel boosters is to create larger diameters with a single nozzle that don't get too heavy. A short thick missile is always better than a long thin one, footprint and size wise.

Let just call it the NK missile. Its should be ~10m long instead of 18m by just being 25cm thicker (1.25m vs. 1,50m diameter). For overall missile miniaturization other factors play a role too, but booster diameter is the driving parameter.

 

[AmirPatriot]

@AmirPatriot

The technical challenge with solid fuel boosters is to create larger diameters with a single nozzle that don't get too heavy. A short thick missile is always better than a long thin one, footprint and size wise.

Let just call it the NK missile. Its should be ~10m long instead of 18m by just being 25cm thicker (1.25m vs. 1,50m diameter). For overall missile miniaturization other factors play a role too, but booster diameter is the driving parameter.

I hear the reason why Iran may have made the Sejjil missile in this diameter similar to the Shahab-3 and it's derivatives is to retain comparability with the TELs of the liquid fuelled missiles.

 

[SOHEIL]

 

[VEVAK]

.....

I have a technical questions!

If up to and even over 35km altitude you can still use a platforms wings to handle the vast majority of the lift why not build a platform with large enough wings that can handle the lift using a single Safir engine that could launch an SLV based on the Sejil-2 at an altitude of 30km at ~Mach 2? Imagine a 30 meter long delta wing aircraft launched from a launcher at a 20-30 degree angle (rather than vertically) with a single Safir engine & fuel for the 1st 10 meters & a Sejil-2 in the top 20 meters that could be ejected out of a canister out of the nose at an altitude of 30km & the wing & body get parachuted down to be reused (If possible)

Once U hit ~Mach 3 gravity would be less than half of what it would be on the ground at that altitude & that should allow a platform like the sejil-2 to inject a sat (+1,500lb) into space equipped with engines & thrusters or a separate post boost orbital vehicle that can gradually increase your orbit?

I wanna know why NOT rely on wings to handle most of the lift rather than thrust for the 1st 25-35km (Altitude)?

 

[PeeD]

What defines the performance of a BM or SLV is the velocity it can reach at the end of the boost phase. A launch point at 35km would of course be a benefit but the most efficient way is to build a ground launched SLV which reach the necessary orbital speed to inset its payload. The acceleration phase to reach orbital speeds can start from sea level or at 35km. At 35km you have some benefits of less drag and a 35km higher orbit, where the less drag is probably the biggest benefit for acceleration performance. Concepts like the Pegasus had some benefits, but a heavy 100ton+ weight SLV that cant be launched via a aircraft (too fragile and no suitable aircraft), deliver a high weight payload of several satellites. This capability of a heavy SLV makes light Safir-1 like SLVs and Pegasus like SLV inefficient.
Iran needs 500kg imaging spy satellites in 400km LEOs and communication/position satellites in GEO, these are the current practical needs. A heavy ground launched SLV.

 

[arashkamangir]

What defines the performance of a BM or SLV is the velocity it can reach at the end of the boost phase. A launch point at 35km would of course be a benefit but the most efficient way is to build a ground launched SLV which reach the necessary orbital speed to inset its payload. The acceleration phase to reach orbital speeds can start from sea level or at 35km. At 35km you have some benefits of less drag and a 35km higher orbit, where the less drag is probably the biggest benefit for acceleration performance. Concepts like the Pegasus had some benefits, but a heavy 100ton+ weight SLV that cant be launched via a aircraft (too fragile and no suitable aircraft), deliver a high weight payload of several satellites. This capability of a heavy SLV makes light Safir-1 like SLVs and Pegasus like SLV inefficient.
Iran needs 500kg imaging spy satellites in 400km LEOs and communication/position satellites in GEO, these are the current practical needs. A heavy ground launched SLV.

@PeeD

As part of a CubeSat competition I came across lots of low cost and effective remote sensing applications. Iran should look into CubeSats (3U - 6U @ 4kg-8Kg). Active areas of rote sensing in this area are SAR (via constellation of CubeSats) as well as high resolution imaging via image sensor arrays and super resolution techniques. A while ago, I calculated you need about 200 mpx to achieve 10 m resolution at 400 km orbit) this is well doable using array of small radiation hardenes image sensors and Super Resolution. It will also fit within the 6u CubeSats form factor.

 

[VEVAK]

What defines the performance of a BM or SLV is the velocity it can reach at the end of the boost phase. A launch point at 35km would of course be a benefit but the most efficient way is to build a ground launched SLV which reach the necessary orbital speed to inset its payload. The acceleration phase to reach orbital speeds can start from sea level or at 35km. At 35km you have some benefits of less drag and a 35km higher orbit, where the less drag is probably the biggest benefit for acceleration performance. Concepts like the Pegasus had some benefits, but a heavy 100ton+ weight SLV that cant be launched via a aircraft (too fragile and no suitable aircraft), deliver a high weight payload of several satellites. This capability of a heavy SLV makes light Safir-1 like SLVs and Pegasus like SLV inefficient.
Iran needs 500kg imaging spy satellites in 400km LEOs and communication/position satellites in GEO, these are the current practical needs. A heavy ground launched SLV.

Pegasus is about 20 tons (Same as Sejil-2) and can put a 1000lb sat in LEO 400km & gets launched at 12 km

But I am talking about a ground launch vehicle that uses the Safir Engine but instead of a vertically launched missile design you put delta wing design on it for greater payload for the 1st stage & instead of being launched vertically you launch it at 20-30 degree angle & allow the wings to do most of the heavy lifting up to ~30km & the 2nd stage would be a Sejil-2 which is a 2 stage missile it's self then 3nd stage(2nd stage of the Sejil-2) solid fuel can be design for greater thrust rather than endurance fairly easily!

And you achieve all this without having to build a larger engine or worse have cluster engines and your payload capacity would be greater than the Pegasus (1000 lb) that gets launched at subsonic speeds at 40,000 ft (12km)
You can have additional side boosters on the ground just to get it off the rails....

Aside from lower drag at 30km at Mach 2 you should be able to achieve Mach 3 at under 40km so Gravity would also less than half of what it would be on the ground (Basically its as if your weight has been cut in half despite the fact that your mass density has increased)!

But i'm not talking about air launching a sejil off an aircraft! I'm talking about having a 1st stage that uses wings for lift as well as thrust rather than just thrust for a vertically launched missile!

I understand that the ONLY thing that keeps you up at beyond ~38km is your speed (velocity)...

 

[PeeD]

@arashkamangir

Agreed, with new technological solutions there is no need of a 500kg imaging satellite to get a tactically valuable 1m resolution. Hopefully they manage to get such a performance from a 100kg Simorgh launched 400km orbit satellite. Together with long term energy supply and broadband downlink.

@VEVAK

Yes such a rocket powered airplane stage could potentially reach such altitudes and speeds of mach 3 which would be 3 out of ~25 mach necessary, plus the 35km extra altitude. Gravitational force does not decrease notably at such distances as 35km. A satellite would just need the necessary impulse via acceleration to create an equilibrium against the gravitational acceleration in a near dragless space.

Your concept needs some effort for an autonomous airplane system with a re-useable rocket engine of high material quality. It would be feasible for maybe 100kg at low LEO. But a evolved Simorgh with the engines shown in the North Korean test a few months ago could deliver 1 ton (10 times) payload to a 500km LEO with a two stage SLV weight of 100 ton.

 

[VEVAK]

@arashkamangir

Agreed, with new technological solutions there is no need of a 500kg imaging satellite to get a tactically valuable 1m resolution. Hopefully they manage to get such a performance from a 100kg Simorgh launched 400km orbit satellite. Together with long term energy supply and broadband downlink.

@VEVAK

Yes such a rocket powered airplane stage could potentially reach such altitudes and speeds of mach 3 which would be 3 out of ~25 mach necessary, plus the 35km extra altitude. Gravitational force does not decrease notably at such distances as 35km. A satellite would just need the necessary impulse via acceleration to create an equilibrium against the gravitational acceleration in a near dragless space.

Your concept needs some effort for an autonomous airplane system with a re-useable rocket engine of high material quality. It would be feasible for maybe 100kg at low LEO. But a evolved Simorgh with the engines shown in the North Korean test a few months ago could deliver 1 ton (10 times) payload to a 500km LEO with a two stage SLV weight of 100 ton.

Id have to respectfully disagree! Your telling me the Pegasus released at 12km at subsonic speed can put 1000 lb sat into space but Sejil if released at 30km released at supersonic speed where their is NO DRAG wont be able to put a 1000lb sat into space???
That makes no sense!

And how would you get to 100 tones?

Sejil is 20 tones the Safir SLV is 26 tones and thats with 2 stages! So even with a wings your not going to get to 46 tones! It would be about half of that of the Simorgh (87 T) & in terms of payload I don't see how it could possibly do worse than the Pegasus which has the same payload capacity as the Simorgh!

And you don't need to make it reusable at all! Maybe eject the 1st stage flight control & computers for reuse! You don't need to build the wings out of titanium (tip of the wings at max) Carbon Fiber for single use should be fine....