IRIAF | News and Discussions

[Hack-Hook]

RQ-170 was a good catch but CIA was using this UAV in the region since 2007 - it was used to infilitrate Iran for 4 years for ISR missions. CIA was operating it in broad daytime deep inside Iran when it was caught through Electronic Warfare (EW) - this was a case of bad use. UAVs were also more vulnerable to EW capabilities back then. Credit where due but it is important to understand the bigger picture.

Global Hawk part is covered in following thread:

Thread 'Misconceptions about the Global Hawk UAV and VLO concepts' https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/misconceptions-about-the-global-hawk-uav-and-vlo-concepts.675960/

Well no matter what here it's explained why 3rd of Khordad had no business detecting RQ4 at that distance let alone destroy it

3rd Khordad: The RQ-4 downing

Understanding what was achieved This post is about the Iranian 3rd Khordad SAM, a system that should not have been able to do it's first ope...

patarames.blogspot.com

Rq4 had lower rcs than what was in USA inventory maybe not as low as RQ170 or F22 or F35 but much lower than anything else it might face

By the way the Nomex honeycomb layer sandwiched between glass fibre and carbon fibre layer is radar absorbent

 

[Mata Elang]

Correct so far



Here you are incorrect. EO + passive radar data was used to get the missile to the specific “sector” the target was in. It was not precise enough for interception.

Sayyad-2 (interceptor missile) uses a top attack profile. Thus once it entered the sector it engaged its top attack and activated its SARH and “scanned” the area for the drone. It located the drone and its onboard computer calculated the correct interception path.

The EO + passive radar allowed the missile to get to the sector without illuminating the target. By the time operator knew what even was going on it was too late. It’s debatable if Global Hawk RWR detected the SARH activation as the radar waves would be striking the Global Hawk from above. Nonetheless from detection to impact would be seconds at that point. Not enough reaction time.

This was all by design. Iran could have merely relied on its AESA radar on the 3rd Khordad to down the drone. But it wanted a quick and higher success kill probability on the first missile without alerting the operator.

It could be argued the Iranian passive method was a lot more advanced than the traditional method as it required real time data link with multiple information sources (passive radar deep in Iranian territory, EO on top of 3rd Khordad, and the interceptor itself).



Your absurd claim was - to summarize - that SARH missiles are useless. I countered with a real life example of how it is not useless when used correctly. Hence why your specific claim was absurd.

Your “debate” (if we can call it that) about Iran’s A2A capability against a leading superpower was with other user(s) not myself.

Don’t confuse the two.

If I have time I will post again and show you difference between BUK M-1 and 3rd Khordad.

@TheImmortal Your analysis is correct.

@SQ8 I will provide a simple analysis for you.

-Iranian long-range early warning radars such as Ghadir or Matla ul fajr (or other types of radars) detect two flying objects entering Iran's maritime borders, one is large (poseidon) and the other has low RCS (RQ-4)

- Iranian air defense commander then gave the order to observe or see the object using the EO sensor on the 3 Khordad

- The commander then gave the order to shoot down the RQ-4 UAV (not the Poseidon, because the Iranian general still has a conscience)

- The 3 Khordad operator launched the Sayyad 2 missile but the radar on the 3 Khordad remains turned off (this is so the Poseidon and RQ-4 don't know it's being illuminated and so they don't escape before the Sayyad 2 missile approaches). The Sayyad 2 missile uses the Khordad EO 3 sensor and long-range early warning radar for its initial flight path guidance.

- When Sayyad 2 missile approaches RQ-4 at a distance of several km or seconds, operator 3 Khordad then activates its radar and lights up RQ-4, Sayyad 2 missile approaches and destroys RQ-4 from above (even though RQ-4 has a low RCS it will still be detected if the Sayyad 2 missile is approaching at a distance of several km).

Here we can see that the sensors and jamming on the RQ-4 are useless because the Sayyad 2 missile is too close for just a few seconds.

It doesn't matter whether he wants to move slowly or fast, the drone or fighter aircraft will still be destroyed by the Sayyad 2 missile because of this missile has a large warhead HE + fragmentation (unless drones and warplanes have hypersonic speeds over Sayyad 2 to escape).

Missiles with SARH guidance are good for SAM because missiles can be lighter (without active radar), while missiles with active radar guidance are good for air-to-air missiles because fighter aircraft after firing missiles can quickly escape (exception for stealth targets).

 

[SQ8]

@TheImmortal Your analysis is correct.

@SQ8 I will provide a simple analysis for you.

-Iranian long-range early warning radars such as Ghadir or Matla ul fajr (or other types of radars) detect two flying objects entering Iran's maritime borders, one is large (poseidon) and the other has low RCS (RQ-4)

- Iranian air defense commander then gave the order to observe or see the object using the EO sensor on the 3 Khordad

- The commander then gave the order to shoot down the RQ-4 UAV (not the Poseidon, because the Iranian general still has a conscience)

- The 3 Khordad operator launched the Sayyad 2 missile but the radar on the 3 Khordad remains turned off (this is so the Poseidon and RQ-4 don't know it's being illuminated and so they don't escape before the Sayyad 2 missile approaches). The Sayyad 2 missile uses the Khordad EO 3 sensor and long-range early warning radar for its initial flight path guidance.

- When Sayyad 2 missile approaches RQ-4 at a distance of several km or seconds, operator 3 Khordad then activates its radar and lights up RQ-4, Sayyad 2 missile approaches and destroys RQ-4 from above (even though RQ-4 has a low RCS it will still be detected if the Sayyad 2 missile is approaching at a distance of several km).

Here we can see that the sensors and jamming on the RQ-4 are useless because the Sayyad 2 missile is too close for just a few seconds.

It doesn't matter whether he wants to move slowly or fast, the drone or fighter aircraft will still be destroyed by the Sayyad 2 missile because of this missile has a large warhead HE + fragmentation (unless drones and warplanes have hypersonic speeds over Sayyad 2 to escape).

Missiles with SARH guidance are good for SAM because missiles can be lighter (without active radar), while missiles with active radar guidance are good for air-to-air missiles because fighter aircraft after firing missiles can quickly escape (exception for stealth targets).

That is a much better explanation and makes a lot more sense especially with regards to the engagement and why I felt it was a misnomer to call it SARH when no mention of radar illumination was being made .

Hence I come back to my original question as to the disadvantage Iran faces in air to air engagement when it doesn’t have active missiles(especially when it used to with AIM-54) available for its fleet.

Correct so far



Here you are incorrect. EO + passive radar data was used to get the missile to the specific “sector” the target was in. It was not precise enough for interception.

Sayyad-2 (interceptor missile) uses a top attack profile. Thus once it entered the sector it engaged its top attack and activated its SARH and “scanned” the area for the drone. It located the drone and its onboard computer calculated the correct interception path.

The EO + passive radar allowed the missile to get to the sector without illuminating the target. By the time operator knew what even was going on it was too late. It’s debatable if Global Hawk RWR detected the SARH activation as the radar waves would be striking the Global Hawk from above. Nonetheless from detection to impact would be seconds at that point. Not enough reaction time.

This was all by design. Iran could have merely relied on its AESA radar on the 3rd Khordad to down the drone. But it wanted a quick and higher success kill probability on the first missile without alerting the operator.

It could be argued the Iranian passive method was a lot more advanced than the traditional method as it required real time data link with multiple information sources (passive radar deep in Iranian territory, EO on top of 3rd Khordad, and the interceptor itself).



Your absurd claim was - to summarize - that SARH missiles are useless. I countered with a real life example of how it is not useless when used correctly. Hence why your specific claim was absurd.

Your “debate” (if we can call it that) about Iran’s A2A capability against a leading superpower was with other user(s) not myself.

Don’t confuse the two.

If I have time I will post again and show you difference between BUK M-1 and 3rd Khordad.

It was your absurd interpretation of my post to take it beyond A2A when it has been clarified for you thrice. Your brought in the SAM engagement in trying to show the overall air warfare tactics.
I will continue to state that SARH Air to Air missiles in the current era are generally obsolete.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Hence I come back to my original question as to the disadvantage Iran faces in air to air engagement when it doesn’t have active missiles(especially when it used to with AIM-54) available for its fleet.

Aim-54 is SARH in all its path to the target , only in terminal phase it will become independent

 

[Oldman1]

Well no matter what here it's explained why 3rd of Khordad had no business detecting RQ4 at that distance let alone destroy it

3rd Khordad: The RQ-4 downing

Understanding what was achieved This post is about the Iranian 3rd Khordad SAM, a system that should not have been able to do it's first ope...

patarames.blogspot.com

Rq4 had lower rcs than what was in USA inventory maybe not as low as RQ170 or F22 or F35 but much lower than anything else it might face

By the way the Nomex honeycomb layer sandwiched between glass fibre and carbon fibre layer is radar absorbent

No it doesn't have a lower RCS than the other aircraft, its pretty much like seeing a passenger plane. Nothing radar absorbent about it.

 

[TheImmortal]

No it doesn't have a lower RCS than the other aircraft, its pretty much like seeing a passenger plane. Nothing radar absorbent about it.

Incorrect.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1142016969006288902

I wouldn’t characterize Global Hawk as a true LO based on its design and its certainty not a VLO. But it does have radar absorbent materials.

It was likely intended to reduce RCS while also flying at very high altitude at a stand off distance. In unlikely case it encountered a threat it would rely on a towed decoy as well as advanced radar/seeker jammer to fend off any SAM that could reach its high altitude 60,000+.

It wasn’t ment to pentrate heavily contested airspace obviously. It’s not an RQ-170/180

 

[Oldman1]

Incorrect.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1142016969006288902

I wouldn’t characterize Global Hawk as a true LO based on its design and its certainty not a VLO. But it does have radar absorbent materials.

It was likely intended to reduce RCS while also flying at very high altitude at a stand off distance. In unlikely case it encountered a threat it would rely on a towed decoy as well as advanced radar/seeker jammer to fend off any SAM that could reach its high altitude 60,000+.

It wasn’t ment to pentrate heavily contested airspace obviously. It’s not an RQ-170/180

Uh wrong, passenger planes have this material. Are they attempting to make it LO as well? The reason they put something like this is because of lightweight materials. Thats why you have something like the Global Hawk that can fly higher or being fuel efficient.

Review of composite sandwich structure in aeronautic applications

This paper presents a review of the issues concerning sandwich structures for aeronautical applications. The main questions raised by designers are fi…

www.sciencedirect.com

 

[sanel1412]

Aim-54 is SARH in all its path to the target , only in terminal phase it will become independent

Every ARH missile works Like that, AIM 120 became active 45 KM from target, AIM 54 and AIM120 and all other ARH missiles have 3 lunching modes... AIM 54 has completly fire and forget mode used at targets at distance 20-25 Miles, same goes for other ARH missiles, maybe Just range is different.. Second mode is CW and third is at longe ranges mid course upadate and active at terminal phase... Aim 54 ais ARH and work as every ARH in world... What do you think, AIM 120 have Inside radar with range 190km?? Nope.. You cant pover such large radar even IF you design smal radar and small antena... Foukur 90 active seeker(posted in this thread) has 45km range... Mote or less same as AIM 120
SO, there is no difference when it comes to AIM 54 or any other ARH missile.. You have fire and forget mode but at Limited distance. For example F16 can lunch 2 AIM 120 simultanesly but it must wait first became active to lunch Second... F14 can throw all six aim 54 in same time.. While tracking another 18 targets in same time...And no aim 54 has nothing to do with SARH, I repeat SARH is bistatic radar arrangement, it is completly differnt tech where aircraft transmit signal but both aircraft and missile reci e it... In SARH, you have one radar(aircraft) and two recivers with 2 anntenas at different places, SO missile only recive bounced signal from target. Only Thing similar between ARH and SARH 3 characters in its name... ARH tech include independent radr within missile, while SARH not, I would point anyone interested in more to se more about bistatic radar arrangement. There is Huge misunderstanding about SARH and ARH

 

[Hack-Hook]

Every ARH missile works Like that, AIM 120 became active 45 KM from target, AIM 54 and AIM120 and all other ARH missiles have 3 lunching modes... AIM 54 has completly fire and forget mode used at targets at distance 20-25 Miles, same goes for other ARH missiles, maybe Just range is different.. Second mode is CW and third is at longe ranges mid course upadate and active at terminal phase... Aim 54 ais ARH and work as every ARH in world... What do you think, AIM 120 have Inside radar with range 190km?? Nope.. You cant pover such large radar even IF you design smal radar and small antena... Foukur 90 active seeker(posted in this thread) has 45km range... Mote or less same as AIM 120
SO, there is no difference when it comes to AIM 54 or any other ARH missile.. You have fire and forget mode but at Limited distance. For example F16 can lunch 2 AIM 120 simultanesly but it must wait first became active to lunch Second... F14 can throw all six aim 54 in same time.. While tracking another 18 targets in same time...And no aim 54 has nothing to do with SARH, I repeat SARH is bistatic radar arrangement, it is completly differnt tech where aircraft transmit signal but both aircraft and missile reci e it... In SARH, you have one radar(aircraft) and two recivers with 2 anntenas at different places, SO missile only recive bounced signal from target. Only Thing similar between ARH and SARH 3 characters in its name... ARH tech include independent radr within missile, while SARH not, I would point anyone interested in more to se more about bistatic radar arrangement. There is Huge misunderstanding about SARH and ARH

the difference between AIM-120 guidance and AIM-54 is AIM-54 don't have inertial guidance system and must be guided by f-14 radar , now f-14 can give the general direction to the missile or paint the target and let the missile pick it up till the missile is ready to dive and turn on its radar , it depend on which one the pilot use .
by the way this argument is moot , iran stated that fakour-90 can be launched independently from the aircraft. and look at the nose

Fakour-90

AIM-54

MIM-23

you see the nose cone is a lot more like an AIM-54 than MIM-23
what is clear about Fakour-90 is that it has a diameter of MIM-23 which is less than AIM-54 but has Control surfaces of AIM-54 , it uses engine similar to MIM-23 , while use a nose cone more in line with AIM-54 which suggest it will use a guidance system more like AIM-54, another point is the length of missile , its more in line with AIM-54 than MIM-23 which is around 1m shorter . and its not possible unless they changed the engine compartment to some extend.

Uh wrong, passenger planes have this material. Are they attempting to make it LO as well? The reason they put something like this is because of lightweight materials. Thats why you have something like the Global Hawk that can fly higher or being fuel efficient.

Review of composite sandwich structure in aeronautic applications

This paper presents a review of the issues concerning sandwich structures for aeronautical applications. The main questions raised by designers are fi…

www.sciencedirect.com

its in detail , how the sandwich is made and how much its used ,....
the component in itself is radar absorbent

 

[Hack-Hook]

about fakour-90 all that is said is about the fakour that was unveiled in 1397

but the fakour-90 that was shown in 1399 shows small difference

the first that come to mind is that the engine changed from M112 to M190
the second that come to mind the difference in firing temperature that show the missile now can be fired at higher altitude and suggest a new type of fuel

sadly still no talk about guidance system but I'm sure its wise to conclude we don't use electronic equipment of 1968 that were used in AIM-54a we received anymore and made some upgrade there and by the way photos are stolen from Military.ir

 

[sanel1412]

about fakour-90 all that is said is about the fakour that was unveiled in 1397

but the fakour-90 that was shown in 1399 shows small difference

the first that come to mind is that the engine changed from M112 to M190
the second that come to mind the difference in firing temperature that show the missile now can be fired at higher altitude and suggest a new type of fuel

sadly still no talk about guidance system but I'm sure its wise to conclude we don't use electronic equipment of 1968 that were used in AIM-54a we received anymore and made some upgrade there and by the way photos are stolen from Military.ir

Aim 54 at longest range Use mid course upadate from radar, but it has nothing to do with SARH... SARH is bistatic radar arrangement, literary means one radar with two antena and two recivers... There is no SARH or anything similar on Aim54 even you May read it somewhere... As I said, it is ARH guidance as any....there are different Technology for mid course update... But forget about SARH... In SARH radar from aircraft transmit signal and bounced signal is recived by both radar on aircraft and bistatic recivers on missile, it is called semi active because missile can guide itself as Long bounced signal reach missile. With ARH, you have independent radar on missile, but all have Limited range so there is need for mid course upadate, but nothing Like SARH, where aircraft must transmit signal all the way in target direction... So bounced signal reach missile...On other hand Aim 54 mid course upadate is completly different... You load data on missile pribor lunch, than upadate missile when needed with New data till reach within range of own radar... Also aim 120 has data link and it also recive upadates from aircraft,you cant detect and get target acquisition with INS.. Still aim 120 must get those INFO from aircraft till reach within range of own radar... Because of INS it is less dependent since it calculate manythings on iits own, Like own position, velocity... Etc but My friend, aircraft must feed it with INFO abt target... You cant Use INS to guide missile while it is off range limit of its radar... As I said,they all work on same principle.. And now we dont Know what Iran made Change to Fakour 90,except I saw active seeker with 45km range... When it comes to rocket engine, I will Just say This missile has nothing similar with Hawk... Forgot about rocket engine designation, it is rocket engine designed for solid state fuel... Designation means very little,and I can elaborate if you want

 

[Hack-Hook]

Aim 54 at longest range Use mid course upadate from radar, but it has nothing to do with SARH... SARH is bistatic radar arrangement, literary means one radar with two antena and two recivers... There is no SARH or anything similar on Aim54 even you May read it somewhere... As I said, it is ARH guidance as any....there are different Technology for mid course update... But forget about SARH... In SARH radar from aircraft transmit signal and bounced signal is recived by both radar on aircraft and bistatic recivers on missile, it is called semi active because missile can guide itself as Long bounced signal reach missile. With ARH, you have independent radar on missile, but all have Limited range so there is need for mid course upadate, but nothing Like SARH, where aircraft must transmit signal all the way in target direction... So bounced signal reach missile...On other hand Aim 54 mid course upadate is completly different... You load data on missile pribor lunch, than upadate missile when needed with New data till reach within range of own radar... Also aim 120 has data link and it also recive upadates from aircraft,you cant detect and get target acquisition with INS.. Still aim 120 must get those INFO from aircraft till reach within range of own radar... Because of INS it is less dependent since it calculate manythings on iits own, Like own position, velocity... Etc but My friend, aircraft must feed it with INFO abt target... You cant Use INS to guide missile while it is off range limit of its radar... As I said,they all work on same principle.. And now we dont Know what Iran made Change to Fakour 90,except I saw active seeker with 45km range... When it comes to rocket engine, I will Just say This missile has nothing similar with Hawk... Forgot about rocket engine designation, it is rocket engine designed for solid state fuel... Designation means very little,and I can elaborate if you want

Well less consider it what ever means the missiles use for navigating to the target be it fakour or aim-54 or aim-120 if they want to be effective at extreme range they need update in mid course and may be several time they need it. It means the aircraft in neither of these missiles can fire the missile and turn around and escape . When unless the missile is being fired at way shorter ranges .
The difference with missile like aim-7 is that even at that short distance it still need the target get painted by aircraft and made it vulnerable to heat seeking missiles like AIM-9 even if you manage to hit your target

 

[sanel1412]

Well less consider it what ever means the missiles use for navigating to the target be it fakour or aim-54 or aim-120 if they want to be effective at extreme range they need update in mid course and may be several time they need it. It means the aircraft in neither of these missiles can fire the missile and turn around and escape . When unless the missile is being fired at way shorter ranges .
The difference with missile like aim-7 is that even at that short distance it still need the target get painted by aircraft and made it vulnerable to heat seeking missiles like AIM-9 even if you manage to hit your target

I dont realy Know from where People Got INFO that AIM 54 is not fully ARH, or I see somewhere ARH/SARH term, even you cant mix these two... Missile with SARH dont have any radar in itself, it has only passive detector... So ARH is, as I said, only in name similar with SARH.. You can have for example as R27, have same missile in more versions, that is why sometimes for R27 you can see SARH/ARH, because they exist in both variant, but you cant have both on same missile.. Aim 54 is ARH, and was always... Fakour 90 May exist in both variant but I saw only active seeker with 45km range, and how they described it, it is ARH... even they May produced it in both variant... As I mention R27 exist in SARH, IR and ARH variants

 

[Hack-Hook]

I dont realy Know from where People Got INFO that AIM 54 is not fully ARH, or I see somewhere ARH/SARH term, even you cant mix these two... Missile with SARH dont have any radar in itself, it has only passive detector... So ARH is, as I said, only in name similar with SARH.. You can have for example as R27, have same missile in more versions, that is why sometimes for R27 you can see SARH/ARH, because they exist in both variant, but you cant have both on same missile.. Aim 54 is ARH, and was always... Fakour 90 May exist in both variant but I saw only active seeker with 45km range, and how they described it, it is ARH... even they May produced it in both variant... As I mention R27 exist in SARH, IR and ARH variants

As I said in long ranges you can't fire ARH missiles and go away . You must feed the missile data on where the target is . So the disadvantage you mentioned about SARH missiles still exist in ARH missiles .

 

[TheImmortal]

Uh wrong, passenger planes have this material. Are they attempting to make it LO as well? The reason they put something like this is because of lightweight materials. Thats why you have something like the Global Hawk that can fly higher or being fuel efficient.

Review of composite sandwich structure in aeronautic applications

This paper presents a review of the issues concerning sandwich structures for aeronautical applications. The main questions raised by designers are fi…

www.sciencedirect.com

I’m under the impression Composite material used in wings is for strength not for “light weight purposes” of the passenger plane. That is why you can see these wings take insane pressures and not break.

Composite material does indeed reduce weight, but more importantly radar against composite material reacts completely different than against metals and alloys object.

In a smaller military object (note not passenger plane) it’s use is to reduce radar reflection and at the same time reduce weight as an added benefit.