Khorramshahr multi warhead ballistic missile

[SOHEIL]

An SLV for many very obvious reasons makes a very poor icbm,which is precisely why you did not ever see an unha or taepodong icbm except as ridiculous guesstimations that only ever existed in the fevered overactive imaginations of western arms control "experts".

I didn't mean north Korean rockets ...

 

[Hack-Hook]

now , we should have nukes ....

no we should not .if WMD is a must go and build something with more bang for example build antimatter bomb ,why always copy something that somebody else produced.

 

[Stryker1982]

no we should not .

Indeed, nukes would make our entire missile force nullified

 

[PeeD]

I want to put an end about the Khorramshahr = HS-10 discussion by telling what design/layout and boundary condition means.

The R-27 SLBM had excess thrust due to certain reasons. Means, the engine was stronger than necessary to provide a optimal range-payload performance. The main reason was the boundary condition to fit into the designated submarine.
So it was missile with excess thrust reserves.
The North Koreans became aware of this and enlarged their HS-10 to a point, where a optimal range-payload-size/weight-thrust maximum was calculated. If the have mastered the design process this maximum gives them the best capability with the boundary condition of a fixed missile thrust. So the HS-10 with its small tactical nuclear warhead HAD TO BE the size it has, otherwise the design would be wrong/under-performing.

As the Iranians would have the same engine/thrust boundary condition, their design result would have to be very close to the HS-10, even if a re-enforced design would be required for the 1,8 ton warhead, it might would be a (very) little smaller/shorter due to the higher weight.

Now the problem is that the Khorramshahr is larger/longer than the HS-10 and not only due to the conic warhead but also in booster length. The booster is approximately ~0,8m longer and the total missile ~1,4m. This is not only a very different design, but also creates problems with that maximum point created due to the fixed engine thrust. If we rightly expect that Iranian designers have mastered the design too, the only solution would be either a slightly increased thrust, or that they have left that maximum point for a unknown/complex reason. A comparison of HS-10 and Khorramshahr videos could clarify that. The point is only, that increasing the thrust of a engine designed by the country with the world best missile motor scientist, would be a huge challenge. The R-27 engine although lower in thrust than the Shahab-3/Ghadr engine, is a masterpiece, even changing its veniers needs changes with the turbopump and this then changes... a endless number of parameters... Certain would be only that it is a hugely more difficult challenge which the HS-10 did not face.


In reality the layout process is of course even more complex but this simplified post, gives you some idea.
If you ask me, not only many small design solutions are different for HS-10 and Khorramshahr, but the latter is looking a much more complex redesign of the original R-27 ancestor. I won't go into details, but already in 2010, before the HS-10 mock-up was first shown, Iran intentionally gave a hint that it was working on a R-27 based missile. So no, even if there is a information exchange, both are designs based on the R-27 but very different to each other.

 

[Fafnir]

I didn't mean north Korean rockets ...

The principle is the same regardless of the country,indeed the north korean example clearly illustrates why your statement that iran could use its slv as some sort of ad hock cobbled together emergency icbm is just not very feasible or practical.The simple fact of the matter is this: an slv does not have either the operational flexibility or more importantly the survivability to make it a practical icbm,unless of course you were going for one single pre emptive strike then possibly with some luck you might perhaps pull it off.

no we should not .if WMD is a must go and build something with more bang for example build antimatter bomb ,why always copy something that somebody else produced.

Ufortunately,or perhaps fortunately,antimatter bombs are still just sf weapons at this point,like it or not the most powerful weapons humanity currently possesses are thermonukes

 

[OldTwilight]

no we should not .if WMD is a must go and build something with more bang for example build antimatter bomb ,why always copy something that somebody else produced.

thanks to our official , we can't build an MBT after 26 years , and you want brand new weaponry from this kind of guys ....
زندگی بد توی ایران باعث شده که اکثر ایرانیان همیشه از حقیقت رویگردان باشند و حافظه ی تاریخی کوتاه مدتی داشته باشند وگرنه با این همه غم و اندوه و فشار ، خیلی زود از لحاظ روانی از هم می پاشند ... شما هم کمابیش به همین عارضه دچار شدید برای همین جوک می گید

 

[AmirPatriot]

we should have nukes ...

Congratulations, you make our only conventional deterrent absolutely useless.

 

[TheImmortal]

You put Syria next to Saddam and Qaddafi and u say Russia did not interfere to keep them in power!!
You talk about general soleimani visit to Russia and talk with Putin like you were there.. while I mentioned what is there semi-officially in the outlet...
Iran was serious about airforce but this one field is different to air defense or ballistic missiles... Dont you know the difference? Even in the air defense Iran wanted S-400 and Russia only sold the obsolete S-300...
Your analysis has no credit or weight.. It is just making up stories to make your point sound right...

You don't make sense.

Iran did not want the S-400, it was offered Iran rejected it. This is news outlets from Iran generals go check. Russia offered Iran S-350 (ABM version) or S-400, because Russia no longer had production line for S-300. Iran said it wanted its original order.

Then after order was fufilled, Iran said that in the future it could consider placing other orders with Russia including S-400.

Furthermore, Qaddafi was major Russia client state even more so than Assad. So the fact that Russia let go of Qaddafi so easily was pretty surprising. Russia continuously played games with Assad in regards to long delayed orders like Syria S-300 order and Yak-130 order.

I want to put an end about the Khorramshahr = HS-10 discussion by telling what design/layout and boundary condition means.

The R-27 SLBM had excess thrust due to certain reasons. Means, the engine was stronger than necessary to provide a optimal range-payload performance. The main reason was the boundary condition to fit into the designated submarine.
So it was missile with excess thrust reserves.
The North Koreans became aware of this and enlarged their HS-10 to a point, where a optimal range-payload-size/weight-thrust maximum was calculated. If the have mastered the design process this maximum gives them the best capability with the boundary condition of a fixed missile thrust. So the HS-10 with its small tactical nuclear warhead HAD TO BE the size it has, otherwise the design would be wrong/under-performing.

As the Iranians would have the same engine/thrust boundary condition, their design result would have to be very close to the HS-10, even if a re-enforced design would be required for the 1,8 ton warhead, it might would be a (very) little smaller/shorter due to the higher weight.

Now the problem is that the Khorramshahr is larger/longer than the HS-10 and not only due to the conic warhead but also in booster length. The booster is approximately ~0,8m longer and the total missile ~1,4m. This is not only a very different design, but also creates problems with that maximum point created due to the fixed engine thrust. If we rightly expect that Iranian designers have mastered the design too, the only solution would be either a slightly increased thrust, or that they have left that maximum point for a unknown/complex reason. A comparison of HS-10 and Khorramshahr videos could clarify that. The point is only, that increasing the thrust of a engine designed by the country with the world best missile motor scientist, would be a huge challenge. The R-27 engine although lower in thrust than the Shahab-3/Ghadr engine, is a masterpiece, even changing its veniers needs changes with the turbopump and this then changes... a endless number of parameters... Certain would be only that it is a hugely more difficult challenge which the HS-10 did not face.


In reality the layout process is of course even more complex but this simplified post, gives you some idea.
If you ask me, not only many small design solutions are different for HS-10 and Khorramshahr, but the latter is looking a much more complex redesign of the original R-27 ancestor. I won't go into details, but already in 2010, before the HS-10 mock-up was first shown, Iran intentionally gave a hint that it was working on a R-27 based missile. So no, even if there is a information exchange, both are designs based on the R-27 but very different to each other.

In your opinion....

Where does Iran go from here? If it has built an R-27 based missile, what is the development path for next gen missiles?

Is Iran going to make the transition to thicker and fatter BM's (both solid/liquid)? Or is this a separate unrelated path to Iran's long term path of developing 4000KM+, 7000KM+ missiles.

 

[Hack-Hook]

The principle is the same regardless of the country,indeed the north korean example clearly illustrates why your statement that iran could use its slv as some sort of ad hock cobbled together emergency icbm is just not very feasible or practical.The simple fact of the matter is this: an slv does not have either the operational flexibility or more importantly the survivability to make it a practical icbm,unless of course you were going for one single pre emptive strike then possibly with some luck you might perhaps pull it off.


Ufortunately,or perhaps fortunately,antimatter bombs are still just sf weapons at this point,like it or not the most powerful weapons humanity currently possesses are thermonukes

and atomic bombs were Science fiction in 1942 but they become reality.

thanks to our official , we can't build an MBT after 26 years , and you want brand new weaponry from this kind of guys ....
زندگی بد توی ایران باعث شده که اکثر ایرانیان همیشه از حقیقت رویگردان باشند و حافظه ی تاریخی کوتاه مدتی داشته باشند وگرنه با این همه غم و اندوه و فشار ، خیلی زود از لحاظ روانی از هم می پاشند ... شما هم کمابیش به همین عارضه دچار شدید برای همین جوک می گید

همان فشار زیاد باعث شده ه یک عده همه اش بگن ما باید این را داشته باشیم ، اونرا داشته باشیم . آینرا باید خودکفا باشیم اونرا باید خودکفا باشیم
ولی همه اش در حد حرف باشه و هیچ وقت فکر نکنن که برای اینکار یک زیر ساختی لازم هست که همیشه اون فراموش میشه . الن ما توانایی تولید یک تراشه در حد 8086 که 30 سال قبل تولید شد را نداریم ما الان آلیاژهایی را که 70 سال قبل توی امریکا و روسیه برای تولید موتور جت و موشک میساختن نمیتونیم تولید کنیم ولی صحبت از فرستادن انسان به فضا میشه . به هر حال تا زیر ساختهای لازم فراهم نشه تمام این حرفها خیال بازی هست . شما هم الان هر چند تا بمب اتمی بسازی (که تعدادش با این میزان اورانیوم که در اختیار ما هست محدود هست) باز هم حریفهایت بمبهای خیلی بیشتر و قویتری دارند . در ضمن یمی اتمی به هیچ وجه جلوی جنگ را نمیگیره نمونه واضحش هند و پاکیستان هستند که با هم بعد از تست یمبهای اتمی وارد جنگ شدند یا درگیری چین و روسیه یا آرژانتین و انگلیس

 

[PeeD]

Back to that strange maneuver the Khorramshahr did in the video.

Americans said it flew 900km, so it was a lofted trajectory. The technical problem with this is that the re-entry speed is higher when doing this. The RV heat shielding is layed out for a re-entry speed at 2000km, at 900km much higher thermal stress must be endured. Compared to North Korean RVs of HS-10, -12, -14, the Khorramshahr RV is not rated to survive the thermal stress of 3500km, 4000km and 11000km. Nor is it designed for nuclear airbrust, but has to fly all the way down to impact.
So if the RV heat shield design is not more robust (more expensive) than necessary, it could be destroyed if flying a full altitude lofted trajectory.

A method to avoid too high re-entry speeds is to change trajectory downwards after burnout. The onboard video is consistence with such a maneuver. It requires a advanced TVC and missile control system to do such a maneuver, but the Khorramshahr seems to have such a system. This is proven by the launch where high cross-winds are visible, but nonetheless a perfect takeoff with off-set course-correction vernier thrust is performed. I'm quite sure they did this non-fin stabilized take-off during that windy day on purpose to show the dynamic control system performance.
It is of course also a goal to let the stage fall at a predetermined area inside the country.

In your opinion....

Where does Iran go from here? If it has built an R-27 based missile, what is the development path for next gen missiles?

Is Iran going to make the transition to thicker and fatter BM's (both solid/liquid)? Or is this a separate unrelated path to Iran's long term path of developing 4000KM+, 7000KM+ missiles.

Iran is restricting itself to around 2000km. This is something like the threshold at which delivering conventional munitions make economic sense (at least the west accepts that range for Iran).

The path should be thicker missiles, yes. Another liquid BM with the RD-250 linage engine, with a throw weight of 5 tons, a high performance bus and 10 500kg MIRV. Many ICBM technologies would be proven by such a missile and Iran would to have to hope that the west accepts this as a credible still-MRBM 2000km system.

Something similar with solid fuel as a replacement for the Sejil is also necessary, with 4 x 500kg warheads. It gives the necessary response times necessary to be tactically useful (liquids are something like the strategic systems among Irans BM, solids tactical).

Now if you ask me, although less fancy, I would skip MIRV and the complex bus necessary and just go for unguided submunitions. At least for that proposed heavy throw weight liquid missile. 5 tons of 100kg penetration submunitions would waste any airbase and multiple hits would completely obliterate it. The benefit of such a weapon would be less cost, due to absence of bus and MIRV.
But most importantly: All U.S and Israeli ABM system would become useless as there is no counter to 50 x 100kg warheads... Speaking of survivable airpower against a country with the missile means as Iran...

 

[AmirPatriot]

Khorramshahr - A Quantum Leap In Iranian Missile Technology

Saturday, September 23, 2017

The recent Khorramshahr unveiling at the parade, the IRGC Commander Hajizadeh's statements, and the test footage have given us a raft of information and clues.
What do we know about Khorramshahr?

Surprisingly, quite a lot.

By looking at the images from the parade, we can observe that the Khorramshahr is almost certainly made in cooperation with North Korea, given its similarity to the HS-10 and the R-27 "Zyb" SLBM the HS-10 is based on. From this we can ascertain a bunch of things, like a diameter of 1.5 metres, engine type, fuel etc.

The commander said the Khorramshahr has a 2000 km range with a 1.8 ton payload, and can carry MIRVs.

From certain screenshots we can glean that there were actually 2 tests. In the below image, we can see differences in the sky, with a clear sky in the top image and clouds in the lower image. There is also a lack of mountains in the background, though that maybe be because of air quality. Furthermore, although both tests were in the same location, the first image depicts the exact TEL launch position further away from the windsock than the second image (it is not visible in the screenshot, but can be seen in the video).





Although the US claimed there was a failed test, at least 1 of the tests was a success, though because of the way the video was shot we can't tell which. This can be seen in the last few seconds of the below video, where the warhead is seen hitting the ground, with the man saying "Allahu Akbar" and "Mashallah", indicating a good test (though I concede that this may be the voice of simply a cameraman or non-technician). Again, I've given the link instead of embedding, because blogger is iffy with videos.

Perhaps obviously, the Khorramshahr is a liquid fuel missile, just like the R-27 and HS-10. And the clean burn indicates good fuel, almost certainly the UDMH/N2O4 mix used in the R-27, and recently, the Simorgh SLV.

We can also observe a few differences between Khorramshahr and the HS-10. The most obvious difference is the lack of folding Russian style grid fins to stabilise the missile in the launch phase.
What are the implications?

Absolutely enormous.
For one thing, the Khorramshahr in effect has a longer range than just 2000 km. It just does. Iran has gone very, very far with its political 2000 km limit to the point that it gives the Khorramshahr a 1.8 ton warhead to justify the 2000 km range, much larger than the 1 ton warhead in the Shahab-3 and the 650/750 kg warhead in the Emad and Sejjil. Though, in my opinion, they shouldn't have publicly released the warhead weight if they wanted to remain ambiguous and not give the Israelis and Americans any material to scare the Europeans with. Nevertheless, the significant throw weight can allow for impressive payloads that can contain MIRV, jammers, decoys, high grade guidance equipment, and other ABM evasion technology.

Khorramshahr is, in my opinion, an ABM killer. If given very accurate guidance technology, its MIRV tech, combined with a possible lofted trajectory granting higher speed, can make it a huge problem for Israeli and Saudi ABMs, especially given Saudi's recent interest in the THAAD. Alternatively, it can be used to penetrate highly defended areas to hit HVTs (High Value Targets), if precision is not sufficient to hit something as small as an ABM radar or TEL.

I've heard some doubt as to whether the Khorramshahr's 1.5 metre diameter is too small for MIRVs. To which I say:



R-27U SLBM, with fairing removed to reveal 3 MIRVs

Speaking of the diameter, this is the first Iranian missile with a larger diameter than 1.25 metres. The Simorgh - though not a missile - has a large diameter, but that has cluster of 4 Nodong engines. This has a single main engine, with a few steering engines. This shows Iranian liquid fuel rocket engine technology has advanced significantly from the Nodong series. The Khorramshahr's engine can be used in more advanced SLVs that could launch heavier, military grade Iranian satellites. In fact, there is evidence the HS-10's steering engine is used in the Simorgh. The Khorramshahr's main engine can also be used in more advanced missile designs.

The 1.5 metres diameter and shorter length of the Khorramshahr also lends itself to easier storage and transportation. It also seems to fit on the standard Iranian MRBM TELs, though they may require some modification. This is great news for cost savings and interoperability. Iran doesn't have to manufacture a whole new type of TEL to accommodate 1 missile type.

One would initially assume that the failed test is shown in the video. However, the Americans say it exploded. In the video, not only do we see an angular jet that could be a steering engine, but for a brief moment we can see this engine straighten out or shut down, indicating nothing more than a course correction. There is no explosion. The "jink" is seen from the ground, but from the quadrant of flight cameras we can see the jet. The straightening out/shut down is at 1 min 21 seconds in the video at the link:

The moment of the possible steering engine shutdown

Puzzlingly, an annotation at the quadrant section showing the angular jet says the depicted section of the video is the warhead separation. However, we do not see the warhead separate. Maybe the annotation is wrong, or the video doesn't show the actual separation, just the procedure before it.

The lack of fins is a huge plus. It indicates Iran is now sufficiently advanced with TVC technology, and increases both range and speed.

Conclusion

Khorramshahr is another example of Iranian-North Korean cooperation. As usual, North Korea goes ahead and deploys the product earlier. But Iran spends more time refining it, and comes up with a better design. North Korea has had a lot of failed tests with the HS-10, but Iran appears to have gotten a successful test already, and improved the design by removing the grid fins. The same case was with the Nodong series. North Korea had the Nodong. Now Iran has turned the Nodong into a much refined missile with a MaRV, called the Emad, able to evade ABMs and grant greater accuracy.

UPDATE

A video has emerged on Twitter showing the warhead separation from the missile body, taken by the onboard cameras.

https://twitter.com/x/status/911604751468498949

As you can see 3 of the squares turn blue and say "loss". I think this means the top left square is showing the missile body falling back from the warhead, the camera in the top left being attached to the warhead itself. This indicates that the power supply is in the warhead itself, and when cut off from the missile body, the cameras stop working. This is good, as it proves there is very likely a terminal guidance system. A turn is also made by the warhead, pointing the business end towards the direction of travel.

So I see you're reading me blog too

The real reason is that in war conditions for every real Khorramshahr TEL team, there will be 10 other fake ones, indistinguishable for the enemy. This mean nothing else than the need for 10 times higher resources to counter it...
Footprint is the key reason.

Or, at least the highly capable Khorramshahr TELs would be indistinguishable from the far more numerous Ghadr TELs.

So a 10x10 Zoljanah TEL may add off-road capability, but it's not worth it, it just looks cooler...

So you think, at any point, Iran would switch over completely to off road TELs like the Zoljanah? Or at least the inherently more mobile Sejjil? These could drive to more isolated locations in Iran's mountainous regions. Right now, Iran's TELs are expected to be near roads and cities.

 

[scythian500]

The official length of Khoramshahr missile is 13m!

So I see you're reading me blog too



Or, at least the highly capable Khorramshahr TELs would be indistinguishable from the far more numerous Ghadr TELs.



So you think, at any point, Iran would switch over completely to off road TELs like the Zoljanah? Or at least the inherently more mobile Sejjil? These could drive to more isolated locations in Iran's mountainous regions. Right now, Iran's TELs are expected to be near roads and cities.

Yes, I do... good job my friend

 

[skyshadow]

Iran's ballistic missile launch was fake: report
http://thehill.com/policy/international/352325-irans-ballistic-missile-launch-was-fake-report

These American officials are crazy and i am Serious

 

[Mr.Cringeworth]

no we should not .if WMD is a must go and build something with more bang for example build antimatter bomb ,why always copy something that somebody else produced.

lets just assume that there will be antimatter bombs in the future you won't be able to make them until another century, what are you gonna do meanwhile.

 

[PeeD]

So you think, at any point, Iran would switch over completely to off road TELs like the Zoljanah? Or at least the inherently more mobile Sejjil? These could drive to more isolated locations in Iran's mountainous regions. Right now, Iran's TELs are expected to be near roads and cities.

Iran is a 80 million economy with several 100k of trucks of standard sizes, distributed on a huge road network of a huge country. North Korea might not have this option but Iran can make full use of this ambiguity. Just confiscate civilian trucks in wartime and form decoy/fake TEL teams with the same footprint as real ones.
With large off-road TELs you run into problems that the enemy could figure out that this is not a ordinary truck. Losing the ambiguity for off-road capability makes only sense if you have large, dense forests and even that only combined with a huge country. Russian and North Korean ICBMs are forced to go for that concept due to their missile size. But Iranian MRBMs better make best use of ambiguity, its very cost effective and vastly improves survivebility.
For highly tactical missiles such as the Sejil or a follow-on, it would make some sense to go for a off-road TEL. But not enough to justify the cost if you ask me. The Zolfaghar and Fateh series have that off-road twin launcher because it is still of a standard truck size and needs to operate in confined border areas to make best use of range. A Sejil has no range restriction and hence a much larger operation area.

If some day an Iranian ICBM would be fielded, yes, its size could make a non-truck size TEL necessary and then a off-road capable one is always better than one without this ability.