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

[Rukarl]

Last week the Americans confirmed the successful test of an Iranian anti ship ballistic missile used to destroy a sea target. Link to the news:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/03/06/iran-launched-2-ballistic-missiles-us-officials-say.html

The specific missile has now been confirmed to be the Hormoz-2. This is one missile in a growing family of Iranian anti-ship ballistic missiles which are based on the Fateh-110. This missile differs to previous anti ship bm's by Iran which had IR/EO seeker(khalije fars missile), this one possesses passive seeker for radars making it the first anti radiation ballistic missile to be put in service in the world.

Here you can see a bit of its seeker in a low res image sniped from a video:

The missile has a range of 300km, mach-5 speed, 600kg warhead.

Another anti radiation bm called hormoz-1 is very similar to this but that is used for ground based radar targets.

It's important to note this missile is not new, it was revealed and tested few years ago, but this is the first time an outside source (the Americans) confirmed its successful test.

 

[eagle2007]

Rukarl,

Are you sure those last two images are from a video of the Hormuz? I could have sworn those images were of the Noor AshM's seeker..

I ask because the diameter of the missile they're assembling looks too small to the Hormuz (should be about 2 feet across if it was) but looks just the right size of a missile the size of a Noor (14-15 inches).

Would you happen to have the video from where these screenshots came from?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Great concept.

For too long people have disregarded the conventional strike capabilities of ballistic missiles. Ballistic missiles in fact offer several advantages over cruise missiles when it comes to delivering a large conventional payload.

 

[Modzi]

i am not sure why it is important news ? Iran is developing and testing such technologies for some time now, regardless of my doubts on the source. but, still, they created a good illusion. reason I am calling it an illusion is because Iranian firepower is yet to be tested on battlefields

 

[yavar]

illusion. reason I am calling it an illusion is because Iranian firepower is yet to be tested on battlefields

maybe this help with your illusion

ballistic missiles in Syrian war موشک های بالستیک در جنگ سوریه

watch from 12:00

 

[Rukarl]

Rukarl,

Are you sure those last two images are from a video of the Hormuz? I could have sworn those images were of the Noor AshM's seeker..

I ask because the diameter of the missile they're assembling looks too small to the Hormuz (should be about 2 feet across if it was) but looks just the right size of a missile the size of a Noor (14-15 inches).

Would you happen to have the video from where these screenshots came from?

Why would they be testing the seeker in a radar emitting room if its for the Noor missile? It's clearly for the anti-radiation seeker. Furthermore, you're talking as if the entire length of the Hormoz-2 missile is 2 feet. It clearly reduces in diameter near the front (where they install this seeker).

Anywhere here is the video from where it is snipped:

You can also see the curvature part during the assembly.

i am not sure why it is important news ? Iran is developing and testing such technologies for some time now, regardless of my doubts on the source. but, still, they created a good illusion. reason I am calling it an illusion is because Iranian firepower is yet to be tested on battlefields

The amount of sheer gibberish in your post is hilarious. Vast majority of the military systems in the world have not been "battle tested". In Iran's case, they've actually tested alot more of their system in the battle field than most other nations, such as their UAV's and missiles etc. This missile was basically tested successfully as the American were watching, there is zero reason to assume it will all of a sudden not work during a conflict.

 

[Tokhme khar]

What you should ponder about is who won in Iraq and Syria? using what weapons?

Was it Iran with its own weapons supplied to its allies or was it the wahabbi's supplied with hillbilly weapons?

i am not sure why it is important news ? Iran is developing and testing such technologies for some time now, regardless of my doubts on the source. but, still, they created a good illusion. reason I am calling it an illusion is because Iranian firepower is yet to be tested on battlefields

 

[Godman]

Lets see, In my opinion higher payload and range gives an advantage in destroying enemy bases with immobile radars and communications equipment

Makes sense if you are fighting against ISIS but when fighting against an advanced state there are many practical issues.
I am wondering how feasible an anti-radiation ballistic missile would be compared to stealthier cruise missiles
@Penguin

 

[Rukarl]

Lets see, In my opinion higher payload and range gives an advantage in destroying enemy bases with immobile radars and communications equipment

Makes sense if you are fighting against ISIS but when fighting against an advanced state there are many practical issues.
I am wondering how feasible an anti-radiation ballistic missile would be compared to stealthier cruise missiles
@Penguin

Using anti radiation ballistic missile is more practical against ISIS? I was not aware ISIS has naval destroyer/carriers and ground based radars.

There is no practical issues in using this weapon. It is not meant as a replacement for Iranian cruise missiles, but rather to be used with them in a complementary role.

This weapon as well as being a very potent military weapon, it is also a very potent psychological one. You're forcing the naval commander to chose between keeping their naval/ground radars emitting or not. Keep them emitting, then you're leaving yourself a prey to this missile, turn them off even for a minute then you have a dozen other types of missile to worry about coming your way.

 

[Modzi]

What you should ponder about is who won in Iraq and Syria? using what weapons?

Was it Iran with its own weapons supplied to its allies or was it the wahabbi's supplied with hillbilly weapons?

i am not going into this Iran and Saudi issue, i am talking about open battle ground, not proxies

Why would they be testing the seeker in a radar emitting room if its for the Noor missile? It's clearly for the anti-radiation seeker. Furthermore, you're talking as if the entire length of the Hormoz-2 missile is 2 feet. It clearly reduces in diameter near the front (where they install this seeker).

Anywhere here is the video from where it is snipped:

You can also see the curvature part during the assembly.




The amount of sheer gibberish in your post is hilarious. Vast majority of the military systems in the world have not been "battle tested". In Iran's case, they've actually tested alot more of their system in the battle field than most other nations, such as their UAV's and missiles etc. This missile was basically tested successfully as the American were watching, there is zero reason to assume it will all of a sudden not work during a conflict.

can you please top 5 militaries how are not battle tested their weapon system ? also there is difference in homemade and purchased. on your standards, s we can say saudi's got far batter systems the Iran. Grow up

maybe this help with your illusion

ballistic missiles in Syrian war موشک های بالستیک در جنگ سوریه

watch from 12:00

hahahaha you are funny

 

[Rukarl]

i



can you please top 5 militaries how are not battle tested their weapon system ? also there is difference in homemade and purchased. on your standards, s we can say saudi's got far batter systems the Iran. Grow up

What are you even blabbering about? your comment makes no sense. Where did I even compare indigenous systems vs purchased?

S-300/S-400 are not battle tested, F-22, Su-30/35 etc etc are not truly battle tested but people still purchase them.You're talking out of your behind.

 

[NomanAli89]

All these missiles are being developed only to attack Saudi Arabia

 

[Tokhme khar]

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

All these missiles are being developed only to attack Saudi Arabia

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

Lets see, In my opinion higher payload and range gives an advantage in destroying enemy bases with immobile radars and communications equipment

Makes sense if you are fighting against ISIS but when fighting against an advanced state there are many practical issues.
I am wondering how feasible an anti-radiation ballistic missile would be compared to stealthier cruise missiles
@Penguin

 

[Draco.IMF]

btw, another saudi warship sunk, a water mine

 

[Godman]

? I was not aware ISIS has naval destroyer/carriers .

Precisely thats why its more useful against ISIS

There is no practical issues in using this weapon. It is not meant as a replacement for Iranian cruise missiles, but rather to be used with them in a complementary role.

This weapon as well as being a very potent military weapon, it is also a very potent psychological one. You're forcing the naval commander to chose between keeping their naval/ground radars emitting or not. Keep them emitting, then you're leaving yourself a prey to this missile, turn them off even for a minute then you have a dozen other types of missile to worry about coming your way.

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.