Iran's Hormoz-2, worlds first anti-radiation ballistic missile

[Penguin]

I am wondering how feasible an anti-radiation ballistic missile would be compared to stealthier cruise missiles
@Penguin

An Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM) would rise in two stages, reach space and then use fins to maneuver at hypersonic speeds on its way back down. The warhead then glides along a level path to permit synthetic aperture radar, if available on the specific missile in question, to process multiple radar pulses to form a single picture to target the carrier. Finally, the warhead's infrared seeker locates a carrier's signature and allows closing in for the kill. Simpler ASBMs would not have SAR, just a warhead with an infra-red sensor on top.

A guided terminal attack can be accomplished using an infra-red sensor in the nose of the warhead, otherwise known as the “re-entry vehicle”, which would direct the final phase of its attack. This would occur after initial coordinates of the target were factored in at launch and updated possibly during the missile’s “mid-course” phase. An on-board Infra Red seeker is passive in nature as no electromagnetic energy would have to be used to illuminate the target.

The infra-red sensor would scan the area where the ship is most likely to be during its last tens of seconds of flight, in hopes of locking onto the heat signature of the rapidly maneuvering aircraft carrier or ship. A US carrier would be rapidly changing course and speed as US early warning ballistic missile launch detection satellites will surely have detected a missile's initial boost phase and would have alerted the Carrier Strike Group as to the incoming missile, or more likely, missiles. Also the Carrier Strike Group’s AEGIS class Guided Missile Cruisers and Destroyers would attempt to track and engage the missile using its limited ballistic missile defense capabilities.

If the CSG is emitting (i.e. radars on), then radar homing could also assist in terminal phase targeting. But the question still remains whether the warhead would be manoeuvrable enough to match that of the CSG in general and the carrier in particular. CVNs are highly manoeuvrable and among the fastest fleet units (max speed "in excess of 30kn". See e.g. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-028.htm).

Also, CSG ships do not bunch together as often depicted in 'anti-ship ballistics missile strike' artist impressions. There can in fact be tenths of nmi's between ships. US ships have 'cooperative engagement capability' and there is the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air concept (NIFC-CA) – a scheme designed to tie together data from the ships and aircraft in a carrier strike group to create a network of sensors and shooters – a proverbial kill web. So that e.g. an F-35 could provide targeting info for an SM-6 aboard a DDG (i.e. there are possibilities to allow some ships to remain silent under EMCON conditions, e.g. a carrier, thus denying an anti-radiation warhead targeting information it can home in on)

Thales SIRIUS IRST provides continuous passive horizon search against super- and subsonic (sea-skimming) anti-ship missiles. This passive IR search system operates simultaneously in two wavelengths (3-5 μm and 8-12 μm) and provides long-range surveillance under all atmospheric conditions. As a complementary sensor to the on-board surveillance radar equipment, SIRIUS ensures a most effective capability against threats with respect to the timely evaluation and decision for target engagements, especially under restricted EMCON conditions. Possibly, such a system (mounted e.g. on Dutch BMD-capable LCF frigates) could allow passive initial targeting of active radar homing SM-6 under EMCON condition. This is another way of denying an anti-radiation warhead targeting information it can home in on.

As far as Hormoz-2 is concerned, how many and what kind of warhead(s) does it carry? Is it/Are they really able to manoeuvre, and how much? It does not seem a large missile, so I would venture a guess of 1 warhead per missile. It appears very similar to the 300km, Mach 3.5 Fateh-110 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fateh-110), which has 1 warhead, inertial & electro-optical terminal guidance, and a 100 meters CEP.

Hormoz-2

Fateh 110

See also
http://www.timesofisrael.com/defiant-iran-successfully-tests-another-ballistic-missile/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-missiles-navy-idUSKBN16G2C2

 

[Rukarl]

If a ballsitic missile is coming at my destroyer I would rather keep my radar active . Thats why I would go for the analysis of a professional here.

There is no "professional analysts" in this forum. The information I have stated have come military officials and what they have said. They're the real professional analysts.

As for your radar comment, well yes, go ahead and keep your radars on and give a target for these anti radiation missiles.

 

[Godman]

An Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM) would rise in two stages, reach space and then use fins to maneuver at hypersonic speeds on its way back down. The warhead then glides along a level path to permit synthetic aperture radar, if available on the specific missile in question, to process multiple radar pulses to form a single picture to target the carrier. Finally, the warhead's infrared seeker locates a carrier's signature and allows closing in for the kill. Simpler ASBMs would not have SAR, just a warhead with an infra-red sensor on top.

A guided terminal attack can be accomplished using an infra-red sensor in the nose of the warhead, otherwise known as the “re-entry vehicle”, which would direct the final phase of its attack. This would occur after initial coordinates of the target were factored in at launch and updated possibly during the missile’s “mid-course” phase. An on-board Infra Red seeker is passive in nature as no electromagnetic energy would have to be used to illuminate the target.

The infra-red sensor would scan the area where the ship is most likely to be during its last tens of seconds of flight, in hopes of locking onto the heat signature of the rapidly maneuvering aircraft carrier or ship. A US carrier would be rapidly changing course and speed as US early warning ballistic missile launch detection satellites will surely have detected a missile's initial boost phase and would have alerted the Carrier Strike Group as to the incoming missile, or more likely, missiles. Also the Carrier Strike Group’s AEGIS class Guided Missile Cruisers and Destroyers would attempt to track and engage the missile using its limited ballistic missile defense capabilities.

If the CSG is emitting (i.e. radars on), then radar homing could also assist in terminal phase targeting. But the question still remains whether the warhead would be manoeuvrable enough to match that of the CSG in general and the carrier in particular. CVNs are highly manoeuvrable and among the fastest fleet units (max speed "in excess of 30kn". See e.g. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-028.htm).

Also, CSG ships do not bunch together as often depicted in 'anti-ship ballistics missile strike' artist impressions. There can in fact be tenths of nmi's between ships. US ships have 'cooperative engagement capability' and there is the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air concept (NIFC-CA) – a scheme designed to tie together data from the ships and aircraft in a carrier strike group to create a network of sensors and shooters – a proverbial kill web. So that e.g. an F-35 could provide targeting info for an SM-6 aboard a DDG (i.e. there are possibilities to allow some ships to remain silent under EMCON conditions, e.g. a carrier, thus denying an anti-radiation warhead targeting information it can home in on)

Thales SIRIUS IRST provides continuous passive horizon search against super- and subsonic (sea-skimming) anti-ship missiles. This passive IR search system operates simultaneously in two wavelengths (3-5 μm and 8-12 μm) and provides long-range surveillance under all atmospheric conditions. As a complementary sensor to the on-board surveillance radar equipment, SIRIUS ensures a most effective capability against threats with respect to the timely evaluation and decision for target engagements, especially under restricted EMCON conditions. Possibly, such a system (mounted e.g. on Dutch BMD-capable LCF frigates) could allow passive initial targeting of active radar homing SM-6 under EMCON condition. This is another way of denying an anti-radiation warhead targeting information it can home in on.

As far as Hormoz-2 is concerned, how many and what kind of warhead(s) does it carry? Is it/Are they really able to manoeuvre, and how much? It does not seem a large missile, so I would venture a guess of 1 warhead per missile. It appears very similar to the 300km, Mach 3.5 Fateh-110 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fateh-110), which has 1 warhead, inertial & electro-optical terminal guidance, and a 100 meters CEP.

Hormoz-2

Fateh 110

See also
http://www.timesofisrael.com/defiant-iran-successfully-tests-another-ballistic-missile/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-missiles-navy-idUSKBN16G2C2

Thanks

Exactly, U.S. plus any of their remaining wahabbi toadies in the region.

Here is your advanced state godman...........you see what Iranian missiles do to your advanced state?

So where is the Ballistic Missile sinking a ship?
Anyway thanks for putting videos of some incidents I already saw
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/afte...uae-navy-vessel-hsv-2-swift-pic.453742/page-2

 

[Rukarl]

Thanks



So where is the Ballistic Missile sinking a ship?
Anyway thanks for putting videos of some incidents I already saw
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/afte...uae-navy-vessel-hsv-2-swift-pic.453742/page-2

Stop wasting thread space if you have nothing constructive to add.
If you want a video of the test, ask the Americans to post one since they were following the test and confirmed it

 

[Godman]

Stop wasting thread space if you have nothing constructive to add.
If you want a video of the test, ask the Americans to post one since they were following the test and confirmed it

What I said is pretty much proven valid. Using a ballsitic missile as a Anti-radiation missile against a ship is unrealistic

 

[Rukarl]

What I said is pretty much proven valid. Using a ballsitic missile as a Anti-radiation missile against a ship is unrealistic

And yet Iran tested one successfully whilst the likes of Americans confirmed it. It seems your brain capacity is the main issue here which prevents you from absorbing basic facts.

 

[Godman]

And yet Iran tested one successfully whilst the likes of Americans confirmed it. It seems your brain capacity is the main issue here which prevents you from absorbing basic facts.

Personal attacks? And where is the basic facts? What kind of idiot would send a ballistic missile against a ship when it can be easily detected and evaded or even destroy it. Just because American's confirmed a test doesn't make it viable on the battlefield

 

[Rukarl]

Personal attacks? And where is the basic facts? What kind of idiot would send a ballistic missile against a ship when it can be easily detected and evaded or even destroy it. Just because American's confirmed a test doesn't make it viable on the battlefield

How stupid can you get? A battlefield is not a magical scenario completely different from reality.

Your counter argument so moronic, you're basically saying if a system can be detected and destroyed in theory then its useless, then most systems in the world should be useless.

The whole of a ballistic missile anti ship system is because it is hard to intercept and destroyed. But you're too clueless to understand that.

 

[SOHEIL]

Personal attacks? And where is the basic facts? What kind of idiot would send a ballistic missile against a ship when it can be easily detected and evaded or even destroy it. Just because American's confirmed a test doesn't make it viable on the battlefield

Iran & China

100 meters CEP

Good if you believe in that !

 

[Godman]

Iran & China

Chinese ones are much more advanced and has MaRVs and they aren't used as Anti-radiation missiles

How stupid can you get? A battlefield is not a magical scenario completely different from reality.

Your counter argument so moronic, you're basically saying if a system can be detected and destroyed in theory then its useless, then most systems in the world should be useless.

The whole of a ballistic missile anti ship system is because it is hard to intercept and destroyed. But you're too clueless to understand that.

To be precise its a big waste of both time and money. Why would Iran use Anti-Radiation ballistic missiles when they can easily use a Anti-Ship missile. Your ignorance and denial cannot be helped it seems

 

[Fledgingwings]

Iran Has been flexing its military muscle for quiet a while.Wish All Iranis Good Luck with all there hard work.

 

[SOHEIL]

Chinese ones are much more advanced and has MaRVs and they aren't used as Anti-radiation missiles

What is this much more advanced came from !?

We have different kinds of Anti ship ballistic missiles...

Persian Gulf

 

[Godman]

What is this much more advanced came from !?

We have different kinds of Anti ship ballistic missiles...

"Different types" is not the issue here. Man, you need to go fast and accurately without getting shot down and hit the target. Penguin explained it well so I don't need to repeat the same thing

 

[SOHEIL]

"Different types" is not the issue here. Man, you need to go fast and accurately without getting shot down and hit the target. Penguin explained it well so I don't need to repeat the same thing

So military fanboys trying to be the smart one !!!

Kid ... You & your expert friend know shit about the realities of such systems ! You guys only guessing about them... Nothing more !

Americans had same feeling and shit happened:

We don't need to prove ourselves...

You are free to express your opinion... True or false !

 

[Godman]

So military fanboys trying to be the smart one !!!

Nope and I wouldn't certainly call myself a "military fanboy"

Kid ... You & your expert friend know shit about the realities of such systems ! You guys only guessing about them... Nothing more !

Americans had same feeling and shit happened:

Yep thats a great achievementand I congratulate Iran but thats not the issue I am saying

We don't need to prove ourselves...

You are free to express your opinion... True or false !

The issue is you are refusing to accept some major issues and acting like I am saying the entire Iranian Ballistic missile programme is useless. I am amazed by Iranian achievement under sanctions but I point out when there is an issue in anything.

China uses satellites ,special OTH radars to detect and track a enemy ship alongside other methods. The re-entering warhead also has to perform hard manoeuvre to avoid being destroyed