Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

[TheImmortal]

@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.

For those worried about SCUDs

“The longer answer is this: the Patriot system is a good missile defense system and has been proven in combat. Since the Saudi-Iranian proxy war in Yemen broke out in 2015, Saudi and UAE Patriot missile defenses have intercepted at least 52 incoming missiles through Nov. 14, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Patriot manufacturer Raytheon claims the actual number of intercepts is much higher: more than 100.“

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/12/did-saudis-shoot-down-houthi-missile/144451/

Amount of SCUDS in UAE possession:

“The UAE possesses a small number of Scud-B ballistic missiles, with a range of 300km and payload capacity of 1,000kg, which it purchased from North Korea in the late 1980s. [40] A declassified U.S. national intelligence estimate from 1991 asserted that North Korea sold the UAE 18-24 Scud-B missiles in 1988. [41] Others believe the UAE purchased 25 Scud-B missiles from North Korea in 1989. [42]”

https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/united-arab-emirates/


So I am sorry @PeeD, your fears are unjustified in the sense that UAE has likely less than 30 SCUDs and Saudi Arabia has somewhere between 400-700 DF-3s (SCUD like) and less than 100 DF-21.

I wouldn’t worry about their BM capability but rather their airforce as they can inflict ALOT more damage on oil refineries and fields with their 500+ fighters than their BMs.

Lastly, even Israel managed to intercept a Iranian rocket over Golan, so your pessisim against simple trajectory BMs with non manuervable and non decoy warheads is bit unwarranted.

In any case it’s tough to see how Iran manages to protect their oil fields. Hence why if SA or UAE dare to cross that line, they will suffer much more than Iran.

SA pumps 10+ million barrels a day. Even a 30-50% reduction will wreck havoc on world economics much more than Iran going from 3.5 million to 1 million. Most of Iran’s oil is domestic consumption given current oil sanctions.

Iran with cyberwarfare and BMs and sabatoge can significantly reduce SA oil production thus causing immense harm to the kingdom and the world.

Iran’s focus should be increasing the density of their air systems per area. The S-300 order was not sufficient given the size of Iran. Iran should also order S-500 to complement Bavar.

Iran’s Air defense systems need to be so dense in numbers that even if 30% of systems get taken out during first month(s) of war, it would still have one of the densiest Air defense envelopes in the world.

 

[Mithridates]

For those worried about SCUDs

“The longer answer is this: the Patriot system is a good missile defense system and has been proven in combat. Since the Saudi-Iranian proxy war in Yemen broke out in 2015, Saudi and UAE Patriot missile defenses have intercepted at least 52 incoming missiles through Nov. 14, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Patriot manufacturer Raytheon claims the actual number of intercepts is much higher: more than 100.“

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/12/did-saudis-shoot-down-houthi-missile/144451/

Amount of SCUDS in UAE possession:

“The UAE possesses a small number of Scud-B ballistic missiles, with a range of 300km and payload capacity of 1,000kg, which it purchased from North Korea in the late 1980s. [40] A declassified U.S. national intelligence estimate from 1991 asserted that North Korea sold the UAE 18-24 Scud-B missiles in 1988. [41] Others believe the UAE purchased 25 Scud-B missiles from North Korea in 1989. [42]”

https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/united-arab-emirates/


So I am sorry @PeeD, your fears are unjustified in the sense that UAE has likely less than 30 SCUDs and Saudi Arabia has somewhere between 400-700 DF-3s (SCUD like) and less than 100 DF-21.

I wouldn’t worry about their BM capability but rather their airforce as they can inflict ALOT more damage on oil refineries and fields with their 500+ fighters than their BMs.

Lastly, even Israel managed to intercept a Iranian rocket over Golan, so your pessisim against simple trajectory BMs with non manuervable and non decoy warheads is bit unwarranted.

In any case it’s tough to see how Iran manages to protect their oil fields. Hence why if SA or UAE dare to cross that line, they will suffer much more than Iran.

SA pumps 10+ million barrels a day. Even a 30-50% reduction will wreck havoc on world economics much more than Iran going from 3.5 million to 1 million. Most of Iran’s oil is domestic consumption given current oil sanctions.

Iran with cyberwarfare and BMs and sabatoge can significantly reduce SA oil production thus causing immense harm to the kingdom and the world.

Iran’s focus should be increasing the density of their air systems per area. The S-300 order was not sufficient given the size of Iran. Iran should also order S-500 to complement Bavar.

Iran’s Air defense systems need to be so dense in numbers that even if 30% of systems get taken out during first month(s) of war, it would still have one of the densiest Air defense envelopes in the world.

iran has much more cards to play, s-191 and 171 drones, our subs, 55th and 65th airborne brigades, iranians in UAE, our helicopter fleet, our su-24 fleet, f-4s with stand of munitions and our f-14s. and i didn't even mentioned IRGC important assets.

 

[VEVAK]

@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.

No I don't consider the Howvaizeh or Somar as a low cost LACM solution! They both carry +700lb payloads and have overpriced engines and airframes hell I wouldn't even consider the Karrar as a low cost solution I'm talking about a large barrage of cruise missiles closer to an improved Ya-Ali Class

As for guidance Iran needs to stop looking at standard solutions.... A smart domestic land base positioning solution can be designed to guide the missiles during initial launch phase & ~10 min during initial flight on top of the fact that we are talking about subsonic platforms that fly at a relatively fixed speeds and altitudes against targets within an hour away with relatively low cost internal digital nav systems that can easily get you to within ~1km of your target for a low cost counter imaging to do the rest against fixed targets (Combined & if truly built, designed and programed in Iran the guidance equipment, computers, sensor and electronics installed on the missile shouldn't cost any more than $10K not including software cost or other ground and launcher equipment & electronics)

During WW2 before computers even existed the Germans used Mechanical Gyro's to achieve 7km cep so with current tech 1-2km CEP can easily be achieved at a really low cost and the rest would be up to a smart low cost sensor capable of locking on it's pre programed target which by the most part would required smart and meticulous programing and intel gathering

Also if Iran's initial attack on the UAE is large enough with a good success rate without having to deplete a large portion of our BM stockpile I believe the Saudi's will get the message because within hours Iran has taken out most of UAE military capabilities without even depleting a large portion of it's BM stockpile and that alone should send a clear message to both the U.S., UAE and the Saudi's as to what could happen if Iran pulls out it's BM card.

 

[PeeD]

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.

Missiles like the Moskit and Irans rumored variant of it reach around mach 2-2,5 at low altitude. They have reinforced nose sections which you describe. However mach 5 is a different ball game, it has only been achieved at high altitude by the superpowers.
Thermal issues add to that and most importantly only a nuclear propulsion may could sustain a speed of mach 5 at high altitude. Russians who are experts in that field have just managed it now and probably just in the mach 2 at high altitude speed range.

For those worried about SCUDs

“The longer answer is this: the Patriot system is a good missile defense system and has been proven in combat. Since the Saudi-Iranian proxy war in Yemen broke out in 2015, Saudi and UAE Patriot missile defenses have intercepted at least 52 incoming missiles through Nov. 14, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Patriot manufacturer Raytheon claims the actual number of intercepts is much higher: more than 100.“

The bulk of those "missiles" were just shorter range battlefield rockets.
I agree that a SCUD-B can today be reliably be defended against with a Patriot and some 2 interceptors.
More so now that the PAC-3 level is available.
However it is still not a economical approach.

The good news is that the UAE won't be able to modify their SCUDs to something like the Qiam anytime soon. A Qiam still requires half a dozen PAC-3 to be intercepted with a useful PK.

So I am sorry @PeeD, your fears are unjustified in the sense that UAE has likely less than 30 SCUDs and Saudi Arabia has somewhere between 400-700 DF-3s (SCUD like) and less than 100 DF-21.

This are "strategic" issues for small countries like the UAE. The real number of SCUDs won't be reliably known and I expect them to be significantly higher.
On the other hand I don't think anything near 400 DF-3 were sold to Saudi Arabia, it should be in the high two digit range or low three. This are very large missiles designed to be nuclear tipped.
As for the DF-21 we can only hope that China somehow was mature enough to sell them on a 1:1 DF-3 replacement basis and not beyond that.

I wouldn’t worry about their BM capability but rather their airforce as they can inflict ALOT more damage on oil refineries and fields with their 500+ fighters than their BMs.

I had such discussions here some two years ago.
Today we have officially seen point-strike MRBMs and Fateh strikes.
Hence I repeat what I said back then when we just knew about unguided sub munition warheads and early terminally guided missiles with no publicly known CEP:
Their airbases won't be operational to support an air campaign, not even the Saudi superbases.
Irans mountain bases and arsenal is so large in numbers that the available firepower is devastating for any enemy.
This is the key reason why I don't support a strong IRIAF today. Guided weapon warfare has made conventional airpower very fragile... the INF treaty has kept it longer relevant than it naturally should be.

Lastly, even Israel managed to intercept a Iranian rocket over Golan, so your pessisim against simple trajectory BMs with non manuervable and non decoy warheads is bit unwarranted.

well Ok. But they still needed two interceptors for it. A major point are numbers and cost effectiveness: That missile over Golan could have just been a Zelzal-2 which may cost 1/8 of a single PAC-3 interceptor, not counting overall system cost.

In any case it’s tough to see how Iran manages to protect their oil fields. Hence why if SA or UAE dare to cross that line, they will suffer much more than Iran.

SA pumps 10+ million barrels a day. Even a 30-50% reduction will wreck havoc on world economics much more than Iran going from 3.5 million to 1 million. Most of Iran’s oil is domestic consumption given current oil sanctions.

They would be militarily neutralized quite soon into the conflict by Irans BM force and after that point they would switch to counter-value attacks. Oil refineries are so densely packed with equipment and huge that the loss of money a BM attack would cause is immense.
Basically in the 90's and 2000's Iran just kept holding Gulf Arabs oil industry at risk, a main reason for the development of the Zelzal and later Fateh. Only now Iran can confidently move to a counter-force doctrine on that issue.
If the collapse is near, they will use what they have against Irans most important and critical objects.

Iran’s focus should be increasing the density of their air systems per area. The S-300 order was not sufficient given the size of Iran. Iran should also order S-500 to complement Bavar.

Russians won't sell the S-500 anytime soon and S-300V series is not worth its money. Plus the Bavar team will now be capable enough to move to a next generation system with near-space and high speed capability.
But first Iran has an intimidate requirement for 20+ Bavar-373 batteries. Plus the IRGC-ASF is certainly working on its own projects to protect against DF-21 and Jericho series.

No I don't consider the Howvaizeh ro Somar as a low cost LACM solution! They both carry +700lb payloads and have overpriced engines and airframes hell I wouldn't even consider the Karrar as a low cost solution I'm talking about a large barrage of cruise missiles closer to an improved Ya-Ali Class

Good that sounds sober. The Ya-Ali could be sufficiently low-cost to effectively compete with the Zolfaghar or Fateh-313. However a key cost position remains the turbojet. I think the price of the Fateh-313 should be really incredible.
It was designed for that goal --> price per round. Not a relative complex design like the Iskander.

As for guidance Iran needs to stop looking at standard solutions.... A smart domestic land base positioning solution can be designed to guide the missiles during initial launch phase & ~10 min during initial flight on top of the fact that we are talking about subsonic platforms that fly at a relatively fixed speeds and altitudes against targets within an hour away with relatively low cost internal digital nav systems that can easily get you to within ~1km of your target for a low cost counter imaging to do the rest against fixed targets (Combined & if truly built, designed and programed in Iran the guidance equipment, computers, sensor and electronics installed on the missile shouldn't cost any more than $10K not including software cost or other ground and launcher equipment & electronics)

During WW2 before computers even existed the Germans used Mechanical Gyro's to achieve 7km cep so with current tech 1-2km CEP can easily be achieved at a really low cost and the rest would be up to a smart low cost sensor capable of locking on it's pre programed target which by the most part would required smart and meticulous programing and intel gathering

Yes such a guidance system is feasible and could be cheaply combined with TERCOM if data is available. A modern FOG INS may be able to get it even over the sea where no terrain is available, at low price.

Also if Iran's initial attack on the UAE is large enough with a good success rate without having to deplete a large portion of our BM stockpile I believe the Saudi's will get the message because within hours Iran has taken out most of UAE military capabilities without even depleting a large portion of it's BM stockpile and that alone should send a clear message to both the U.S., UAE and the Saudi's as to what could happen if Iran pulls out it's BM card.

Irans BM stockpile is huge today. Shorter range tactical BMs of the Fateh series are not a important part of the strategic missile deterrence, they can be spend and produced. The oldest production batch is nearing the end of its life and need to be spend or rebuilt.

 

[scimitar19]

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.

What you are suggesting to some extent defies the definition of cruise missile. In theory even if this type of cruise missile does exist whats the point of maneuvering when you have super fast weapon at low altitudes because you use cruise missiles maneuvering characteristics to dodge areas that are under the AAA umbrella or/and to navigate over terrain obstacles. Maneuvering at the mach 5 very low altitude is almost impossible when you need to adjust altitude in quick succession towards the ridges and valleys, the stress for materials is tremendous.

 

[TheImmortal]

Current Simorgh UAVS are rather useless for attacks on SA and UAE assets due to their slow speed especially if time is of the essence.

Iran needs to create a Simorgh variant similar to USA cold era D-21 which was basically a mini blackbird variant

This bad boy had a operational ceiling of 90,000 feet at a max speed of Mach 3.3+! Range was 5600 KM! It was powered by 1 Ramjet engine (Marquardt RJ43). This is a 1960’s engine people!

Iran has announced they are working on supersonic cruise missiles, so depending on the ramjet engine being used with some upgrades and modifications it could power a next gen supersonic Iranian flying wing.

Given that this drone is (expected) to survive and not be on a one way trip (ex. cruise missiles); Then the overall cost of this engine will be lower than a long range supersonic cruise missile variant.

Today a more advanced country could likely build a hypersonic ramjet variant as the high altitude would allow you to use the air as an oxidizer.

Iran needs a UAV that can travel at very high ceiling (hard to intercept by AD missiles) and supersonic (hard to intercept by most fighters).

Iran could unleash a squadron of these have them fly over SA airspace unleash HIGH ALTITUDE cluster payload on oil targets or military airfields and by the time the enemy knew what happened they would be long gone!

This is a strategic weapon! This is the future of aerial warfare! HYPERSONIC AD missiles vs SUPER and HYPERSONIC UCAVs.

Iran needs to place value on SURVIVABILITY.

Unfortunately Iran is not pushing the boundaries of design, it is merely a copy cat military at this point (outside of BMs, which again are mostly copy cats outside F-110 family and sejil).

 

[Sineva]

Honestly at the moment I`d be far more worried about the uaes air launched black shaheen/storm shadow cruise missiles than I would their very small force of old non upgraded scuds,which frankly have a cep measured in hundreds of meters.The same would also be true for the saudi css3 force,if its actually still even operable of course.
The saudi DF-21 force might be more accurate but again we`re not dealing with terminally guided separating warheads so the accuracy would likely still be in the tens of meters.A potentially more dangerous threat might be the ukranian Grom,which is an iskander type short ranged missile but likely with very good accuracy,which the saudis have bankrolled the completion of and will probably be getting local production of in return,tho whether it will be mtcr compliant is the question.
I`ve no doubt that the gulfies know that the disparity in missile forces so greatly favors iran that for every gulfie missile fired at iran iran can fire 10,20,30 back in return,however I think that it is increasingly likely that as iran continues to both retrofit its long ranged missiles with precision guidance while at the same time continuing to stretch the range of its very accurate shorter ranged missiles,that the gulfies will realize just how vulnerable their air power is becoming to irans missile power and that they will probably take steps to try and address this such as they are already doing with the acquisition of abm systems like thaad.I think its also likely that they will attempt to acquire larger missile forces themselves,tho the problem here for them is the western imposed mtcr which limits their access to this at least from their western suppliers,however as we saw with the rok the west was willing to make acceptions to prior agreements on missile ranges,tho in this case the rok had developed these weapons itself.
Ultimately I think iran will need to consider developing abm capabilities of its own and the easiest short term way would be to develop dedicated abm systems for the bavar 373.A good model for this would be the russian s300vm which has its own dedicated mobile abm radar and potentially also 2 stage sayyad 4 missiles with the extra range and speed to intercept medium ranged missiles as well,this should be seriously considered in the medium term as it now seems very likely that with the collapse of the inf treaty that us will seriously look at developing its own new medium and intermediate ranged missiles,probably at first just with nuclear warheads but I certainly would not rule out conventionally armed versions either.

 

[VEVAK]

Missiles like the Moskit and Irans rumored variant of it reach around mach 2-2,5 at low altitude. They have reinforced nose sections which you describe. However mach 5 is a different ball game, it has only been achieved at high altitude by the superpowers.
Thermal issues add to that and most importantly only a nuclear propulsion may could sustain a speed of mach 5 at high altitude. Russians who are experts in that field have just managed it now and probably just in the mach 2 at high altitude speed range.




Good that sounds sober. The Ya-Ali could be sufficiently low-cost to effectively compete with the Zolfaghar or Fateh-313. However a key cost position remains the turbojet. I think the price of the Fateh-313 should be really incredible.
It was designed for that goal --> price per round. Not a relative complex design like the Iskander.



Yes such a guidance system is feasible and could be cheaply combined with TERCOM if data is available. A modern FOG INS may be able to get it even over the sea where no terrain is available, at low price.



Irans BM stockpile is huge today. Shorter range tactical BMs of the Fateh series are not a important part of the strategic missile deterrence, they can be spend and produced. The oldest production batch is nearing the end of its life and need to be spend or rebuilt.

The problem I mainly see with reverse engineering a cruise missile like the Kh-55 is that unlike Russia Iran is not a major Aircraft producer that produces a vast amount of Ti scraps (among other aviation grade super alloys) for Airframes and engines that we can then turn around and use the scraps for building cruise missile Air Frames and engines around and due to sanctions we can not even import the scarps at a reasonable price so in my opinion a truly viable and cost effective Iranian cruise missile has to be Iranian designed with materials and composites easily available & produced in Iran. So I can see why you'd say LACM like the Somar wouldn't make much sense for mass use compared to BM.

But when it comes to the engines I truly believe at Iran's level of technology producing the parts & materials for a Mini Jet engine (well under 400lbf) that doesn't need to have a life expectancy of any more than a few hours for a cruise missile that would be well within our capabilities to produce at very low cost especially if mass produced and especially if we put aside the standards norms and go our own rout when it comes to materials, design,....

For the engines we just need to develop a low cost easy to mass produce engine that can achieve the proper cruise speed at a manageable consumption rate while carrying ~250lb warhead.

Back in 2010 the MicroTurbo TRI 60 was being sold for ~ $50K-$80K and that was what they were being sold for so I very much doubt their production cost for the producers would have been anywhere even close to $20K & that's including R&D..... and we definitely don't need that much power or engine that would last that long for a low cost solution and if done properly the engine shouldn't even cost $5k.

Our BM stockpile may be relatively large but even the Fatteh-110 is not a missile we can launch 10,000 of at the UAE in a short timespan and I believe on top of our BM's Iran needs a low cost LaCM solution that we can mass produce and mass launch at a relatively low cost a missile that not including the warhead costs, wouldn't cost us any more than $25K per unit
And if it was up to me I would have tried to store up to 12 missile in a standard size 20ft long shipping containers that could be placed on the back of trucks or on ships and launched from them at near horizonal under 10 degree angle.....

 

[Mithridates]

What you are suggesting to some extent defies the definition of cruise missile. In theory even if this type of cruise missile does exist whats the point of maneuvering when you have super fast weapon at low altitudes because you use cruise missiles maneuvering characteristics to dodge areas that are under the AAA umbrella or/and to navigate over terrain obstacles. Maneuvering at the mach 5 very low altitude is almost impossible when you need to adjust altitude in quick succession towards the ridges and valleys, the stress for materials is tremendous.

the point is this kind of missiles give you the strike capability, you can hit targets fast and accurately. if we hold it's range 150 km, less than two minutes it reaches the target. about maneuvering i don't think that it's matter because in mach 5 the air has 2.5 times more energy compared to mach 2 missile.

something like this (brahmos II).

 

[Sineva]

Anxious Over Iran’s Missiles, EU Grapples to Contain Tehran
The European Union’s efforts come after the bloc refused to back Washington’s call for more extensive penalties

By
Laurence Norman
April 26, 2019 8:50 a.m. ET

Leading European countries are pursuing ways to contain Iran’s ballistic missiles work, amid growing concerns about Tehran’s large-scale weapons program and in the wake of a campaign by Washington to galvanize support for pressuring the Islamic Republic over its missiles.

The European Union’s new efforts, which include tighter export controls and pressure on non-EU countries to clamp down on sales of sensitive technology to Iran, come after the bloc refused to back Washington’s call for more extensive penalties.

As the U.S. raises economic pressure on Iran, the EU is increasingly eager to avoid steps that could push Tehran to quit the 2015 nuclear deal and rev up its nuclear program. These concerns grew more acute this week, with the EU criticizing the U.S. decision to end sanction waivers in May, which had allowed a handful of countries to continue buying Iranian oil without risk of U.S. penalties.

The EU will abide by the nuclear deal “as long as Iran continues with the full and effective implementation of its nuclear-related commitments,” Maja Kocijančič, spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said Tuesday.

Europe has striven to keep Iran abiding by the deal since President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the accord nearly a year ago. Since last summer, the U.S. has ratcheted up sanctions against Iran, sending its economy into a tailspin and causing many foreign companies to leave.
The deal doesn’t significantly constrain the ballistic-missile program or counter Iran’s assertive posturing in the Middle East, but sets broad—temporary—limits on Iran’s nuclear activities.

Iran has said it has no atomic weapons plans and the United Nations atomic agency has stated multiple times that the country is abiding by the 2015 nuclear deal, which bans such efforts.

Experts said Iran is rapidly improving the precision and range of its weapons and Tehran is widely accused of transferring missiles and technology to regional proxies, such as Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen. The U.S. and Israel have alleged that Iran could eventually use missiles as a delivery system for a nuclear warhead, enabling Tehran to project a long-distance nuclear threat.

Initially, France, Germany and the U.K., along with allies like the Netherlands and Denmark, pressured the bloc to agree to sanctions such as asset freezes and travel bans against Iranian officials and entities.

The U.S. has pushed for such measures, but EU member states have refused because some worry they could incite Tehran to quit the nuclear agreement, diplomats involved in the discussions said. Sanctions require the backing of all 28 EU member states.

Britain, France and Germany are prodding the bloc to take alternative steps in “the next weeks and months,” said a senior European diplomat.

Iranian officials said Tehran will never enter negotiations on limits to its weapons program, when regional foes, like Saudi Arabia and Israel, are armed by the West.

Iran’s missiles have a range of up to 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles), enough to hit some European countries, experts said.

One step would be to urge African and Asian countries to end exports or stymie the transit of sensitive goods to Iran, diplomats said. Similar past efforts yielded significant results.

Diplomats are also exploring wider prohibition of illicit shipments of missile parts or technology, through tightening cooperation in a U.S.-led nonproliferation pact set up in 2006. It involves exchanging information about illicit exports to countries like Iran and North Korea and encourages efforts to stop them.

Plus, officials could tighten export controls, diplomats said. The EU has a dual-use list of products that need extra checks because they can be used for military and civilian purposes. Brussels can push for member states to watch for exports of products not on the list that Iran could easily refine for use in its missile program.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/anxious-over-irans-missiles-eu-grapples-to-contain-tehran-11556283032

 

[VEVAK]

the point is this kind of missiles give you the strike capability, you can hit targets fast and accurately. if we hold it's range 150 km, less than two minutes it reaches the target. about maneuvering i don't think that it's matter because in mach 5 the air has 2.5 times more energy compared to mach 2 missile.

something like this (brahmos II).

Main problem with such missiles right now would be costs and these are missiles that do most of their high speed flying at high altitudes and Mach 5 at high altitudes is really not that much for the high cost of such a missile to make much sense when compared to the Fatteh, Zolfaghar & Dezful class.

I would say in the future Iran could potentially replace the post boost section for a high glide capable scramjet powered RV sometime in the future but unless we can produce them at an affordable price mass production and deployment wouldn't be feasible

Anti Ballistic Missile systems aren't cheap systems, each of their missiles costs a lot of money and they can easily be overwhelmed if you can launch a sufficient number of projectiles & decoys so if you have to pay 10 times the cost of a Fatteh for scramjet you would far better off simply firing 10 Fatteh…..

 

[PeeD]

The path for Iran should be clear: Rocket booster accelerated high-supersonic to hypersonic glide vehicles.

Basically what was achieved by Russians with the Avantgard and what Chinese are working on.

Neither ram or scream jet sustainers are worth the money for conventional application. In fact even glide vehicles are expensive depending on what grade of thermal shielding they have (= speed).

An small arsenal of these would be needed to knock out future ABM systems and allow for variable attack vector.

Current Emad class MaRV already offer a limited capability in that direction. Iran needs to come close to the leader in the field of thermal shielding, Russia, to enable a class of propulsion-less glide vehicles.

The problem I mainly see with reverse engineering a cruise missile like the Kh-55 is that unlike Russia Iran is not a major Aircraft producer that produces a vast amount of Ti scraps (among other aviation grade super alloys) for Airframes and engines that we can then turn around and use the scraps for building cruise missile Air Frames and engines around and due to sanctions we can not even import the scarps at a reasonable price so in my opinion a truly viable and cost effective Iranian cruise missile has to be Iranian designed with materials and composites easily available & produced in Iran. So I can see why you'd say LACM like the Somar wouldn't make much sense for mass use compared to BM.

But when it comes to the engines I truly believe at Iran's level of technology producing the parts & materials for a Mini Jet engine (well under 400lbf) that doesn't need to have a life expectancy of any more than a few hours for a cruise missile that would be well within our capabilities to produce at very low cost especially if mass produced and especially if we put aside the standards norms and go our own rout when it comes to materials, design,....

For the engines we just need to develop a low cost easy to mass produce engine that can achieve the proper cruise speed at a manageable consumption rate while carrying ~250lb warhead.

Back in 2010 the MicroTurbo TRI 60 was being sold for ~ $50K-$80K and that was what they were being sold for so I very much doubt their production cost for the producers would have been anywhere even close to $20K & that's including R&D..... and we definitely don't need that much power or engine that would last that long for a low cost solution and if done properly the engine shouldn't even cost $5k.

Our BM stockpile may be relatively large but even the Fatteh-110 is not a missile we can launch 10,000 of at the UAE in a short timespan and I believe on top of our BM's Iran needs a low cost LaCM solution that we can mass produce and mass launch at a relatively low cost a missile that not including the warhead costs, wouldn't cost us any more than $25K per unit
And if it was up to me I would have tried to store up to 12 missile in a standard size 20ft long shipping containers that could be placed on the back of trucks or on ships and launched from them at near horizonal under 10 degree angle.....

Your idea of such a cheap LACM could compete with the Fateh family, agreed. The S-191's micro turbojet coupled to an electric fan of RQ-170 technology, may be able to offer a low price propulsion for a future cheap LACM.
Still it is very hard to beat the Fateh in cost-efficiency, payload, range, precision, time and velocity performance parameters.

 

[AmirPatriot]

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.

You should consider that in a war we would be scrutinised to death by everyone and the Israelis and Arabs would be pushing congressional hawks/any republican administration super hard to join in an Arab war on Iran. So we can't afford dealing "low blows" like this. "Iran deprives Arab babies of water" etc.

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.

Iran mostly has static sites even for Sayyad and 3rd Khordad systems, with their mobility being used for shoot n scoot. The best we have are garrisons where I'm guessing in a raid the vehicles would drive out to the surrounding area.

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.

The Hoveyzeh's 1300 km range means it should be compared to Dezful. Hoveyzeh is a very simple missile; cheap low-endurance turbojet, a conventional warhead, a couple of simple guidance systems (INS+TERCOM, maybe civilian GPS for redundancy) driving wings at low subsonic. The rest is mostly aluminium and fuel.

Dezful on the other hand is far removed from that. It's bigger than any of the previous Fateh variants. Solid fuel motor is larger than the pre-Zolfaqar Fatehs. It has a separating MaRV with a thermobaric warhead, and of course it needs to endure the high stress of supersonic flight. And it has a high carbon fibre and other composite content to save weight.

 

[VEVAK]

The path for Iran should be clear: Rocket booster accelerated high-supersonic to hypersonic glide vehicles.

Basically what was achieved by Russians with the Avantgard and what Chinese are working on.

Neither ram or scream jet sustainers are worth the money for conventional application. In fact even glide vehicles are expensive depending on what grade of thermal shielding they have (= speed).

An small arsenal of these would be needed to knock out future ABM systems and allow for variable attack vector.

Current Emad class MaRV already offer a limited capability in that direction. Iran needs to come close to the leader in the field of thermal shielding, Russia, to enable a class of propulsion-less glide vehicles.




Your idea of such a cheap LACM could compete with the Fateh family, agreed. The S-191's micro turbojet coupled to an electric fan of RQ-170 technology, may be able to offer a low price propulsion for a future cheap LACM.
Still it is very hard to beat the Fateh in cost-efficiency, payload, range, precision, time and velocity performance parameters.

Agreed, and I have to say for me a low cost LaCm solution can only be useful for us if it's only a compliment to our Fateh series not a replacement and only if we could produce them at a fraction of the costs. That's why I'd stick to under ~250lb payloads for a Low cost LaCm solution to increase the rate of fire and widen the number of targets without risking the depletion of our Fatteh stock and no doubt that if we could produce, store & launch the Fatteh at even double or triple the cost of each low cost LACM I would have no doubt still picked the Fatteh series over any low cost LACM​

To me the Fatteh Series (Fatteh, Zolfaghar & Dezful) are an engineering marvel in terms of project management and probably the most successful missile projects Iran has and is hands down the best examples of sticking to an appropriate design and continuously upgrading it none stop like clockwork and refusing to give up!

As for a high glide Scramjet RV I believe it will be a natural eventuality in development and at best may be produced in very limited numbers for specific operation sometime in the future but overall the cost wouldn't make much sense for mass production (At our current level of tech) and I believe if we do produce them for limited use in the future it would most definitely be something that would have to remain classified and not be made public....

I believe the Saegheh UCAV can also be turned into a vital low cost weapon system that need to be continuously upgraded and enhanced and mass produced in far greater numbers. The IRGC should most defiantly think about using even lighter ordinances to increasing the number of targets the Saegheh UCAV's can hit from releasing a large number of unguided ordnances (shape charges ~2-3 inches in diameter powered by a tiny rocket vertically launched out of the bay) over an area or up to 8 light PGM (4 per bay) powered by electric motors...

 

[TheImmortal]

For those that care: this article from 1999! Talks about a DARPA program to build an affordable hypersonic long range cruise missile. It theorizes a Missile could be produced at a price of 200K (1998) dollars per unit.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d3d4/27585e6d4a7db1d036ca2124c204b1849dc3.pdf

If Iran can build such a Missile even at that price, it would be a immensely valuable strategic weapon.

Nonetheless, missiles (BM or CM) can not be the only route. Enemies will simply calculate your inventory and wait for you to exhaust most of your supply. Given during period of war, Iran’s production of additional missiles will be low.

Thus Iran needs a 3rd dynamic: Supersonic unmanned bombers at a affordable price that can penetrate enemy airspace and drop high altitude ordnance.

The drone should be built at a cost that provides it survivability, but allow for mass production. A unit cost of $3 million per drone will allow Iran to amass 100 high supersonic unmanned bombers for $300 Million. The force multiplier of such a concept is high.

Ideally if Iran was a more developed nation with a bigger budget, I would propose an elite hypersonic UAV that could skip across the upper atmosphere, basically an Avangard in form of UAV and reusable. This UAV weapon if realized would easily become the most deadly on the planet and make the B-2 look like child’s play.

Nonetheless, if Iran can build a stealth flying wing supersonic UAV capable of high altitude flight and ordnance dropping at an AFFORDABLE price, it would be a GameChanger along side the BM/CM Arsenal.

Currently Iran is too 1 dimensional.